5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who at the material time lived either in the Chechen Republic or the Republic of Ingushetia, a region neighbouring Chechnya. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in these regions in 2000-2006 after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants received no news of their missing relatives thereafter. 6.  In each of the cases the applicants complained of the respective abduction to law-enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. The proceedings in respect of each case, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without any tangible results having been attained. As can be seen from the documents submitted, no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than their forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. Further to such requests, the authorities generally reported in respect of each case that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction in question had not been established and that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time. The applicants also lodged with various authorities requests for information and assistance in the search for their missing relatives but received only formal responses, if any. The identities of the perpetrators have never been established by the investigating authorities. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending. 7.  Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account of events is based on statements provided to the Court and the domestic investigating authorities by the applicants, their relatives and/or neighbours, and other witnesses. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases, as presented by the applicants, but contested the involvement of servicemen in the events in question. 8.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev, who was born in 1972. The first applicant is his wife, the second applicant is his sister and the third and fourth applicants are his children. 9.  The facts of the present application have already been examined by the Court in Bekova v. Russia (no. 53679/07) in respect of the abduction of Mr Ruslan Yandiyev (see Sultygov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 40-80, 9 October 2014). 10.  At the material time Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev worked at a construction site located at Moscovskaya Street in Nazran, Ingushetia. At about 9.30 a.m. on 29 September 2005 he was in the workers’ trailer at the construction site when a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into it. Most of the armed men were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. 11.  Having broken into the trailer, the armed men immediately started beating Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev and dragged him outside. Two men ‑ Mr M‑A.B. and Mr Ruslan Yandiyev, who were also present at the site ‑ tried to intervene but the armed men took them outside and forced them into their vehicles. They then put Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev, unconscious and bleeding, into the boot of one of the vehicles and drove away with the three men. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. 12.  The whereabouts of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev remain unknown. 13.  For the main witness statements and investigative steps taken by the authorities, see Sultygov and Others (ibid., §§ 50-80). 14.  On 29 September 2005 Mr M.-B.M. lodged a complaint with the Nazran town prosecutor’s office regarding the abduction of his brother (Mr M.-A.B.), Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev and an unknown third man. The investigators immediately examined the crime scene and found a substance resembling blood on a fragment of broken glass. 15.  On 9 October 2005 the Nazran town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 05560115 into the abduction of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev, Mr M.-A.B. and Mr Ruslan Yandiyev. 16.  On 15 October 2005 the mother of Mr Ilez Khamkhoyev was granted victim status in the criminal case. 17.  On 29 December 2005 and 18 September 2006 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who stated that her husband had been abducted by unknown people on 29 September 2005 from his place of work. 18.  On an unknown date (apparently in 2008) the first applicant was granted victim status. 19.  On 17 April 2007 the investigators informed the first applicant that operational search activities were in progress with the aim of establishing her husband’s whereabouts. 20.  On 27 February 2008 the first applicant asked the investigators to inform her of any progress in the proceedings. 21.  On 5 April 2008 the investigators again questioned the first applicant. On 14 April 2008 they questioned the second applicant. 22.  The investigation into the abduction was suspended and resumed on numerous occasions. It was last suspended on 24 May 2015. The investigation is still pending. 23.  The applicant was the wife of Mr Ibragim Idrisov, who was born in 1951. She died on 24 August 2011. Her daughter, Ms Larisa Ibayeva (also spelled as Larissa Ibaeva), who is also the daughter of the disappeared Mr Ibragim Idrisov, expressed her wish to pursue the application. 24.  On 27 January 2002 Mr Ibragim Idrisov went to Shali, Chechnya, for a work-related purpose. On the same date servicemen from the Shali district temporary department of the interior (“the VOVD”) arrested him and placed him in a temporary detention ward on the premises of the VOVD police station. His GAZ-2410 vehicle was seized and placed in the station’s inner courtyard. 25.  Following Mr Ibragim Idrisov’s arrest the applicant was informed thereof. From 28 January 2002 until 2 February 2002 she visited him regularly in the VOVD, bringing him food and warm clothing. 26.  On the morning of 3 February 2002, when the applicant came to visit her husband in the VOVD as usual, she was informed that Mr Ibragim Idrisov had been released the day before, on 2 February 2002. Meanwhile, Mr Ibragim Idrisov’s GAZ-2410 vehicle remained parked on the premises of the VOVD. 27.  The whereabouts of Mr Ibragim Idrisov remain unknown. 28.  On 11 February 2002 the applicant lodged an official complaint with the Shali district prosecutor’s office requesting assistance in the search for her husband. 29.  On 13 February 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59053 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 30.  On 20 February 2002 Major A.Sh., the head of the VOVD, issued a report stating that Mr Ibragim Idrisov had been detained on 27 January 2002, placed in the VOVD’s temporary detention ward and then released on 2 February 2002. His vehicle remained on the VOVD premises. 31.  On 8 August 2002 the investigators informed the applicant that the proceedings in respect of the criminal case had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 32.  On 14 January 2003 the investigation was resumed. 33.  On numerous occasions between 2002 and 2004 the applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance of her husband and requested assistance in the search for him. She received letters in reply stating, in particular, that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish her husband’s whereabouts. 34.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 35.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Magomed Dadulagov, who was born in 1951. 36.  On 9 December 2003 Mr Magomed Dadulagov was buying sugar at the market in Nazran, Ingushetia when a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a grey UAZ-469 (tabletka) vehicle without registration plates. The servicemen forced Mr Magomed Dadulagov into the vehicle and drove off to an unknown destination. His GAZ-2410 vehicle, in which he had driven to the market, also disappeared. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. 37.  The whereabouts of Mr Magomed Dadulagov remain unknown. 38.  On 31 December 2003 the Nazran town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 03560091 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 39.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the law‑enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Magomed Dadulagov was available. 40.  On 8 January 2004 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 41.  On 15 January 2004 the investigators questioned Mr S., who worked at the market. He stated that on 9 December 2003 a Chechen man had arrived in a GAZ-2410 vehicle and had asked to buy sugar from him. When Mr S. had come out of his kiosk with sugar and change he had seen this man lying on the ground. He had been surrounded by about seven men, some of them wearing balaclavas. One of the assailants had threatened the market tradespeople with a gun and told them all to stand still. Then the assailants had forced the Chechen man into a UAZ-469 vehicle and had left. One of them had got into the driving seat of the above-mentioned GAZ-2410 vehicle and had followed behind the UAZ-469. Some of the abductors had been of Slavic appearance; others had been of Asiatic appearance. They had carried firearms with silencers. In Mr S.’s opinion, this had been a planned operation by the secret services. The next day the son of the abducted man had come searching for him; Mr S. had returned to him the money left by his father. 42.  On 31 March 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 43.  On several occasions between 2006 and 2010 the applicant complained to various State authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her husband. Some replies contained statements to the effect that the necessary operational activities were being carried out. 44.  On 23 January 2014 a lawyer retained by the applicant sent a request to the head of the Nazran Investigative Committee asking him to provide him with copies of certain case-file documents. On 6 February 2014 he received a reply that the investigation had been suspended on 31 March 2004. 45.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 46.  According to the Government, on 25 May 2015 the Shali Town Court of the Chechen Republic (Шалинский городской суд Чеченской Республики), at the applicant’s request, declared Mr Magomed Dadulagov dead. 47.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Rizvan Bashayev, who was born in 1962. 48.  On 20 December 2000 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 20 February 2001) Mr Rizvan Bashayev left his sister’s house in Grozny and never returned. 49.  The whereabouts of Mr Rizvan Bashayev have remained unknown ever since. 50.  On 26 January 2001 Zavodskoy District police station in Grozny opened a search file (розыскное дело – no. 102004) in respect of Mr Rizvan Bashayev. It is unclear whether any measures for establishing his whereabouts were undertaken. 51.  On an unspecified date in 2002 the Grozny District Court of the Chechen Republic – in response to a request lodged by the applicant – declared her husband missing. The court found, in particular, that Mr Rizvan Bashayev had disappeared on 20 December 2000 after his arrest at a roadblock in the village of Komsomolskoye. The court also referred to the applicant’s statements that she had lodged a complaint with Zavodskoy District police station, whose officers had been searching for her husband, but to no avail. 52.  On 29 October 2005 a police officer from Zavodskoy District police station interviewed Ms S., the sister of Mr Rizvan Bashayev. She stated that on 21 December 2001 at around 3 p.m. her brother had come to visit her at the market, where she worked. After having a meal with her at a café, he had left the café to have a smoke but had promised to return. She had not seen her brother since. 53.  On 31 October 2005 the Zavodskoy District prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 41209 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). 54.  On 20 and 23 November 2005 the investigators questioned the relatives of Mr Rizvan Bashayev, who gave statements that were similar to that of Ms S. 55.  On 26 November 2005 Ms S. was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. 56.  On 28 November 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene. 57.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 58.  On various dates the investigators sent several requests for information to the law-enforcement authorities. Most of the responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Rizvan Bashayev was available. 59.  On 31 December 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed thereof. 60.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 61.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Khizir Galtakov (also spelled as Goltakov), who was born in 1969. The first applicant is his wife; the second, third and fourth applicants are his children. The fifth applicant was the mother of Mr Khizir Galtakov; she died in March 2017. 62.  At about 11 p.m. on 17 May 2005 Mr Khizir Galtakov and his friend Mr K. were in the village of Znamenskoye, Chechnya, at the intersection of Shosseynaya Street and the road between Ken‑Yurt and Bratskoye, when a group of about six armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a grey UAZ vehicle without registration plates. The men forced Mr Khizir Galtakov into the vehicle and drove off to an unknown destination. 63.  The whereabouts of Mr Khizir Galtakov remain unknown. 64.  On 18 May 2005 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction of her husband and requested assistance in the search for him. A few hours later a task force examined the crime scene. 65.  On 28 May 2005 the Nadterechniy district prosecutor’s office in Chechnya opened criminal case no. 49007 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 66.  On 1 June 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 67.  On 2 June 2005 the investigators questioned Mr K., whose statement concerning the circumstances of Khizir Galtakov’s abduction was similar to the applicants’ submissions to the Court. 68.  Over the next few days the investigators questioned several other witnesses who had found out about the events of 17 May 2005, mostly from Mr K. or through hearsay. 69.  The investigators also sent several requests for information to the law-enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Khizir Galtakov was available. 70.  On 28 July 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof on 11 January 2007. 71.  On 9 September 2008 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior issued a certificate confirming the circumstances of Mr Khizir Galtakov’s abduction, as described by the applicants. 72.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 73.  On 31 October 2008 the Nadterechniy District Court in the Chechen Republic declared Mr Khizir Galtakov a missing person. 74.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Sharudi Obrugov, who was born in 1980. The first applicant is his father and the second applicant is his mother. The third applicant was his brother; he died on 28 May 2011. 75.  At about 5 p.m. on 14 August 2002 Mr Sharudi Obrugov was with his friends at the crossroads of Melnichnaya and Lugovaya Streets in Argun when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in a white VAZ-2107 car with tinted windows and a Gazel minivan without registration plates. Speaking Russian, the servicemen ordered Mr Sharudi Obrugov and his friends to lie face down on the ground and to put their hands behind their backs. Having searched them and checked their identity documents, the servicemen handcuffed Mr Obrugov, forced him into the minivan and drove off to an unknown destination. 76.  Immediately after the abduction, the first applicant went to the Argun military commander’s office, where one of the officers confirmed that his son had been detained by military servicemen. The first applicant also learned from the officer that Mr Sharudi Obrugov had been transferred to the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala. 77.  The whereabouts of Mr Sharudi Obrugov remain unknown. 78.  On 18 September 2002 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Argun Town Police Office regarding the abduction of his son. 79.  On 1 October 2002 the Argun town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 78094 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 80.  On 19 October 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status. 81.  On the same date the investigators questioned Mr I.I. and Mr A.A., two friends of Mr Sharudi Obrugov who had witnessed his abduction. They affirmed the account of events submitted by the applicants. 82.  On 25 October 2002 the investigators sent a letter to the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) asking whether any security operation had been carried out on 14 August 2002 and whether Mr Sharudi Obrugov had participated in any illegal armed groups on the territory of the Chechen Republic. The FSB replied in the negative. 83.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the law‑enforcement authorities. Most of the responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Sharudi Obrugov was available. 84.  On 1 December 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 8 May 2003 and suspended again on 8 June 2003. 85.  On 2 June 2005 the investigation was resumed. On 20 June 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene and the house where Mr Sharudi Obrugov had lived before his abduction. On 2 July 2005 the investigation was suspended. 86.  In 2007 operational search activities aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Mr Sharudi Obrugov were carried out. Police officers interviewed his neighbours and relatives and examined cemeteries, but to no avail. 87.  On 19 February 2010 the second applicant requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be informed of any progress in the proceedings. Her request was refused. 88.  On 21 May 2010 the second applicant requested the investigators to grant her full access to the criminal case file. Full access was granted. 89.  On 9 October 2010 the investigation was resumed. The investigators sent several requests for information to the law-enforcement authorities and questioned Mr A.A., the second applicant and the cousins of Mr Sharudi Obrugov. The investigators also ordered a forensic DNA examination. 90.  On 29 November 2010 the investigation was suspended. At the same time, the investigators ordered that operational search activities be carried out, with the aim of establishing the whereabouts of Mr Sharudi Obrugov. 91.  On 5 October 2011 the investigation was resumed. The first applicant was granted “civil claimant” status (гражданский истец) in the criminal case. On 6 October 2011 the investigation was suspended. 92.  On several occasions between 2002 and 2010 the applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance of their son and requested assistance in the search for him. In reply they received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their son’s whereabouts. 93.  On 13 January 2012 the NGO Materi Chechni, acting on behalf of the second applicant, asked the head of the Chechen Parliamentary Committee on the search for the Disappeared (Комитет Парламента Чеченской Республики по поиску лиц, без вести пропавших в период проведения контртеррористической операции) for assistance in the search of Mr Obrugov. On 12 March 2012 the investigators replied that operational search activities were being undertaken in order to establish his whereabouts. 94.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 95.  On 23 September 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic steps. On 18 October 2010 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that on 9 October 2010 the investigation had been resumed. On 8 December 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 96.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ayub Bakhayev, who was born in 1979. The first applicant is his mother, the second applicant is his brother, and the third applicant is his sister. 97.  At about 1 p.m. on 13 October 2001 Mr Ayub Bakhayev left his home at 25a Melnichnaya Street in Argun to go to the pharmacy. He was heading towards the pharmacy when a group of approximately six armed servicemen in military uniforms and balaclavas arrived in two VAZ-2106 vehicles with registration plates allegedly comprising the digits “680 95 RUS” and “689 95 RUS”. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen threatened passers-by with firearms and warned them to stand still. Then they searched Mr Ayub Bakhayev, forced him into one of the vehicles and drove to the premises of the Argun district military commander’s office. 98.  Subsequently, on several occasions, both of the above-mentioned vehicles that had been used by the abductors were seen unrestrictedly entering the premises of the commander’ office. 99.  Following the abduction, the applicants went to the commander’s office, where one of the officers confirmed that Mr Ayub Bakhayev had been arrested. 100.  The whereabouts of Mr Ayub Bakhayev have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the first applicant. 101.  On 15 October 2001 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their relative. 102.  On 20 January 2002 the Argun inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 78009 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 103.  On 23 January 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status. 104.  On 25 December 2002 the first applicant was questioned. She gave the same account of events as that which she submitted to the Court. 105.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the law‑enforcement authorities. Most of the responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Mr Ayub Bakhayev was available, that no security operation had been carried out on 13 October 2001, and that there was no information concerning the VAZ-2106 vehicles. 106.  On 20 March 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. Subsequently, it was resumed on 20 November 2002 and again suspended on 30 December 2002. 107.  On 28 April 2004 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Argun town prosecutor, asking that the investigation be resumed. 108.  On 7 May 2004 the Argun town prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed. The applicant was informed thereof. 109.  On 10 June 2004 the investigation was suspended again for failure to identify the perpetrators. 110.  In 2007 the Argun Town police station carried out operational search activities aimed at establishing the whereabouts of Mr Ayub Bakhayev. The police questioned the first applicant and several witnesses and sent requests for information to various authorities. 111.  On 3 March 2010 the first applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed and that she be informed of any progress in the investigation. In reply, the investigators informed her that the proceedings had been suspended and that operational search activities were in progress with the aim of establishing the whereabouts of her son. 112.  On 21 May 2010 the applicant requested that she be granted access to the investigation file. No reply was made to this request. 113.  On 7 October 2010 the investigators’ supervisor ordered that the investigation be resumed. 114.  On 17 October 2010 the first applicant was questioned again. She gave a detailed account of the circumstances of the abduction of her son that was similar to that which she submitted to the Court. 115.  On 19 October 2010 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the DNA taken from the first applicant’s blood. 116.  From 8 until 10 November 2010 the investigators questioned several witnesses, including the applicants’ neighbours. 117.  On 15 November 2010 the investigation was suspended and subsequently resumed on 24 June 2011 after the investigators’ superior pointed out several defects in the investigation. The investigators sent several requests for information to State authorities concerning the two above-mentioned VAZ-2106 vehicles and to this end questioned three witnesses about those vehicles; their statements did not provide any pertinent information. 118.  On 24 July 2011 the investigation was suspended again. On 5 October 2011 it was resumed; the first applicant was informed thereof. On the same day she was granted “civil claimant” status in the criminal case. 119.  On 6 October 2011 the investigation was suspended. 120.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 121.  On 23 September 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps. On 13 October 2010 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that on 7 October 2010 the investigation had already been resumed. On 17 November 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 122.  The first applicant was the mother of Mr Said-Emin (also spelled as Sayd‑Emi and Sayd-Emin) Ocherkhadzhiyev, who was born in 1967. She died on 2 April 2014. The second applicant, Mr Adam Ocherkhadzhiyev, is the brother of Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev. 123.  In January 2000 the Russian federal forces conducted an extensive military operation against members of illegal armed groups in Grozny. The town was subjected to shelling and sweeping-up operations. By the end of January 2000 the central parts of the city, including the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny, were under the Russian forces’ control (see Umayeva v. Russia, no. 1200/03, § 79, 4 December 2008, and Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 16 and 41, 24 February 2005). 124.  On 19 January 2000 Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev left his home in the settlement (поселок) of Katayama in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny, accompanied by the second applicant. They went to the settlement of Michurina in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny to visit a relative. A neighbour, Mr S.Kh., joined them. On their way there they came across an armoured personnel carrier (APC) carrying Russian servicemen. The servicemen wore military uniforms, spoke unaccented Russian and were of Slavic appearance. They opened fire and wounded Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev. Meanwhile, the second applicant and Mr S.Kh. managed to hide behind a building and escaped the shooting. The servicemen picked the wounded Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev off the ground, put him into the APC and drove off to an unknown destination. 125.  The whereabouts of Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev remain unknown. 126.  As soon as the shelling in Grozny was over, the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. 127.  On 19 June 2001 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 17073 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 128.  On 27 July 2001 the first applicant was granted victim status. 129.  The investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. In particular, it was suspended on 19 August 2001 for failure to identify the perpetrators; the applicants were not duly informed of this decision. The investigation was resumed on 24 November 2005 and suspended on 24 January 2006, resumed again on 18 January 2010 and suspended on 28 February 2010, then resumed on 8 November 2010 and suspended again on 8 December 2010. 130.  On 10 May 2011 the first applicant lodged a request with the investigating authority for the resumption of the investigation into the disappearance of her son. She also asked the investigators to question the second applicant and Mr S.Kh. 131.  On 11 May 2011 the investigation was resumed. 132.  On 12 May 2011 the investigators questioned the second applicant, who gave the same account of events as that which he submitted to the Court. In addition, he stated that he had not given testimony earlier because he was afraid of coming to the investigating authorities as a witness to the above-mentioned events. 133.  On 14 May 2011 the investigators questioned Mr S.Kh., whose statement was very similar to that of the second applicant. 134.  In some of their replies to requests for information lodged by the applicants regarding Mr Said-Emin Ocherkhadzhiyev, the investigators indicated that he had disappeared during a counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic. 135.  On 16 May 2011 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 19 October 2011 and suspended on 20 October 2011, then resumed on 18 April 2012 and suspended on 8 May 2012. 136.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 137.  On 13 January 2010 and 12 August 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny challenging the investigators’ decisions to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic steps. On 7 April 2010 and 22 November 2010 the court rejected that complaint, having found that the decisions to suspend the proceedings had already been annulled and the investigation resumed. On 22 December 2010 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the decision of 22 November 2010. 138.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev, who was born in 1980. The second and the third applicants are his brother and sister. 139.  On 5 April 2003 Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev, the second applicant and a group of about five or six residents of different neighbouring villages went into the mountains nearby the settlement of Ulus-Kert in the Shatoy district of Chechnya to pick wild garlic (allium ursinum). Having finished picking in the evening on the same date, they headed down from the mountains in the direction of the road, where a vehicle was waiting to take them home. Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev walked ahead of the group. Somewhere on the path to the road a group of about ten-fifteen military servicemen stopped Mr Mazhiyev. Having witnessed this, the second applicant and other fellow villagers tried to approach and help Mr Mazhiyev, but the servicemen threatened them with firearms and ordered them to lie down on the ground and stay still. The servicemen were of Slavic appearance; they were wearing paratroopers’ military uniforms and spoke unaccented Russian. All of them were armed and equipped with portable radio sets. After the servicemen had taken Mr Mazhiyev away, the second applicant and the others got up from the ground. They went down the mountain to their vehicle, hoping that Mr Mazhiyev would be waiting for them there, but they could not find him. 140.  The next day, the second applicant, together with other relatives, went to a military unit stationed in the village of Dachu‑Barzoy. One of the officers, who introduced himself as Valeriy, informed them that Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev had been detained by military servicemen; those servicemen had brought him to the 45th regiment, which was stationed in the village of Khattuni. 141.  The whereabouts of Mr Alikhan Mezhiyev remain unknown. 142.  According to the applicants, immediately after the above events they abstained from lodging any official complaints, fearing for their lives and the life of their missing relative. On 29 June 2003 they lodged a complaint with the authorities regarding the abduction, requesting that a criminal investigation be opened. 143.  On 29 July 2003 the Vedeno district prosecutors’ office opened criminal case no. 24058 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 144.  On 29 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The first applicant was informed thereof. 145.  On 14 and 28 April 2010 the first applicant requested information about progress in the proceedings. She also asked to be granted access to the investigation file. 146.  On 15 June 2010 the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment informed the first applicant that the investigation file had been lost and that measures were being taken to retrieve it. 147.  On 1 July 2010 the acting head of the Shali inter-district investigations department ordered that the criminal case file be retrieved. 148.  On 5 July 2010 the applicants were informed that the investigation had been resumed. It was subsequently suspended on 4 August 2010, then resumed on 9 June 2011, suspended on 11 July 2011, then resumed on 13 July 2011 and suspended again on 25 July 2011. 149.  On 20 July 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 150.  On 21 July 2010 the second applicant was questioned as a witness. He gave the same account of events as that which he submitted to the Court. 151.  On the same date, another brother of Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev was questioned as a witness. He had been told of the events of 5 April 2003 by the second applicant. 152.  On 22 July 2010 the investigators questioned the third applicant. She confirmed that on the day following the abduction of her brother her relatives had gone to the military unit stationed in Dachu‑Barzoy village. They had been told by the chief serviceman that Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev had been held in the village of Khattuni. 153.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the law‑enforcement authorities and to various hospitals. The responses stated that no information about Mr Alikhan Mazhiyev was available. 154.  On 2 August 2010 the investigators lodged a request with the head of the Vedenskiy District police station for a properly secured on-site examination to be organised of the area between the settlements of Ulus‑Kert and Selmintauzin. The military commander informed him in reply that such an examination was impossible because the officers of the FSB were carrying out special operations in that area. 155.  On 14 April 2011 the first applicant obtained the investigators’ permission to study the case file. 156.  On 25 June 2011 the first applicant was questioned again. 157.  On 15 July 2011 the investigators questioned a police officer who had been working in the villages of Tevzana and Khatuni since 2001. He stated that in 2003 various units of the FSB, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Defence and the Main Intelligence Service of the Ministry of Defence (6-й отдел ГРУ) in Grozny had been stationed on the outskirts of the village of Khattuni. 158.  On numerous occasions between 2003 and 2011 the applicants complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the disappearance and requested assistance in the search for their relative. In reply they received letters stating that their complaints had been examined or forwarded to other authorities for examination and that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their relative’s whereabouts. 159.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 160.  On 16 May 2011 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court challenging the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps. On 14 June 2011 the court rejected that complaint, having found that several days earlier, on 9 June 2011, the investigators had resumed the proceedings. On 29 July 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the above decision on appeal. 161.  The first applicant was the mother of Ms Tumisha (also spelled as Tumishat) Sadykova, who was born in 1959. She died on 22 October 2014. The second applicant is the sister of Ms Tumisha Sadykova. 162.  At the material time, Ms Tumisha Sadykova worked at a car wash on Subbotnikov Street in Grozny. A regional department of the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency was located across the street. 163.  At about 2 p.m. on 15 March 2006 Ms Tumisha Sadykova and her relative, Mr Kh.Kh., were at the car wash, when a group of about ten armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived in VAZ‑21099 and UAZ-469 vehicles without registration plates. The men forced Ms Tumisha Sadykova and Mr Kh.Kh. into the UAZ vehicle and drove off to an unknown destination. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. 164.  Mr Kh.Kh. was released later on the same date somewhere in Grozny (see below). 165.  At some point after the abduction, one of Ms Tumisha Sadykova’s colleagues (named Adam) and a relative of the applicants (named Aslanbek) – both of whom assisted the applicants in the search for Ms Tumisha Sadykova – obtained information concerning the possibility of her being released in exchange for money. The two men asked the applicants to give them money in the amount allegedly demanded of them in exchange for Mr Tumisha Sadykova’s release. According to the applicants, they paid the amount requested, but Ms Tumisha Sadykova was not released. As can be seen from the case file, the investigators were subsequently informed of those developments. 166.  The whereabouts of Ms Tumisha Sadykova have remained unknown ever since the day of her abduction. 167.  On 16 August 2006 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that an investigation be opened. 168.  On 30 September 2006 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 50176 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 169.  On the same date the first applicant was granted victim status. 170.  On 2 October 2006 the first applicant was questioned by the investigators. 171.  On 9 and 10 October 2006 the investigators questioned two eyewitnesses to the abduction, Mr L-A.Ch. and Mr R.Kh. Their statements about the events of 15 March 2006 were similar to the applicants’ submissions to the Court. In addition, Mr R.Kh. stated that one of the armed men had asked him in Chechen where the entrance to the café was. 172.  On 14 October 2006 and 6 April 2010 the second applicant was questioned. She affirmed the account of the abduction given above. 173.  On 8 November 2006 the investigators questioned Mr A.S. (the father of Ms Tumisha Sadykova), who stated in particular that some time after the abduction, two men (a colleague of his daughter named Adam and a relative of his family) – both of whom had been engaged in the search for Ms Tumisha Sadykova – had asked him to hand over to them the amount of money allegedly demanded by way of a ransom for her release. He had paid the amount requested, but Ms Tumisha Sadykova had not been released. 174.  The investigators lodged several requests for information with the law-enforcement authorities; those authorities’ responses contained statements to the effect that no information about Ms Tumisha Sadykova was available. 175.  On 30 November 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 176.  A number of operational search activities aimed at finding Ms Tumisha Sadykova were carried out by police officers in 2010. In particular, on 26 April 2010 they examined the crime scene at the car wash. Those steps yielded no tangible results. 177.  On 8 April 2009 a relative of the applicants requested the Chechen Parliament for assistance in the search for Ms Tumisha Sadykova. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request. 178.  On 31 March 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigation be resumed. On 16 June 2011 her request was granted and the investigation was resumed. It was suspended on 16 July 2011 and again resumed on 27 January 2012. 179.  On 10 February 2012 the investigators questioned the second applicant. She stated, in particular, that after the first Chechen war, from 1997 until 1999, her sister, Ms Tumisha Sadykova, had worked at the Ministry of Sharia National Security (Министерство Шариатской Государственной безопасности) during the period when Aslan Maskhadov had been President of Chechnya. 180.  On 24 February 2012 the investigation was suspended. On 31 May 2012 that decision was annulled by the Leninsky district prosecutor’s office , which pointed out several defects in the investigation. Consequently, on 4 June 2012 the investigation was resumed. 181.  On 7 June 2012 Mr Kh.M. was questioned. He stated that in March 2006 he met Ms Tumisha Sadykova at the car wash. During their conversation, an UAZ-469 vehicle had arrived; four armed man in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas had got out of the vehicle. They had demanded in Russian and in Chechen that Mr Kh.M. show them his identity documents. When he had attempted to present his official identification issued by the law-enforcement agency, where he worked, the men had grabbed him and forced him into his VAZ‑21140 car. He had not seen what had happened to Ms Tumisha Sadykova. The men had told him that they would take him to the settlement of Khankala. On their way there they had checked his service identity document over the radio. Having verified that he did in fact work at the law-enforcement agency, the men had stopped the car. An UAZ-469 vehicle had arrived; the men had got out of Mr Kh.M.’s car and told him to stay in his car without moving for about fifteen minutes. Then they had got into the UAZ-469 vehicle and had left. Mr Kh.M. had informed the relatives of Ms Tumisha Sadykova of the circumstances of her abduction. 182.  On 8 June 2012 the investigators questioned another witness, Mr B.M., who had seen several armed men forcing Ms Tumisha Sadykova into the UAZ-469 vehicle and Mr Kh.M. into the VAZ-21140 car. The men had spoken Russian and Chechen. 183.  On 4 July 2012 the investigation was suspended. On 8 April 2014 that suspension was overruled by the Leninsky district prosecutor’s office. Consequently, on 14 April 2014 the investigation was resumed. 184.  The investigator sent several requests for information to various medical institutions. The responses contained statements to the effect that Ms Tumisha Sadykova had not sought medical treatment in those institutions. 185.  On 14 May 2014 the investigation was suspended. 186.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 187.  On 20 December 2011 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny challenging the investigators’ decision of 16 July 2011 to suspend the proceedings. On 27 January 2012 her complaint was rejected, as the proceedings had already been resumed. On 29 February 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal. 188.  For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice and for international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012).