5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Noviy Engenoy.
6.  On 1 April 2006 the applicant’s husband, Mr Vakhid Magamedov (in the documents submitted also spelt as Magomadov), went fishing with his fellow villagers, Mr Z., Mr D. and Mr Yu., near the village of Sary-Su in the Shelkovskiy district of Chechnya. The four men arrived at the fishing spot in the VAZ-2107 car of Mr Z. Three of them then went to the other side of the pond (in the documents submitted also referred to as a “lake”), while the applicant’s husband fished near the car. Mr Z., Mr D. and Mr Yu. fished about 40 to 60 metres from each other and about two hundred metres or so from Mr Magamedov.
7.  At about 9 p.m. Mr Z., Mr D. and Mr Yu. heard gunfire coming from the direction of the car. They went in that direction and saw six or seven men in military camouflage uniforms next to their car and heard them speaking Russian. Those men had arrived in armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and were using flashlights. Mr Z., Mr D. and Mr Yu. hid in the bulrushes. Then they saw the servicemen trying to push the car into the pond and, when their attempt failed, set it on fire. Then the perpetrators noticed the three men hiding in the bulrushes and opened gunfire in their direction.
8.  Mr Z., Mr D. and Mr Yu. ran to the village of Sary-Su to warn the police. On the way they got lost in the dark and only arrived at the village at about 4 a.m. on 2 April 2006. They knocked at the door of the house of a local resident, Mr Kh.V., and told him about the incident. Mr Kh.V. took them by car to the local police station. Then Mr Z., Mr D. and Mr Yu. returned to the pond, accompanied by the police. They found Vakhid Magamedov’s burnt body in the car. At about the same time three cars and two APCs belonging to the federal military forces arrived at the scene. The servicemen told the police that they were carrying out a special operation in the area. Mr Yu. told to the policemen that he would be able to identify the servicemen who had killed Vakhid Magomedov.
9.  In response to the Court’s request for a copy of the entire contents of the file of the criminal investigation into the killing of Mr Vakhid Magomedov, the Government furnished a copy of its contents, amounting to 378 pages, which could be summarised as follows.
10.  On 2 April 2006 Mr Z., Mr D. and Mr Yu. were taken by the police to the prosecutors’ office and questioned about the incident. Each of them provided a statement similar to the applicant’s submission to the Court and stressed that the perpetrators had been in military camouflage uniforms and that they had opened fire on them without any warning.
11.  On 2 April 2006 the Shelkovskiy district prosecutor’s office (“the investigators”) opened criminal case no. 61010 into the murder of Mr Vakhid Magomedov. Mr D., Mr Yu and Mr Z. were granted victim status in the proceedings and questioned. They reiterated the statements that they had previously given.
12.  On 2 April 2006 the investigators also granted Mr Kh.M., the brother of Vakhid Magomedov, victim status in the criminal case.
13.  On the same date, 2 April 2006, two other local residents, Mr A.A. and Mr S.A., were questioned by the police. Their submissions were similar: both of them stated that on the morning of 1 April 2006 they had gone to the lake to fish. On the way there they had stopped to change a flat tyre when two APCs with Russian-speaking servicemen had pulled over. The servicemen checked their identity documents. About five minutes later, another military-type vehicle, a light-coloured UAZ car, had also pulled over. The military servicemen who had arrived in it, requested identity documents and then ordered that both Mr A.A. and Mr S.A. go with them to Sury-Su for a further identity check.
14.  On 2 April 2006 the investigators also questioned a local resident, Mr Z.Kh., who stated that at about 8 p.m. on 1 April 2006 he had been driving to the pond to go fishing when he had seen three APCs driving in the same direction and that about two hours later he had seen those APCs driving back.
15.  On 2 April 2006 the investigators also questioned a resident of Sary‑Su, Mr Kh.V., and his neighbour, Mr Sh.K., whose statements were similar to the applicant’s submission before the Court. Both witnesses also confirmed that the night before they had taken the three men, who had arrived at their village in a shaken state, to the local police station. They had also gone with the three men and the police officers to the pond, where they had seen a burnt-out car with a human body in it.
16.  On 2 April 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene at the lake. They found the car, which had been completely burnt out, with traces of gunshots in the boot and a burnt corpse on the front seat. As a result, a number of spent cartridges and one bullet were collected, among other things, as evidence.
17.  On 2 April 2006 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 12 April 2006) the investigators ordered a forensic examination of Vakhid Magamedov’s body (to be conducted as part of the crime-scene examination report). On 25 May 2006 the experts concluded that it was impossible to establish the exact cause of death owing to the forensic examination’s shortcomings in the description of the state of the corpse.
18.  On 12 April 2006 the investigators ordered an expert ballistics examination of the evidence collected at the crime scene. On 28 April 2006 the experts concluded that the bullets and cartridges had most probably been shot from Kalashnikov machineguns and that that those guns – were they ever to be found – could be identified as those that had fired and contained, respective, those bullets and cartridges.
19.  On 2 June 2006 the investigators suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators. Those granted victim status in the criminal case were informed thereof.
20.  From the documents submitted it transpires that following the applicant’s complaint, on 22 January 2007 a prosecutor from the Chechnya prosecutor’s office requested that the investigators inform him of the reasons for the suspension of the criminal proceedings and the theories they had examined in order to identify the perpetrators; he also requested the entire contents of the relevant criminal case file. On 20 February 2007 the investigators forwarded the case file relating to criminal case no. 61010 to the Chechen prosecutor’s office. Neither the applicant, nor her relatives were informed thereof.
21.  Between February 2007 and September 2009, the criminal case file remained with the Chechen prosecutor’s office to be checked by the prosecutor’s superiors.
22.  On 3 July 2009 the applicant wrote to the investigators requesting information on the developments in the criminal proceedings. She complained that neither she nor her relatives had been kept informed about progress in the investigation and that she had not been granted victim status or questioned.  On 9 July 2009 she sent a similar letter to the Chechen prosecutor’s office.
23.  On 25 September 2009, following the applicant’s request of 9 July 2009 to the Chechen prosecutor’s office, the latter returned the file regarding criminal case no. 61010 to the investigators, together with a list of steps to be taken in the criminal case. Inter alia, the list stipulated that: amongst other things, for the followings steps:
“... it is necessary to: 7.  Send requests to the law-enforcement agencies asking for their assistance in identifying the perpetrators of or witnesses to the crime;
24.  On 5 October 2009 the investigators informed the applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended on 2 June 2006 for failure to identify the perpetrators.
25.  On 7 October 2009 the investigators’ supervisor allowed the applicant’s complaint of 3 July 2009, after finding that the investigation had been ineffective and ordering that it be resumed. The applicant’s complaint to the investigators of 3 July 2009 concerning her victim status remained unanswered until 2015 (see paragraph 54 below).
26.  On 8 and 9 October 2009 the investigators questioned Mr Sh.K. and Mr Kh.V., who reiterated their previous statements (see paragraph 15 above).
27.  On 2 November 2009 the investigators questioned Mr Z., who reiterated his previous statement (see paragraph 10 above) and added that the perpetrators had completely burnt out his car.
28.  On 3 November 2009 the investigators questioned Mr Kh.M., the brother of Vakhid Magamedov, who stated that he had not witnessed the incident and had only learnt of his brother’s murder on 2 April 2006.
29.  On 7 November 2009 the investigators suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators (see paragraph 32 below).
30.  On 10 and 13 December 2009 the applicant again wrote to the investigators and the Chechen prosecutor’s office asking for information about the progress in the investigation and the outcome of the examination of her previous request, and complaining that she had not been kept informed about progress in the proceedings.
31.  On 21 December 2009 the investigators informed the applicant that the investigation had been resumed on 2 October 2009.
32.  On 15 January 2010, in reply to the applicant’s request for information, the investigators informed her that they had suspended the proceedings on 7 November 2009.
33.  On 1 and 6 March 2010 the applicant complained to the investigators and the Russian Prosecutor General that the investigation had been ineffective and that she had not been kept informed of progress in the proceedings.
34.  On 26 March 2010 the investigators informed the applicant that her complaint had been rejected as the criminal case file had been transferred to the Southern Federal Circuit Investigative Committee.
35.  On 7 June 2010 the applicant again complained to the investigators of the lack of information in respect of the proceedings. On 30 June 2010 they replied that the suspension of the investigation on 7 November 2009 has been overruled as unlawful and that she would be informed of any further decision taken.
36.  On 30 June 2010 following the applicant’s above-mentioned complaint, the investigators’ supervisor (the deputy prosecutor of the Shelkovskiy district) criticised the investigators and ordered that a number of shortcomings in the criminal proceedings be remedied. In particular, he requested that the previously-given orders should be carried out (see paragraph 23 above).
37.  On 5 July 2010, following the above instructions, the investigators resumed the investigation.
38.  Between 13 and 26 July 2010 the police questioned several neighbours of Vakhid Magamedov, all of whom stated that they had either no information about the incident or had heard about it from others.
39.  On 16 July 2010 the investigators questioned two police officers, G. and T., who stated that they had been on duty at the police station when they had been informed about the incident at the pond. They had not gone to the crime scene and therefore had no information concerning “either the spent cartridges found at the scene or the three APCs there”.
40.  On 7 July 2010 Mr Z. and Mr Yu. sent to the investigators written affidavits describing the events of 1 April 2006. Copies of those documents were not furnished to the Court with the copy of the criminal case file.
41.  On 5 August 2010 the investigators again questioned Mr Kh.M., the brother of Vakhid Magamedov, who reaffirmed his previous statement.
42.  On 7 August 2010 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 7 August 2013) the investigators again suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators.
43.  On 3 July 2013 the applicant requested information on the progress of the investigation in respect of case no. 61010. No reply was forthcoming.
44.  On 27 November 2013, following a complaint lodged by the applicant, the deputy prosecutor of the Shelkovskiy district again criticised the investigators and ordered that a number of shortcomings in the proceedings be remedied. In particular, he instructed that the previously-given orders should be carried out (see paragraphs 23 and 36 above).
45.  On 25 December 2013 the investigators resumed the investigation.
46.  On 31 December 2013 the investigators again suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators.
47.  On 20 October 2014 the investigators’ supervisor ordered that the investigation be resumed, having found that it had been suspended unlawfully, without the prescribed steps having been taken.
48.  On 31 October 2014 the investigators resumed the investigation.
49.  On 1 November 2014 the investigators questioned Mr Kh.M., the brother of Vakhid Magamedov, who reaffirmed his previous statement and added that his relatives had refused to allow the exhumation of his body as it had been burnt and it had been clear that he had died from gunshot wounds.
50.  On 8 November 2014 the investigators questioned several residents of Sary-Su who stated that between 1999 and 2008 the federal military forces and law enforcement agencies had been based in their village.
51.  On 15 November 2014 the investigators again questioned Mr Z. and Mr Yu. and Mr D., who reiterated their previous statements (see paragraph 10 above).
52.  On 23 November 2014 the investigators questioned the head of the Shelkovskiy district police, who stated that he had participated in the crime‑scene examination in 2006 but could not recall the details, owing to the passage of time.
53.  On 31 November 2014 the investigators again suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators.
54.  On 20 April 2015 the investigators resumed the investigation in order to take a number of steps, including granting the applicant victim status in the criminal case and questioning her.
55.  On 17 April 2015 the investigators’ supervisor ordered that a number of steps be taken, including the questioning again of the witness who had seen the APCs in the vicinity of the crime scene on the day of the incident.
56.  On 20 May 2015, in reply to a request lodged by the applicant for information, the investigators informed her that on 20 May 2015 the proceedings had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
57.  There is no further information on the criminal proceedings. They appear to be still pending.