5.  The applicant was born in 1995 and lives in Republic of Dagestan. 6.  On 26 June 2012 Mr N. reported to the inter-district investigative committee that, since 2010, his minor daughter, the applicant in the present case, had been repeatedly forced to have oral and anal sex with eleven men over a period of almost two years from October or September 2010 to June 2012. The men had filmed the events and had threatened to disclose this information to the public should the applicant refuse to comply with their demands. 7.  In response to a complaint lodged by the applicant’s father, the authorities instituted a preliminary inquiry during which P., an investigator, questioned the applicant (who provided a detailed account of the above-mentioned events), subjected the applicant to a gynaecological examination (which did not detect any traces of sexual assault on the applicant’s body), conducted an inspection of the locations where the alleged rapes had taken place and collected wet towel wipes found at the location of the “T.L.” area (the applicant having explained that one of the rapists had wiped himself with a towel wipe). The wipes were sent for forensic examination. The investigator also questioned six of the men accused by the applicant of having raped her. They all denied her allegations. The investigator examined the mobile telephones belonging to those men and found none of the video recordings mentioned by the applicant. 8.  On 18 July 2012 the applicant’s lawyer submitted a DVD with a video recording of one of the alleged occasions. 9.  On 20 July 2012 the investigator examined the video recording. Having discerned no visible traces of injuries on the applicant’s body, he concluded that the applicant had been engaging in oral sex voluntarily. 10.  Having examined the material obtained in the course of the inquiry, P., the investigator, discerned no evidence to support the applicant’s allegations of rape and on 26 July 2012 issued a decision declining to open a criminal investigation against the alleged perpetrators. 11.  On 2 August 2012 the head of the inter-district investigative committee quashed the decision of 26 July 2012, noting that the investigator had not questioned all the alleged perpetrators and had failed to obtain the results of the forensic examination. 12.  On 12 August 2012 P. declined to open a criminal investigation. The relevant decision reiterated verbatim the wording of the decision of 26 July 2012. 13.  On 17 August 2012 the deputy head of the investigative committee quashed the decision of 12 August 2012, noting that the investigator had failed to comply with the decision of 2 August 2012. 14.  On 27 August 2012 P. issued a decision declining to open a criminal investigation. The wording of that decision reiterated that of his earlier decisions and added that the forensic examination of biological material obtained from one of the perpetrators had not been completed. The said decision was quashed by the deputy head of the investigative committee on 4 October 2012. 15.  On 3 November 2012 P., the investigator, declined to open a criminal investigation. He based his findings on the material collected in the course of the first inquiry. In addition, he relied on the statements made by the other three alleged perpetrators and the results of the forensic analysis, according to which the sperm found on the towel wipes could belong to Dzh.N. or K.G. 16.  On 28 November 2012 the head of the investigative committee opened a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape. 17.  On 15 January 2013 the applicant was granted the status of victim of a crime and advised of her procedural rights. 18.  On several occasions the investigator questioned the alleged perpetrators. The submissions that they made during that questioning are summarised in Annex I below. 19.  On 10 and 11 March 2013 M.G., Dzh.A., K.G., Dzh.N., Sh.D., M.M., N.A., and M.Kh. were arrested and remanded in custody on the charges of rape. 20.  On 13 and 19 March 2013 they were released. 21.  On 17 June 2013 the forensic expert prepared a report concerning the examination of the flash memory drives of six mobile telephones which the investigator had earlier obtained from the alleged perpetrators. The expert indicated that it was impossible to restore the flash memory drives of the phones because the laboratory did not have the necessary equipment. 22.  On 9 August 2013 the forensic expert concluded that the genetic material collected at the location indicated by the applicant could not have originated from Dzh.A., K.G. or Dzh.N. 23.  On 4 October 2013 an investigator, Z., ordered that the applicant undergo a polygraph test. On 7 October 2013 the applicant underwent the test. According to the polygraph specialist’s report, the applicant had been telling the truth when she had said that M.G. had sexually assaulted her at the B. Hotel, that he had blackmailed her and that he had slapped her. 24.  On 9 October M.G. underwent a polygraph testing. The polygraph specialist concluded, on the basis of the answers provided by M.G., that it was probable that he had blackmailed or threatened the applicant and had coerced her into performing oral sex on him at the B. Hotel. 25.  On 6 December 2013 D., an investigator, suspended the investigation. 26.  On 13 January 2014 the first deputy head of the republican investigative committee determined that the criminal investigation had been incomplete and perfunctory and quashed the decision of 6 December 2013, ordering a further investigation. 27.  On 25 February 2014 D. discontinued the criminal investigation, noting that there was no evidence, except for the applicant’s statements, implicating seven of the alleged perpetrators. 28.  On 16 May 2014 D. discontinued, on similar grounds, the criminal investigation against M.G. and A.P. 29.  On 20 June 2014 the Sovetskiy District Court dismissed a complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision of 25 February 2014. On 20 August 2014 the Supreme Court upheld the said decision on appeal. 30.  On 28 January 2015 the deputy head of the second division of the republican investigative committee quashed the decision of 16 May 2015 and reopened the criminal investigation against M.G. and A.P. On the same date he discontinued the criminal investigation. 31.  On 29 January 2015 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 16 May 2014. On 1 April 2015 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic upheld the decision of 29 January 2015 on appeal. 32.  On 1 September 2015 the District Court quashed the decision of 29 January 2015. 33.  On 30 September 2015 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 20 June 2014 and 20 August 2014. 34.  On 2 October 2015 the investigative committee reopened the criminal investigation against M.G. and A.P. 35.  On the same date the investigative committee discontinued the criminal investigation. 36.  On 27 October 2015 the District Court accepted the applicant’s argument that the investigation had been incomplete and found the decision of 25 February 2014 to have been unlawful. 37.  After the reopening of the case, the investigator questioned Dzh.A., K.G., Dzh.N. and Sh.D. 38.  On 30 January 2016 the criminal investigation was discontinued. The investigator relied on the statements made by the applicant, her parents and the alleged perpetrators, and forensic evidence. He also indicated in the decision to discontinue the investigation that he had received a response from the relevant mobile-telephone service providers that they had not been able to obtain and submit information concerning mobile communications between the applicant and the alleged perpetrators. The investigator concluded as follows:
“... the allegations that [the applicant was raped] are confirmed only by [the applicant] and her parents ... who learned about them from [the applicant]. The [applicant’s] allegations contradict the statements of many witnesses and the forensic evidence. [The alleged perpetrators] denied the [applicant’s] accusations. They maintained their innocence in [the applicant’s] presence.
The investigation has not produced any additional evidence that would support the [applicant’s] allegations. The [sexual] crimes were committed in the absence of witnesses, and obtaining proof of those crimes has become problematic. It should be also taken into consideration ... that a significant amount of time has passed since the crimes were committed.” 39.  On 18 November 2016 the Government were requested to submit a complete investigation file in the applicant’s case. 40.  On 29 March 2017 the Government submitted an incomplete copy of the material from the case file (comprising 898 pages, including seventeen pages containing nine tables of contents). According to the tables of contents, the complete case file comprised nine volumes totalling 1,882 pages. No explanation was given for the failure to submit the complete case file, as had been requested. 41.  In particular, the Government did not submit any of the material referred to by the investigator in his decision of 30 January 2016 as regards mobile communications between the applicant and the alleged perpetrators.