5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Sunzha, Ingushetia. The applicant is the father of Mr Maskhud Makhloyev, born in 1982. 6.  At the time of the events in question the applicant, his wife and their children, including Mr Maskhud Makhloyev, resided at 55 Pavlov Street (a family house comprising two buildings and a shared courtyard), in the village of Ordzhonikidzevskaya, Ingushetia. At the relevant time, two police checkpoints were located in the vicinity of the village. 7.  On 26 December 2006 Mr Maskhud Makhloyev was arrested and detained on suspicion of involvement in an attack on local policemen. On the same date the Sunzhenskiy District prosecutor’s office ordered a search of the applicant’s family house. During the search Mr Maskhud Makhloyev’s passport was seized, together with several other items. 8.  The applicant submitted that he had had no news about his son following the arrest. It was only after four days that he had found out that his son had been kept in the Sunzhenskiy District’s temporary detention facility. 9.  On 27 December 2006 the Sunzhenskiy District Court declared that the search of 26 December 2006 had been lawful (see paragraph 7 above). 10.  On 26 April 2007 the criminal proceedings against Mr Maskhud Makhloyev were terminated for lack of evidence of his guilt and he was released from custody. 11.  The applicant submitted that law-enforcement agents had searched his house again on 31 October 2008 and 5 January 2009. On the first occasion they had looked for weapons but had not found anything. On the second occasion, the search had been conducted at 3 a.m. and the applicant and his family had been requested to present their passports. Mr Maskhud Makhloyev had not been at home at the time. 12.  On 14 August 2009 Mr Maskhud Makhloyev was wounded by an unidentified person on the street. The applicant submitted that police officers had visited his son in hospital and had threatened to kill him and his family members. 13.  On the night of 29 October 2009 the applicant and his wife were sleeping in their family home with their children, including Mr Maskhud Makhloyev. They were awoken at about 3.30 a.m. when seven to eight armed men in camouflage uniforms, wearing masks and carrying machine guns (Kalashnikov) and bullet-proof shields, broke into the applicant’s courtyard. 14.  Having heard the noise, the applicant and his wife ran out of their house to the courtyard. The armed men pointed the guns at them and ordered them to stand up against a wall. They did not identify themselves; according to the applicant, they spoke Russian with no accent. The applicant asked what they wanted from them, but the men did not reply. They used portable radios to communicate with each other. 15.  The armed men then broke into the house in which the applicant’s daughters were sleeping. They took his two daughters into the courtyard and put them next to their parents. They then forced them all into one room of their house and ordered them to stay there. 16.  In the meantime the men went upstairs to the room shared by the applicant’s sons, Ibragim and Maskhud. During all that time his third son, A.M., remained in his room. After approximately ten minutes the men left. The applicant, his wife and daughters went up the stairs and found their son Ibragim on the floor, tied up with adhesive tape, his shirt pulled over his head and his mouth covered with adhesive tape. He told them that around seven to eight men had broken into the room, beaten up him and Maskhud, and then taken Maskhud away. 17.  The applicant’s neighbour, L.S.M., later told the applicant that she had seen four vehicles driving away from his home: a Gazel minivan, a UAZ minivan and a UAZ car. She had been unable to see the model of the fourth vehicle. 18.  On 29 October 2009 Mr Ibragim Makhloyev underwent a medical examination which confirmed that he had sustained bodily injuries. 19.  The applicant has had no news of Mr Maskhud Makhloyev since his abduction. 20.  The Government were invited to provide an entire copy of the case file opened into the abduction of Mr Maskhud Makhloyev. The relevant information from the criminal case file and that provided by the applicant can be summarised as follows. 21.  On 29 October 2009 the applicant complained of his son’s abduction by unidentified persons to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office. 22.  An on-site investigation was conducted on the same day. Photographs were taken of the applicant’s house and various objects therein, including the adhesive tape which had been used on Mr Ibragim Makhloyev. 23.  On 2 November 2009 an investigator of the Sunzhenskiy District investigations department of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Ingushetia (“the prosecutor’s office”) sent numerous requests concerning the disappearance of the applicant’s son to various State bodies, such as local police departments of different districts of Ingushetia and the Department of the Federal Security Service in Ingushetia (“the FSS”). 24.  On 10 November 2009 the prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings into the disappearance of the applicant’s son under Articles 126 § 2 (aggravated kidnapping) and 222 § 2 (illegal possession of firearms) of the Russian Criminal Code. The case file was assigned number 09600131. 25.  The investigation established that at around 3.30 a.m. on 29 October 2009 about ten to twelve unidentified armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms had broken into the applicant’s house, inflicted bodily injuries on Mr Ibragim Makhloyev and kidnapped Mr Maskhud Makhloyev. The latter’s whereabouts were unknown. 26.  On 11 November 2009 the applicant’s neighbour, L.S.M., was questioned as a witness. She said that at around 3.30 a.m. on 29 October 2009 she had heard the noise of vehicle engines. Looking from her window she had seen four cars – a Gazel minivan, a UAZ minivan and a UAZ car (she had been unable to discern the model of the fourth vehicle) – driving in the direction of Rabochaya street in the village. She had been unable to see the colour of the vehicles or their registration plates. 27.  On 12 November 2009 the applicant’s wife was questioned as a witness. Her account of the events of 29 October 2009 was the same as the applicant’s (see paragraphs 13-16 above). 28.  On 13 November 2009 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. His account of the events of the night in question was the same as the one presented to the Court (see paragraphs 13-16 above). He further stated that their family had not been in a blood feud with anyone and that to his knowledge his son had not had any enemies. In response to the investigator’s question whether he had suspected why his son had been abducted, the applicant answered in the negative. 29.  On the same date Mr Ibragim Maskhudov was questioned as a witness. His account of the events of 29 October 2009 was the same as the one presented to the Court by the applicant (see paragraphs 13-16 above). 30.  On 13 and 14 November 2009 the registration logs of the police checkpoints “Angara – 120” and “Kerch-Kavkaz 1”, located in the vicinity of the applicant’s village, were examined. 31.  On 14 November 2009 the prosecutor’s office asked the Ministries of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, Karachayevo-Cherkessiya, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria and Alania to check whether Mr Maskhud Makhloyev had been detained on their respective territories or whether his dead body had been found there. They also asked for information concerning any compromising material about the applicant’s son which might have been found. It transpires that those requests yielded no relevant information. 32.  On the same date an analogous request was sent to the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia. It was also asked to identify the police officers who had been on duty at the “Angara – 120” and “Kerch-Kavkaz 1” checkpoints on the night of 28 to 29 October 2009 and to request that they report to the prosecutor’s office for questioning. The same request was sent again on 5 April 2010. 33.  On 15 November 2009 the applicant’s third son, A.M., and a daughter, R.M., were questioned as witnesses. They both said that they did not know why their brother had been kidnapped; they were not aware of any conflict he might have had with anyone. A.M. stated that during the events in question he had stayed in his room (see paragraph 16 above). 34.  On 16 November 2009 the applicant was questioned again. He said that after the abduction his family had noticed that his son’s mobile phone was missing. Other than that, the applicant confirmed his previous statement. 35.  On the same day the prosecutor’s office ordered the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 68799 to examine the vehicle registration logs kept at the FSS’s checkpoints in order to check whether UAZ vehicles and a Gazel vehicle had left or entered the FSS on the night of 28 to 29 October 2009. If so, the military prosecutor’s office was to ask the FSS servicemen who had been on duty at the checkpoints at the relevant time and the servicemen who had travelled in those vehicles where they had been driving to and whether they had detained Mr Maskhud Makhloyev. 36.  On 17 November 2009 a medical examination of Mr Ibragim Makhloyev was ordered. A forensic expert’s opinion produced on an unspecified date concluded that he had sustained moderate damage to his health. 37.  On the same day the investigator in charge of the case applied for judicial authorisation of access to all call logs for the night of 28 to 29 October 2009 kept by mobile-phone providers operating in the area. On 18 November 2009 he also applied for access to the logs of all incoming and outgoing calls to and from Mr Maskhud Makhloyev’s mobile phone as from 29 October 2009. 38.  On 18 and 19 November 2009 the investigator in charge of the case requested Mr Maskhud Makhloyev’s medical information and his criminal record from the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia. 39.  On 19 November 2009 the FSS informed the prosecutor’s office that they had not arrested Mr Maskhud Makhloyev and had not carried out any special operations at the applicant’s family house (see paragraph 23 above). 40.  On the same day the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia informed the prosecutor’s office that Mr Maskhud Makhloyev was known to the police as a follower of Wahhabism, an extremist religious movement. He had not been known for alcohol or substance abuse. 41.  On 20 November 2009 the Sunzhenskiy District Court granted the investigators’ requests and ordered the mobile-phone providers to submit the information sought (see paragraph 37 above). It would appear that no relevant information was gathered from the inspection of the call logs. 42.  On 23 November 2009 two FSS officers, Y.I.G. and P.Y.I., were questioned as witnesses. On the night in question they had been on duty at the single checkpoint controlling vehicular access to the FSS. They both stated that from 11 p.m. on 28 October to 4 a.m. on 29 October 2009 no vehicles had passed through the checkpoint. Their statements were confirmed by copies of the entries in the car registration logs. 43.  On the same day two other FSS officers who served in the Sunzhenskiy Unit, T.R.E. and L.Y.Dz., were questioned. They testified that at the material time no special operation had been carried out in respect of Mr Maskhud Makhloyev. 44.  On 24 November 2009 the prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the investigation was ongoing and that the measures taken thus far had not been able to establish the whereabouts of his son or the identity of the alleged perpetrators. 45.  On 8 December 2009 the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Chechnya informed the prosecutor’s office that according to their information, Mr Maskhud Makhloyev was a member of an illegal armed group led by a certain A.M.B.Y., which was operating in Sunzhenskiy District in Ingushetia. 46.  On the same day the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia informed the prosecutor’s office that they had not carried out any special operation at the material time at the applicant’s family house. 47.  On 10 December 2009 the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia informed the prosecutor’s office that according to their information, Mr Maskhud Makhloyev was a member of a criminal group called “Caliphate” led by A.M.B.Y. 48.  Between 3 March and 15 June 2010 several of the applicant’s neighbours were questioned as witnesses. They all stated that they had heard about the abduction of Mr Maskhud Makhloyev from his family, but had no direct knowledge of the event themselves. 49.  On 5 April 2010 the prosecutor’s office requested a copy of the case file and medical documentation concerning the incident of 14 August 2009 (see paragraph 12 above) from the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia. On 6 April 2010 they were informed that the case file had been destroyed in a terrorist attack on 17 August 2009. 50.  On 6 April 2010 the police officers who had been on duty at checkpoint “Angara 120” at the material time, M.A.L., Z.M.M. and M.I.M., were questioned as witnesses (see paragraph 32 above). They all stated that on the night of 28 to 29 October 2009 a convoy consisting of a Gazel minivan, a UAZ minivan and a UAZ car had not passed their post. 51.  On 7 April 2010 the same statements were given by the police officers who had been on duty at checkpoint “Kerch-Kavkaz 1” at the material time, A.R.O. and Kh.A.Kh. 52.  On 19 April 2010 the head of the prosecutor’s office instructed a special investigator, M.A.K., to establish the whereabouts of the adhesive tape which had been shown in the photograph included in the minutes of the inspection of the crime scene (see paragraph 22 above), to remove it and, if necessary, to order its expert analysis. It would appear that those instructions were not carried out. 53.  On 5 June 2010 the applicant was questioned again by the prosecutor’s office. The questions concerned the charges brought against Mr Maskhud Makhloyev in 2006 and the incident of 14 August 2009 (see paragraphs 7 and 12 above). The applicant reiterated his previous statements and added that he did not know who had shot at his son on 14 August 2009 and for what reason. 54.  On 2 July 2010 the prosecutor’s office requested all regional ministries of the interior to perform operational search activities to establish the whereabouts of Mr Maskhud Makhloyev. It would appear that no response was received to those requests. 55.  On 27 July 2010 the applicant submitted a request to the prosecutor’s office to inform him about the results of the preliminary investigation. On 9 August 2010 he was informed that he could consult the case file on any day except at weekends. 56.  On 10 August 2010 the investigator in charge of the case suspended the preliminary investigation for failure to establish the identity of the alleged perpetrators. It was stressed that the investigation had followed two possible versions of the incident in question: that the reason for abduction could had been a blood feud or hostility towards Maskhud Makhloyev; or that he had been detained by the law-enforcement agencies and kept in a military or other detention facility. Despite the investigative measures taken, the investigation had been unable to establish the identity of the alleged perpetrators. 57.  On 8 October 2010 the applicant submitted another request to the prosecutor’s office, asking for permission to make photocopies of the documents in the case file. The applicant claimed that it was on this occasion that he had found out that the investigation had been suspended. 58.  On 13 October 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Magasskiy District Court of Ingushetia (“the District Court”) under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the decision of 10 August 2010 to suspend the investigation. 59.  On 26 October 2010 the District Court rejected his appeal. 60.  On 3 November 2010 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court of Ingushetia (“the Supreme Court”). On 28 December 2010 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal and upheld the decision of 26 October 2010. 61.  According to the latest information available to the Court (dated 28 June 2018), there have been no new developments in the case and Mr Maskhud Makhloyev’s whereabouts remain unknown. 62.  On 25 February 2010 the prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings concerning the bodily injuries caused to Mr Ibragim Makhloyev. On the same day those proceedings were joined to the proceedings concerning the abduction of Mr Maskhud Makhloyev. 63.  On 1 March 2010 Mr Ibragim Makhloyev was granted victim status. 64.  On 3 March 2010 Mr Ibragim Makhloyev was questioned again. He reiterated his previous statements.