4.  The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in the Chechen Republic. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. The events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. 5.  The applicants reported the abductions to law‑enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without any tangible results being achieved. The applicants lodged requests for information and assistance in the search for their relatives with the investigating authorities and various law-enforcement bodies. Their requests received either only formal responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been identified by the investigating bodies. 6.  Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to both the Court and the domestic investigative authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases, as presented by the applicants, but questioned the involvement of servicemen in the events. 7.  The applicant is the mother of Mr Alik Tazuyev (in the documents submitted also spelled as Tuzayev), who was born in 1985. 8.  At the material time Mr Alik Tazuyev was staying at his grandmother’s house in the village of Sernovodsk (also spelled as Sernovodskoye or Sernovodskaya). 9.  At about 2 a.m. on 15 July 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived in three military UAZ vehicles, two Niva cars and one VAZ car, all without registration plates. Most of the men were unmasked and spoke unaccented Russian; those of them who were in balaclavas were apparently of Chechen origin. The men broke into the house of Mr Alik Tazuyev’s grandmother, forced Mr Tazuyev into one of their vehicles and drove off. Having passed unhindered through several checkpoints on the way, they drove to the Nadterechniy district department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) located in the neighbouring village of Znamenskoye. Relatives of the abducted persons followed the abductors and found special pass no. 168 for an UAZ-3962 vehicle with the registration number C688XX95RUS (in some documents B688XX95RUS), which had been issued on 1 May 2002 by the commander of the United Group Alignment in the North Caucasus Region . 10.  According to the applicant, that night several other residents of Sernovodsk were abducted under similar circumstances. 11.  On 17 July 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 63049 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) (abduction) into the abduction of Mr Alik Tazuyev and the other abducted residents of Sernovodsk. 12.  On 20 July 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in the case. 13.  Over the following months the investigators sent requests to law‑enforcement authorities in Chechnya, including the FSB, for them to check if the abducted persons had been taken into their custody. The replies were all in the negative. 14.  On 17 September 2002 the investigation in the case was suspended. 15.  On 25 June 2003 in reply to the applicant’s request the investigators informed her that the criminal proceedings had been suspended but that operational search activities continued. 16.  On 22 January 2004 a lawyer, who represented relatives of one of the abducted persons, lodged a complaint to the prosecutor of Chechnya, alleging the ineffectiveness of the investigation. He also submitted that the relatives of the abducted persons had followed the abductors and had found the special pass issued by the commander of the United Group Alignment forces. A copy of that pass was attached to the complaint. 17.  On 11 March 2004 the investigators resumed the proceedings and several days later added the special pass to the evidence in the case file. 18.  Between 30 March and 10 April 2004 the investigators questioned several relatives of the abducted persons and their fellow village residents, who confirmed the relatives’ account of the events. 19.  On 11 April 2004 the investigation was suspended. 20.  A copy of the criminal file submitted by the Government lacked one volume, the one covering the investigation between mid-2004 and early 2012. 21.  According to the documents submitted by the applicant, the investigation was resumed on 21 June 2007, and then suspended on 31 July 2007. 22.  According to the documents submitted by the Government, on 23 January 2012 the investigators resumed the proceedings again. By February 2012 they had established that the UAZ vehicle with a special pass had belonged to a private person, Mr A.E., who denied any involvement in the abduction. 23.  On 16 February 2012 the investigators obtained the applicant’s DNA sample for comparison with samples obtained from unidentified bodies, but to no avail. 24.  Subsequently, the investigation was suspended on 23 February and 25 September 2012, 22 August and 12 September 2013, and 16 January and 14 February 2014; it was resumed on 20 September 2012, 5 August, 11 September and 23 December 2013, and 13 February 2014 respectively. 25.  In the meantime, on 23 January 2014 the investigators established that the military forces based in Khankala had been provided with vehicle registration plate K688XX95RUS. 26.  On 13 February 2014 the investigators found that they had wrongly identified Mr A.E. as the owner of the UAZ vehicle, and that his car was of a different series. 27.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 28.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained of the investigators’ inaction to the Achkhoy-Martan District Court, which on 26 June 2007 dismissed her complaint as unsubstantiated. 29.  The applicant is the mother of Mr Dmitry Kulishov, who was born in 1980. 30.  At about 11 p.m. on 14 March 2005 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in two grey VAZ vehicles and broke into Mr M.Ts.’s flat in Grozny, where Mr Dmitry Kulishov was temporarily residing. They took him away to an unknown destination. 31.  On 15 March 2005 Mr M.Ts. lodged a complaint with the local police about Mr Dmitry Kulishov’s abduction. The applicant joined that complaint. 32.  On 26 March 206 the Leninskiy district prosecutor in Grozny declined to open a criminal case. 33.  On 9 April 2005 the above decision was overruled by a supervising authority. Two days later the prosecutor opened criminal case no. 40071 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 34.  On 15 March 2005 the investigators questioned Mr M.Ts., who submitted that in the evening of 14 March 2005 his neighbours, Mr S. and Mr V., had visited his flat, where he lived with Mr Dmitry Kulishov. At about 10.55 p.m. he had left the flat to buy some bread in a nearby shop. On his way back he saw five men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas. Armed with machine guns, they stood at the entrance to his block of flats. Mr M.Ts. tried to enter the block of flats, but the men did not let him in. They spoke Russian with a Chechen accent. Sometime later the armed men left the flat with Mr Dmitry Kulishov. They put him in a grey VAZ vehicle without registration plates and drove him away. 35.  On 16 April 2005 the applicant was granted victim status. 36.  On 14 June 2005 the investigators questioned Mr V. and Mr S. They confirmed the account of the events given by Mr M.Ts. Mr V. also submitted that he had heard that Mr Dmitry Kulishov had been taken to the Chechen Ministry of the Interior and then transported to an unknown destination. 37.  On 11 July 2005 the investigation was suspended after it had failed establish the identity of the perpetrators. On 13 February 2006 that decision was overruled by the supervising prosecutor and the investigation was resumed. One month later it was suspended again. 38.  Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed on 21 August 2006, 12 February 2007, 6 May 2009, 9 July and 21 September 2009, 20 December 2011, 4 June 2012, and 9 October and 12 December 2013; they were suspended on 25 August 2006, 16 March 2007, 5 June and 21 October 2009, 19 January and 4 July 2012, and 11 November 2013, respectively. 39.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 40.  On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny, alleging that the investigation had been ineffective and that the investigators had failed to take basic steps. She also complained about the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings. 41.  On 6 December 2008 the court ruled in the applicant’s favour. It ordered the investigating authorities to resume the proceedings and take necessary investigative measures. 42.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Askhab Soltagirayev, who was born in 1973. The second applicant is his wife. The third, fourth, and fifth applicants are his children. 43.  In 2001 Mr Askhab Soltagirayev was pardoned under a Government amnesty aimed at former members of illegal armed groups. In 2000 his brother, Mr Alikhan Soltagirayev, had allegedly been killed by Russian servicemen. 44.  At the material time the applicants, save for the first applicant, resided together in the town of Gudermes. On 12 April 2002 Russian servicemen conducted a special operation in the area, as a result of which many men were arrested. 45.  At around 3 a.m. on that date a group of ten to fifteen servicemen in camouflage uniforms (some in balaclavas), armed with grenades and machine guns broke into the applicants’ house. The unmasked intruders were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian, while the masked ones spoke Chechen. Some of them searched the house, while the others seized Mr Askhab Soltagirayev and his passport, took him outside and put him in a grey UAZ minivan. Then the servicemen departed in the direction of the town centre, accompanied by another grey UAZ car and an Ural lorry. 46.  Later in the morning the applicants and their relatives went to the Gudermes District Department of the Interior (“the ROVD”), where many people were waiting for the release of relatives who had been detained on the same day under similar circumstances. At around 10 a.m. one of the arrested men, Mr Askhab from the village of Belorechye (also referred to as Ilaskhan‑Yurt), was released and told the applicants that their relative had been detained in the ROVD along with other men. On the same day two ROVD officers, Mr D. Yasayev and Mr I. Makayev, confirmed that Mr Askhab Soltagirayev had been detained there until at least 2 p.m. and then taken to the premises of a department of the Federal Security Service. The head of the ROVD later informed Mr Askhab Soltagirayev’s uncle that his nephew had not been detained on their premises. 47.  The applicants have not seen Mr Askhab Soltagirayev since his abduction. 48.  According to the applicants, despite attempts made by them to persuade the authorities to initiate a criminal investigation into the abduction of 12 April 2002, the Gudermes district prosecutor dissuaded them from lodging an official request. For that reason, their request for an investigation was officially registered only on 14 May 2004. 49.  Between 27 and 29 May 2004 the police questioned the second applicant and her relatives and examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 50.  On an unspecified date in May or June 2004 one of the police officers reported to his superior that according to the applicants’ neighbours, a special operation had been conducted on the day of the abduction. 51.  On 3 June 2004 the Gudermes district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 35035 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 52.  Five days later the second applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 53.  In June 2004 the investigators contacted law-enforcement authorities in Chechnya to check whether Mr Askhab Soltagirayev had been arrested. The replies were all in the negative. 54.  In June and July 2004 the investigators questioned the first and second applicants and their six relatives, including Mr Said‑Magomed. They submitted that Mr Askhab Soltagirayev’s detention at the ROVD had been acknowledged by Mr D. Yasayev and Mr I. Makayev. 55.  On 21 June and 16 July 2004 the investigators questioned officers Mr D. Yasayev and Mr I. Makayev. Both stated that they did not know Mr Askhab Soltagirayev and had neither arrested him nor informed anyone of his arrest. 56.  On 6 August 2004 the deputy head of the ROVD stated that Mr Askhab Soltagirayev had never been detained on their premises. 57.  On 3 August 2004 the investigation was suspended after it had failed to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The second applicant was informed of that decision. 58.  On 13 February 2008 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her victim status in the case. 59.  On 6 March 2008 the proceedings were resumed and the first applicant’s request was granted. The proceedings were suspended one month later. 60.  On 21 April 2008 the investigation was resumed. In May 2008 the investigators questioned several of Mr Askhab Soltagirayev’s relatives, who reiterated their previous submissions. 61.  Subsequently the proceedings were suspended on 21 May and 11 July 2008, 29 June, and 13 September and 23 December 2009; they were resumed on 11 June 2008, 5 May, 11 August and 13 November 2009 respectively. 62.  In the meantime, on 20 June 2008 the deputy district prosecutor criticised the investigators for their failure to take basic steps such as confronting the applicants with Mr D. Yasayev and Mr I. Makayev, or establishing whether other persons had been detained in the ROVD on 12 April 2002. 63.  In August 2008 the investigators replied to the above-mentioned criticism. They submitted that, under the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, they were under no obligation to conduct a confrontation. As regards persons detained in the ROVD at the time of the abduction, the investigation had not obtained any relevant information. Operational search measures to establish them would be taken. 64.  On 18 March 2009 the first applicant asked the investigators to allow her to study the case file. On 21 March 2009 her request was refused. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Gudermes District Court in Chechnya against the investigators’ refusal (see paragraph 67 below). Before the appeal court delivered its judgment she was allowed to access the investigation file. 65.  On 30 October 2009 the deputy district prosecutor again criticised the investigators, noting that their failure to carry out confrontations between witnesses, to establish the persons allegedly detained with Mr Askhab Soltagirayev in the ROVD, or to check whether former servicemen from the “Vostok” battalion of the Russian Ministry of Defence had been involved in the abduction. 66.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 67.  On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Gudermes District Court in Chechnya regarding the investigators’ refusal to allow her to access the case file. 68.  On 12 May 2009 the court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, stating that on 6 May 2009 she had already been granted access to the case file. 69.  The applicant is the brother of Mr Anzor Tangiyev, who was born in 1978. 70.  On 24 May 2000 Mr Anzor Tangiyev stayed overnight in the flat of his neighbour, Mr A.D., in a block of flats in Grozny. 71.  At about 4 a.m. on 25 May 2000 about twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the flat, took both Mr Anzor Tangiyev and Mr A.D. to the courtyard, tied their hands behind their backs, pulled their T-shirts over their heads and laid them on the ground. They then forced Mr A.D. in one of the UAZ vehicles, drove him to an unknown destination and placed him in a basement. Mr A.D. was ill-treated by the abductors for four days to make him confess to membership in illegal armed groups. On the fourth day of his detention Mr A.D. was taken to a different room, where he saw Mr Anzor Tangiyev, who bore signs of ill-treatment, including a broken finger on his right hand. Mr Anzor Tangiyev told the servicemen that Mr A.D. did not participate in illegal armed groups. Then Mr A.D. was taken back to the basement. From a conversation he had overheard between the servicemen and from the noise of nearby helicopters Mr A.D. understood that he was being detained at the Khankala military base, the headquarters of the federal military forces located in the suburbs of Grozny. 72.  On 17 June 2000 Mr A.D. was blindfolded and taken in an APC to the centre of Grozny, where he was released in front of the publishing house building. 73.  According to the applicant, immediately after the incident Mr Anzor Tangiyev’s mother complained to the military and civilian authorities about the abduction, but the criminal proceedings were not opened. The Government did not dispute that submission. 74.  Between 2003 and 2009 the applicant complained of his brother’s abduction to various authorities. He complained to the Chechen prosecutor’s office, the President of Chechnya, the Russian Prosecutor General, the Russian Ministry of the Interior, and the Russian President on 21 June, 15 July, 4 and 9 August 2003 and 15 January 2004 respectively. It appears that no replies followed. 75.  On 9 March 2010 the Shali district investigative committee opened criminal case no. 38001 under Articles 126 (abduction) and 286 (abuse of authority) of the CC. 76.  The Government did not submit a copy of the criminal case file requested by the Court. From the documents submitted by the applicant, it appears that the investigation proceeded as follows. 77.  On 10 March 2010 Mr Anzor Tangiyev’s mother was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She stated that immediately after the abduction she had contacted the mother of Mr A.D., who had already searched for him. The mother of Mr A.D. had told her that Mr Anzor Tangiyev and Mr A.D. had been detained together. On an unspecified date Mr Anzor Tangiyev’s mother had met Mr S., who had promised her that she would arrange the release of her son in return for her handing over to Mr Ser. 1,000 United States dollars (USD). Mr Anzor Tangiyev’s mother had collected the money, but before she had been able to transfer it Mr S. had died. According to Mr Anzor Tangiyev’s mother, after the abduction she had lodged complaints about it with various civilian and military authorities (including prosecutors) but no proper investigation had followed. 78.  On 16 and 27 March 2010 the investigators questioned Mr A.D. His statements were similar to the account of the events given by the applicant in his submissions to the Court. Among other details he noted that some of the abductors had spoken unaccented Russian and that from his neighbors, who had witnessed the abduction, he had learned that the abductors had arrived in UAZ minivans. Mr A.D. alleged that the culprits had belonged to the federal forces and had apprehended him together with Mr Anzor Tangiyev on suspicion of membership in illegal armed groups. Mr A.D. stated that after his release he had been questioned about the circumstances of the abduction by police officers from the Staropromislovskiy district temporary department of the interior. 79.  On 9 June 2010 the investigators suspended the proceedings after it had failed to establish the identity of the perpetrators. On an unspecified date that decision was overruled, and the investigation was resumed. 80.  On 11 January 2011 the proceedings were suspended again. The applicant was not informed thereof. 81.  On an unspecified date between January and April 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the investigators for them to resume the investigation and grant him victim status in the criminal case. On 15 April 2013 the request was refused as ill-founded. 82.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 83.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Timur Tsakayev, who was born in 1976. The second applicant is his grandmother, and the third applicant is his brother. 84.  Mr Timur Tsakayev was a relative of Mr Ramzan Tsakayev, a well‑known Chechen fighter against the Russian federal forces who lived in the village of Alkhan-Yurt. Fearing persecution on that account, Mr Timur Tsakayev and his family moved to Ingushetia in 1999. In order to visit his relatives in Chechnya, he used, again, for fear of persecution, a passport in the name of Mr Islam Khalidov. 85.  In October 2001 Mr Timur Tsakayev went to Alkhan-Yurt to visit his grandmother. At about 3 a.m. on 2 November 2001 the family members were woken up by the noise of two APCs and an Ural lorry, which pulled up at their gate. A group of forty to fifty armed servicemen in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms cordoned off the house and searched its premises. Mr Timur Tsakayev showed them his passport, which was in the name of Islam Khalidov. The servicemen took him and his uncle Musa to the back yard and questioned them in unaccented Russian. 86.  Meanwhile, the other servicemen locked Mr Timur Tsakayev’s relatives in the house. An hour later, they let Musa go and put Timur Tsakayev in the Ural lorry, which, according to local residents, already contained other apprehended men with sacks over their heads. The Ural and one of the APCs drove away shortly thereafter. The other APC left later in the morning. 87.  The whereabouts of Mr Timur Tsakayev remain unknown. 88.  For several months after Mr Timur Tsakayev’s abduction his relatives complained to various authorities, referring to him by the name of Islam Khalidov. In February 2002 the first applicant disclosed her son’s true identity to the authorities. 89.  On 3 August 2003 Mr Timur Tsakayev’s aunt asked the Urus‑Martan district prosecutor to open a criminal case into his abduction. On the same day the investigators questioned her and examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 90.  On 5 October 2003 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 34095 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 91.  After the opening of the criminal proceedings the investigators requested various law-enforcement authorities to inform them of whether they had arrested or detained Timur Tsakayev. The replies received were in the negative. 92.  On 5 December 2003 the investigation was suspended after it had failed to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 93.  On 1 January 2004 the investigation was resumed, and one month later suspended again. 94.  The Government did not submit a copy of the case-file documents concerning the subsequent developments in the proceedings. According to the applicants, the proceedings were resumed on 25 March 2006, 12 April 2007, and 10 February 2010 and suspended on 25 April 2006 and 16 May 2007 respectively. 95.  In the meantime, on 9 June 2008 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her victim status, but to no avail. 96.  On 26 March and 19 May 2009 the applicant repeated her request for victim status. She also asked the investigators to grant her access to the case‑file documents. 97.  On 10 February 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status, and on 27 May 2010 she was provided with copies of documents from the investigation file. 98.  In 2012 the Government submitted to the Court an update on the criminal proceedings; according that update the investigation had been resumed on 12 December 2011. 99.  On 30 December 2011 the investigators questioned a former head of the Alkhan-Yurt municipal administration, who stated that Mr Timur Tsakayev had been involved in an illegal armed group. At that time (the year 2001), several authorities – including the FSB, the Main Intelligence Directorate (Главное Разведывательное Управление), the federal military forces and the police – conducted arrests of the members of that group. He also stated that illegal armed groups also moved around in the vicinity of the village. 100.  On 31 January 2012 the investigators asked the FSB, the Federal Armed forces and the Ministry of the Interior whether special operations had been conducted in Alkhan-Yurt in 2002. No relevant information was provided. 101.  On 3 February 2012 the first applicant’s DNA was compared with DNA samples taken from unidentified corpses, but no match was found. 102.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 103.  The applicants are three sisters of Mr Aslan Bachakov, who was born in 1974. 104.  On 9 October 2001 Russian military forces in Chechnya conducted a special operation in the town of Argun. It was cordoned off and surrounded by military vehicles. 105.  At about 8 a.m. a group of armed servicemen in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in an APC bearing the identification number 023, two UAZ vehicles and one VAZ vehicles. Prior to the incident, the APC had been seen on the premises of the Argun military commander’s office. 106.  The servicemen threatened the applicants with firearms, searched the premises and detained Mr Aslan Bachakov. One of them, having introduced himself as an officer from the military commander’s office, assured the applicants that their brother would be questioned and then released. Thereafter, the men forced Mr Bachakov into one of the UAZ vehicles and drove off to an unknown destination. 107.  The whereabouts of Mr Aslan Bachakov remain unknown. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. 108.  Immediately after the events, the applicants went to the Argun military commander’s office, where an unidentified officer confirmed Mr Bachakov’s detention on their premises. However, in the course of the applicants’ subsequent visits to the office, the serviceman denied it and refused to disclose information about his whereabouts. 109.  On the same date, 9 October 2001, the applicants formally informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal case into the incident be opened. 110.  On 1 March 2002 the Argun inter-district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 78026 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 111.  On 7 March 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 112.  On 10 March 2002 the Argun Department of the Ministry of the Interior (the Argun town police) provided the investigators with a statement that between 7 and 10 October 2001 a special sweeping-up operation had been conducted in the town. Several military vehicles, including two APCs, had been involved in that operation. Shortly after the end of the operation, another town resident, Mr Kh. U., complained that on 9 October 2001 armed men in camouflage uniform had abducted Mr A.B. and driven him off to an unknown destination. The Argun town police had no information about Mr Aslan Bachakov’s apprehension. 113.  On 1 May 2002 the investigation was suspended after it had failed to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 114.  On 10 April 2003 the first applicant asked the investigators to resume the proceedings. Nine days later the proceedings were resumed. 115.  On 16 May 2003 the investigators questioned Mr L.S., who was the neighbour of Mr Bachakov. He confirmed that on the morning of 9 October 2001 a sweeping-up operation had been carried out by servicemen and police officers in APCs. Immediately after the APCs’ departure at the end of the operation, several UAZ vehicles and a Zhiguli car had arrived at Mr Bachakov’s house. Armed men in camouflage uniform had forced him into a vehicle and taken him away to an unknown destination. Later that day Mr L.S., Mr Aslan Bachakov’s wife and the applicants had gone to the Argun military commander’s office. They had been told that the military authorities had not arrested Mr Aslan Bachakov. 116.  On 19 May 2003 the investigators suspended the proceedings. The first applicant was informed of that decision. 117.  On 22 March 2005 the Argun town prosecutor examined the investigation file and concluded that Mr Aslan Bachakov had most probably been abducted by an illegal armed group. He also noted several shortcomings on the part of the investigators, including the fact that they had sent no information requests to the law-enforcement authorities. 118.  On 20 April 2009 the first applicant asked a member of the Chechen Parliament for help in the search for her brother. That request was forwarded to the investigators. By a letter dated 18 May 2009 the investigators informed her that the proceedings had been suspended but that operational search measures were ongoing. 119.  On 7 October 2010 the proceedings were resumed. 120.  On 28 October 2010 the investigators obtained a sample of the first applicant’s DNA for comparison with DNA taken from unidentified remains; the results of that comparison remain unknown. 121.  In November 2010 the investigators questioned several witnesses to the events, who mainly confirmed the account of the events submitted by the applicants, and examined the crime scene. No evidence from Mr Aslan Bachakov’s house was collected. 122.  On 26 November 2010 the proceedings were suspended. Subsequently, they were resumed on 21 June and 5 October 2011, 27 January and 8 May 2014; and then suspended again on 21 July and 6 October 2011 and 27 February and 8 June 2014 respectively. 123.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 124.  On 23 September 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court in Chechnya, alleging that the investigators had failed to take basic steps and had prematurely suspended the proceedings. 125.  On 18 October 2010 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that on 7 October 2010 the proceedings had been resumed. On 8 December 2010 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld that decision on appeal. 126.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Olkhazur Osmayev, who was born in 1971. The first applicant was his father, who died on 12 June 2017. The second applicant is his mother. The third and fourth applicants are his brothers. 127.  At about 1 a.m. on 20 April 2002 about fifteen servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas armed with machine guns broke into the applicants’ house in the village of Mesker, ordered the men to go out to the courtyard and locked the women and children in the house. After searching the premises, the servicemen handcuffed Mr Olkhazur Osmayev and his two brothers (the third and fourth applicants) pulled their jackets over their heads and put them in a car waiting in the street. Then they took the three men first to the Shali district military commander’s office and then the Shali ROVD, where they were questioned by a Russian-speaking investigator. A few days later the third and fourth applicants were released. As for Mr Olkhazur Osmayev, the applicants have had no news of him since the above-mentioned events. 128.  On 20 April 2002 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Shali district prosecutor. 129.  On 24 April 2002 the third and fourth applicants were questioned by the police. Their statements were similar to those submitted by them to the Court. 130.  On 26 April 2002 the Shali district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 59097 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 131.  In May 2002 the investigators sent requests concerning Mr Osmayev’s whereabouts to various authorities, including the Shali military commander, the FSB and the police stations in the Shali district. 132.  On 26 June 2002 the investigation was suspended after it had failed to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 133.  On 29 May 2003 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation and ordered the proceedings be resumed. 134.  On 5 June 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 135.  On 29 June 2003 the investigation was suspended again. 136.  On 19 July 2003 the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Chechen Republic (“the Chechen FSB”) in the Shali district of Chechnya confirmed at the investigators’ request that the third and fourth applicants had been arrested between 10.20 p.m. and 11.05 p.m. on 20 April 2002. The arrest had been carried out by Major K., who had left the Chechen Republic and could therefore not be questioned. 137.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the second applicant contacted the Chechen Parliament, seeking its assistance in the search for her son. On 18 July 2005 her letter was forwarded to the Chechnya Prosecutor; on 20 June 2005 it was forwarded onwards to the Shali district prosecutor. It is not clear whether a reply followed. 138.  On 27 February 2006 the second applicant asked the Shali district prosecutor to expedite the investigation into Mr Osmayev’s abduction. On 14 March 2006 the prosecutor informed her that the proceedings had been suspended but that the search was still in progress. 139.  On 3 March 2008 the NGO Materi Chechni on the applicants’ behalf asked the head of the Chechen Parliament by letter to assist in the search for Mr Osmayev. The letter was forwarded to the investigators, who replied on 17 April 2008 that operational search activities in respect of the case were ongoing. 140.  On 18 May 2009 the second applicant repeated the request to the head of the Chechen Parliament. On 21 June 2009 she received a reply similar to that of 17 April 2008. 141.  On 22 March 2010 the applicants requested that the investigation be resumed and that they be allowed to access the investigation file. 142.  On 18 May 2010 the investigators replied that the criminal case had been transferred to the Main Investigations Directorate of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the South Federal Circuit and that the applicants would be able to access the file once it had been returned. 143.  On 23 June 2010 the deputy Shali prosecutor noted numerous shortcomings in the investigation; two days later he gave instructions to the investigators comprising a list of thirty nine measures to be taken. 144.  On 28 June 2010 the investigation was resumed. On 7 June 2010 the investigators asked the Chechen FSB to send them a copy of the criminal case file related to the arrest of the third and fourth applicants on 20 April 2002. On 24 July 2010 the FSB replied that the case file had been sent to the Chechnya Prosecutor in 2003. The investigators searched for that file in the archives, but to no avail. 145.  In July 2010 the investigators questioned two brothers, Mr R.S. and Mr Sh.R. Both of them had been apprehended in Mesker on the night of 19‑20 April 2002 and had been put in an UAZ vehicle, together with three other detainees. On the morning of 20 April 2002 the brothers had been taken to the Shali police station, questioned and subsequently released. 146.  On 28 July 2010 the proceeding were suspended. It appears that they are still pending. 147.  On 15 June 2010 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Shali District Court regarding the investigators’ failure to resume the investigation and to take all measures possible to solve the crime. 148.  On 28 June 2010 the Shali District Court dismissed the complaint, referring to the recent decision to resume the proceedings (see paragraph 144 above), which had been taken earlier. 149.  The applicants appealed against that decision to the Chechnya Supreme Court, which dismissed their appeal on 22 December 2010. 150.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ilyas Movsarov, who was born in 1975. The second applicant is his brother and the third applicant is his wife. 151.  At the material time Mr Ilyas Movsarov lived with his wife, the third applicant, and their two minor children in Grozny. 152.  On the night of 29-30 April 2002 a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in three UAZ vehicles at Mr Movsarov’s house. Having broken in, they searched the premises and checked Mr Movsarov’s identity documents. Then they forced him outside, put him in one of the vehicles and drove off to an unknown destination. 153.  The next day the applicants went to the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD in Grozny. The head of the department, Mr B., informed them that their relative had been detained by officers from the Regional Department of the Fight against Organised Crime of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (Региональное управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью Министерства внутренних дел Чеченской Республики – “the RUBOP”). 154.  According to the applicants, Mr Ilyas Movsarov was subsequently seen while being held in detention on the premises of the RUBOP. His whereabouts remain unknown. 155.  On 30 April 2002 the third applicant complained to the Grozny prosecutor about Mr Movsarov’s abduction. 156.  On the same day the third applicant and three neighbours of Ilyas Movsarov were questioned by investigators. Their statements were consistent with the applicants’ submissions to the Court, as described above. The third applicant noted that the abductors had spoken unaccented Russian. 157.  On 4 June 2002 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 54031 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 158.  On 21 August 2002 the third applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned by the investigators. During the interrogation she stated that her husband’s abductors had taken their television set. 159.  On 4 September 2002 the investigation was suspended after it had failed to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 160.  On 11 April 2003 the proceedings were resumed. 161.  On 14 May 2003, having questioned several witnesses, who made statements similar to those of the applicants’, the investigators suspended the proceedings. 162.  On an unspecified date between 2007 and 2008 a relative of Mr Movsarov (apparently his daughter) asked the Chechen President to assist in the search for her father. By a letter dated 30 January 2008 she was informed that the proceedings had been suspended, but that operational search activities were still ongoing. 163.  On 6 June 2009 the investigators resumed the proceedings and sent a number of requests to various authorities, including law-enforcement bodies, concerning Mr Movsarov’s whereabouts, but no positive replies were received. 164.  On 4 July 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case. Two days later the proceedings were suspended. They were subsequently resumed on 8 September and 23 December 2010, 8 October and 6 December 2011, and 3 July 2012 and suspended on 8 October 2010, 23 January and 9 October 2011, and 6 January and 3 August 2012, respectively. 165.  In the meantime, on 28 December 2010 the investigators opened criminal case no. 23083 under Article 162 of the CC (robbery) into the misappropriation of the applicants’ television set. The third applicant was granted victim status in that case. Shortly thereafter it was joined with case no. 54031. 166.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending. 167.  On 30 July 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny, challenging the investigators’ failure to take basic investigative steps. 168.  On 27 September 2010 the court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the decision to suspend the proceedings had already been overruled. The Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal on 15 December 2010. 169.  The application was lodged by the parents of Mr Adlan Moltayev (also spelled as Maltayev), who was born in 1979. 170.  On 25 September 2018 the Court was informed that the father and the mother of Mr Adlan Moltayev had died on 16 January 2017 and 1 April 2018 respectively, and that their daughter, Ms Larisa Khatsiyeva, wished to pursue the application in their stead. 171.  At about 4 a.m. on 11 March 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived in an APC and an UAZ vehicle at the applicants’ house in the village of Achkhoy-Martan. Speaking unaccented Russian, the men searched the premises, forced Mr Adlan Moltayev outside, put him in the APC and drove off to an unknown destination. 172.  The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. 173.  The whereabouts of Mr Adlan Moltayev have remained unknown ever since. 174.  On 11 April 2002 Mr Adlan Moltayev’s relatives informed the authorities of his abduction. On the same day the crime scene was examined by investigators from the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutors’ office. No evidence was collected. 175.  The next day the Achkhoy-Martan prosecutor opened criminal case no. 63027 under Article 127 of the CC (unlawful deprivation of liberty). Several requests were sent to law-enforcement authorities in order to establish whether Mr Adlan Moltayev had been arrested and placed in custody. The replies received were all in the negative. 176.  In April 2002 the investigators questioned several witnesses; the copies of their statements furnished by the Government to the Court were illegible. 177.  On 14 April 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned by the investigators. Her account of the events was similar to those submitted by the applicants to the Court. 178.  On 12 June 2002 the investigators suspended the proceedings after it had failed to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 179.  Between 2003 and 2007 the second applicant lodged a number of requests with various authorities for them to assist in the investigation and in the search for her son: on 16 July 2003 she contacted the Chechnya Prosecutor; on 16 February 2004 she contacted the Russian President; on 24 January 2005 she contacted the Chechen President; on 29 June 2005 she contacted the Russian State Duma; on 3 February 2006 she contacted the Chechen President and the Chechen Government; and on 3 August 2007 she contacted the Achkhoy-Martan prosecutor. Each request was forwarded to the investigators, who replied that the proceedings had been suspended but that operational search measures were being undertaken. 180.  On 17 June 2008, the proceedings were after the supervisors voiced their criticism. Having sent dozens of requests for information concerning the possible participation of Mr Moltayev in illegal armed groups, the investigators suspended the proceedings on 17 July 2008. 181.  On 27 March 2009 the proceedings were resumed again. Three days later the investigators questioned (i) Mr Moltayev’s neighbour, who had witnessed the abduction and who confirmed the account of the events submitted by the applicants, and (ii) the second applicant, who repeated the statements that she had previously given. 182.  On 17 April 2009, at his own request, the first applicant was granted the status of civil claimant in the criminal case. 183.  On 30 April 2009 the investigators suspended the proceedings and on 3 March 2010 resumed them. On the same date the second applicant was granted victim status. The next day the proceedings were suspended again. 184.  On 18 January 2011 the first applicant lodged a request to be allowed to access the case file. His request was dismissed on 20 January 2011. Subsequently he lodged a complaint with the Urus‑Martan Town Court in Chechnya against the investigators on that account (see paragraph 188 below). 185.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 186.  On 15 March 2010 the applicants complained to the Achkhoy‑Martan District Court in Chechnya. They alleged that the instigators had not taken all necessary measures to investigate the incident. The court allowed the complaint in part on 12 April 2010. 187.  On 29 September 2010 the applicants again lodged a complaint regarding the investigators’ inaction. The outcome of that complaint remains unknown. 188.  On 1 February 2011 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Urus‑Martan Town Court in Chechnya concerning their lack of access to the case file. On 5 April 2011 their complaint was allowed and the investigators were ordered to grant the applicants full access to the investigation file. 189.  The applicants are the mothers of Mr Bayali (also spelled as Bay‑Ali) Bashkuyev and Mr Umar Arsayev, who were born in 1987 and 1986 respectively. 190.  In the early hours of 31 March 2004 a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the village of Elistanzhi, Chechnya, in APCs that bore no registration plates. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian and were of Slavic appearance. Between midnight and 1.15 a.m. on that date they made a forced entry into the applicants’ houses, arrested Mr Bashkuyev and Mr Arsayev, put them into the military vehicles, and drove off to an unknown destination. 191.  The whereabouts of Mr Bashkuyev and Mr Arsayev have remained unknown ever since. Their abduction took place in the presence of the applicants and several neighbours. 192.  On 31 March 2004 an officer from the Vedeno police department, after the applicants had lodged a complaint with it, reported to the deputy Vedenskiy district prosecutor the abduction of Mr Bayali Bashkuyev and Mr Umar Arsayev. On the same date the crime scene was examined. No evidence was collected. 193.  On 1 April 2004 the Vedeno district prosecutor opened criminal case no. 43017 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). 194.  On 8 April 2004 the investigators questioned police officers stationed at road checkpoints along the way to the applicants’ village. According to the copies of their statements furnished by the Government, the road police officers confirmed the passage of two APCs on the night of the abduction. 195.  On 16 July 2004 the applicants were granted victim status in the case and questioned. Their statements were similar to those submitted by them to the Court. 196.  On 1 June 2004 the investigation was suspended after it had failed to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 197.  On 24 July 2007 the investigators’ supervisors overruled as unlawful the decision to suspend the investigation and ordered the investigation to be resumed. Between July and August 2007 the investigators sent a number of requests to law-enforcement authorities asking whether Mr Bashkuyev and Mr Arsayev had been suspected of criminal activities and arrested on that account. Replies in the negative were given. 198.  On 24 August 2007 the proceedings were suspended; on 21 December 2010 they were resumed. 199.  On 11 and 12 January 2011 the second and then the first applicant were questioned by the investigators. Both applicants submitted that neither Mr Bashkuyev nor Mr Arsayev had participated in or supported illegal armed groups. 200.  On 12 January 2011 the investigators obtained DNA samples from both applicants for comparison with those held in a database of unidentified remains. 201.  Subsequently, the proceedings were suspended on 27 January 2011, 10 September 2012 and 28 November 2013, and resumed on 30 August 2012 and 28 October 2013. 202.  By a letter of 6 March 2017 the investigators informed the applicants that the proceedings had been suspended but that operational search measures to establish the identity of the perpetrators continued. 203.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 204.  On an unspecified date in September 2013 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Vedeno District Court alleging the investigators’ failure to take basic steps to solve the crime and asking that the proceedings be resumed. 205.  On 18 September 2013 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that the investigators had already resumed the criminal investigation. In a separate ruling given on the same date the court pointed to certain procedural flaws in the investigation. 206.  On unspecified dates in 2015 the applicants lodged claims against the Ministry of Finance of Russia seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the abduction. 207.  On 12 May 2015 the court, in decisions adopted separately in respect of each applicant, dismissed the claims as unfounded. On 7 and 16 July 2015 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decisions on appeal. 208.  According to the applicants, in 2017 the domestic courts declared Mr Umar Arsayev dead.