5.  The applicants are:
(1) Ms Umidat Mukhtarova, who was born in 1942,
(2) Ms Manash Mukhtarova, who was born in 1965,
(3) Ms Mariya Umarova, who was born in 1950,
(4) Mr Lechi Umarov, who was born in 1942,
(5) Ms Zara Umarova, who was born in 1977.
The second applicant lives in Grozny. The other four applicants live in the village of Kharsenoy, Chechnya. 6.  The first and second applicants are the mother and the sister of Mr Sharpudi (also spelled as Sharpuddi and Sharpudin) Mukhtarov, who was born in 1975. The third and fourth applicants are the parents of Mr Zaurbek (also spelled as Zovrbek) Umarov, who was born in 1975 (in the documents submitted the year was also stated as 1981). The fifth applicant is his sister. 7.  The circumstances of the case can be summarised as follows. 8.  At the relevant time Mr Sharpudi Mukhtarov lived with his family in the camp for refugees from Chechnya in the village of Nesterovskaya, Ingushetia. At about 3.30 p.m. on 1 November 2003 he and his friend Mr Zaurbek Umarov were on the outskirts of the village when a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived in a military UAZ and VAZ‑2106 vehicles without registration numbers. The servicemen were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian; some of them were wearing balaclavas. They put Mr Mukhtarov and Mr Umarov on the ground threatening them with weapons, then forced them into the vehicles and drove off in the direction of Ordzhonikidzevskaya village. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses. 9.  On 16 May 2008 an interview with Mr Umarov appeared in a television programme broadcast by the Russian television news channel NTV (НТВ). The second applicant provided this information to the investigators (see below). 10.  The whereabouts of Mr Sharpudi Mukhtarov and Mr Zaurbek Umarov have been unknown since the date of their abduction. 11.  Immediately after the abduction the first applicant informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. 12.  On 18 November 2003 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 23600076 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code concerning the abduction of Mr Mukhtarov. The decision stated that it was taken following the first applicant’s complaint. 13.  On 8 December 2003 Mr M.M., the father of Mr Sharpudi Mukhtarov, was granted victim status and questioned. 14.  On 6 January 2004 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor gave instructions to the investigators. He indicated, in particular, that Mr Zaurbek Umarov, who had been abducted together with Mr Mukhtarov, was wanted by law-enforcement authorities on account of his participation as a member of an illegal armed group in a shootout with the authorities in October 2003 in Troitskaya village. 15.  On 13 January 2004 the investigators requested an extension of the investigation’s time frame, stating, amongst other reasons, that there were grounds to suspect that the abduction of Mr Sharpudi Mukhtarov was linked to his friendship with Mr Zaurbek Umarov. 16.  On 18 March 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The investigators’ decision stated that Mr Mukhtarov and Mr Umarov had been abducted together. Mr M.M. was informed about this decision by a letter of 20 March 2004. 17.  On 14 August 2008 the investigation was resumed. 18.  On 15 August 2008 the first applicant was granted victim status upon her request (see paragraph 34 below). 19.  On 19 August 2008 the investigation was suspended again. 20.  On 24 November 2008 the investigation was resumed following the second applicant’s submissions to the investigators about the TV interview with Mr Umarov (see paragraph 35 below). 21.  On 29 November 2008 Ms. E.E., Mr Zaurbek Umarov’s wife, was granted victim status. The investigators’ decision stated that her husband Mr Zaurbek Umarov had been abducted together with Mr Mukhtarov. 22.  On 24 December 2008 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 30 March 2009. 23.  On 1 April 2009 the Sunzhenskiy District Court of Ingushetia granted the investigators’ request and allowed the seizure of the video containing the interview with Mr Umarov from the NTV channel. 24.  On 30 April 2009 the investigators sent a request to the NTV channel. In reply NTV informed them that the video recording of the programme had already been destroyed owing to the expiry of the conservation period. 25.  On the same date the investigation was suspended. The whereabouts of both Mr Sharpudi Mukhtarov and Mr Zaurbek Umarov remain unknown. 26.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 27.  On 15 January 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who denied that Mr Mukhtarov had been involved in illegal armed groups. 28.  On 22 January 2004 the investigators questioned Ms Z.I., the Mukhtarov family’s neighbour, who had witnessed the abduction. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above and stated that the abductors had been wearing military uniforms and had looked a lot like law-enforcement officers. 29.  On 4 February 2004 the investigators questioned a police officer from the Sunzhenskiy district department of the interior (police station), Mr M.R. He confirmed that Mr Zaurbek Umarov was among those who had offered armed resistance to law-enforcement officers in October 2003 in Troitskaya village. 30.  Between 5 and 20 February 2004 the investigators questioned Mr A.I., Ms D.M. and Ms Z.Kh., who had also witnessed the abduction. They confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 31.  On 15 August 2008 the first applicant was questioned again. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. 32.  On 19 November 2008 the investigators questioned Ms E.E. She stated that she had learnt about the circumstances of Mr Umarov’s abduction from her mother-in-law (the third applicant) and that she had not lodged any complaints in that connection. On 16 May 2008 around 8.30 p.m. she had seen an interview with her husband, whom she had identified with certainty in a television programme, lasting about five minutes. She had not informed the investigators of this fact. 33.  On an unknown date the investigators questioned Ms Z.E., who was the mother of Ms E.E. She confirmed that she had also seen the interview with Mr Umarov in the TV programme. She had identified Mr Umarov by facial features and a scar on his face. Ms Z.E. learnt from the programme that he had been sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. 34.  On 4 August 2008 the first applicant informed the investigators about the death of her husband, Mr M.M., and asked to be granted victim status in the criminal case. 35.  On 12 November 2008 the second applicant informed the investigators of the television programme in which Mr Zaurbek Umarov had appeared (see paragraph 9 above). She stated that she had learnt about it from some acquaintances and asked the investigators to obtain a copy of the programme. 36.  On 3 March 2009 the second applicant’s lawyer asked the investigators to be allowed to read the investigation file and make copies of the documents. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request. 37.  On 29 April 2009 the first applicant asked the investigators to provide her with copies of documents from the investigation file. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request. 38.  On several occasions between 2003 and 2009 the first applicant complained to various law-enforcement authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her son. Her complaints were forwarded to the investigators. In reply she received letters stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish her son’s whereabouts. 39.  On 27 August 2011 the second applicant requested information about any progress in the proceedings. She also asked to be granted victim status in the criminal case. The outcome of this request is unknown. 40.  According to the fifth applicant’s submissions to the Court, Mr Umarov’s relatives had learnt about his abduction from Mr Mukhtarov’s relatives on 1 November 2003. They complained about the incident to the local police and Sunzhenskiy district police station. Despite their complaints, the criminal case was opened only on 18 December 2003. The third, fourth and fifth applicants had received no news about the whereabouts of Mr Umarov since then. The fifth applicant also stated that she had seen the interview with her brother on television in May 2008. 41.  On 7 September 2005 the NGO Memorial, acting on behalf of Ms Z.U., Mr Umarov’s sister, asked the public prosecutor of Ingushetia whether any criminal case had been instituted into Mr Umarov’s disappearance. 42.  On 3 October 2005 the prosecutor’s office of Ingushetia informed Ms Z.U. and the NGO Memorial that the criminal case into the abduction of Mr Mukhtarov and Mr Umarov had been opened on 18 November 2003, and that the investigation had been suspended.