5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who at the material time lived in the neighbouring regions of the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in these regions in 2000-04 after allegedly being unlawfully detained by service personnel. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants had no news of their missing relatives thereafter. 6.  In each of the cases the applicants complained in respect of the abduction to law-enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. In every case the investigations, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. It is apparent from the documents submitted that no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya, Ingushetia and the North Caucasus. Further to such requests, the authorities generally reported that service personnel’s involvement in the abduction had not been established and that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time. The applicants also lodged requests for information and assistance in the search of their missing relatives to various authorities but received only formal responses, if any. The perpetrators have never been established by the investigating bodies. 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 by the applicants and their relatives and/or other witnesses to the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. Despite the Court’s request to this end, the Government did not submit the documents from the investigation files in each application. They did not dispute the principal facts of the cases as presented by the applicants, but denied that the abductors had been State service personnel. 8.  The applicant is the mother of Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev, who was born in 1986. 9.  The applicant’s husband and two sons, who were ten and eleven years old at the material time, died during shelling of Grozny in 1994. When military operations were launched in Chechnya in 1999, the applicant with two other children moved to Nazran, Ingushetia where they lived as refugees. 10.  On 28 May 2000 the applicant’s son, Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev, who was thirteen years old at the time, left Nazran and went to Grozny by bus. He was taken off the bus by service personnel at a checkpoint near the canning factory in Grozny because he did not have identity documents. Then he was forced into an APC and taken away. While being taken to the APC, Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev shouted out his name and the applicant’s name and asked the bus passengers to inform her of his arrest. 11.  The circumstances of the abduction were confirmed by bus passengers’ statements submitted to the Court. 12.  The whereabouts of Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev have remained unknown ever since. 13.  According to the applicant, she reported the abduction immediately to the local military command in Grozny, the Office of the Prosecutor of Chechnya and various NGOs. 14.  On 14 July 2000 the applicant complained in respect of the abduction again to the Leninskiy district police station and asked for assistance in the search for her son. 15.  On 21 July 2000 the Leninskiy district police station opened search file (розыскное дело) no. 30/48 into the abduction. Between May and September 2000 police officers took steps to establish Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev’s whereabouts but to no avail. 16.  On 18 December 2000 the Leninskiy district police station refused to open a criminal case into the abduction of Mr Shamil Amirkhadzhiyev. 17.  On 19 August 2001 the applicant complained in respect of the abduction to the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Southern Federal District and asked him for assistance in the search for her son. 18.  On 29 July 2005 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 40147 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 19.  On 14 September 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She stated that she had visited all checkpoints in Grozny trying to find her son but to no avail. Near the canning factory she had met women who had been trading at the local market. They had told her that a teenager who had looked like her son had been forced into an APC and taken away. 20.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the law‑enforcement authorities. According to the responses, it was established that Mr Amirkhadzhiyev had been arrested and taken away by service personnel of the federal forces. The responses contained statements that no information about Mr Amirkhadzhiyev was available. 21.  On 29 September 2005 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 19 January 2006 and suspended again on 20 February 2006. 22.  On 4 June 2010 the applicant requested that the investigators provide her with copies of documents from the investigation file. On 8 June 2010 the applicant’s request was granted. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 23.  According to the applicant, between 2000 and 2010 she contacted various authorities, including the investigators, seeking their assistance in the search for her son, but to no avail. 24.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev, who was born in 1979. The first applicant is his mother, the second applicant is his brother and the third applicant is his sister. 25.  On 11 July 2002 service personnel under the command of General I.B. carried out a “sweep” operation in Chechen-Aul. As she was afraid for her son’s safety, the first applicant told Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev to go to her sister, who lived in Belgatoy village. 26.  On their way to Belgatoy Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev and Mr M.Z. were passing by the Argun river, when the service personnel saw them and opened fire. It is unclear whether it was Mr Vatsayev or Mr M.Z. who was injured and fell to the ground on the bank. The other man jumped into the river and was carried away by the strong current. The service personnel picked up the injured man and took him away to an unknown destination. 27.  The eyewitnesses did not see which of the two men had been injured and who had jumped into the water. According to the applicants, the injured man must have been Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev, as his passport was later found on the bank. 28.  The whereabouts of Mr Said-Magomed Vatsayev have remained unknown ever since. 29.  On 23 July 2002 the first applicant reported the abduction to the Head of the Government of the Chechen Republic. 30.  On 9 September 2002 the first applicant complained of the abduction to the Grozny district police station. 31.  In October 2002 police officers interviewed several relatives of Mr M.Z. and the first applicant. They confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 32.  According to the applicants, on several occasions between 2002 and 2005 they complained of the police’s failure to take necessary investigative steps to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office. 33.  In December 2005 the Grozny district police station carried out additional preliminary enquiries into the applicants’ abduction complaint. 34.  On 21 December 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office examined the results of its preliminary enquiries and pointed out that contrary to the relevant procedural regulations, no operational search activities had been carried out by the Grozny district police station since 2002. 35.  Following the prosecutor’s office’s criticism, the head of the police station sent several requests for information to the law-enforcement authorities. The responses contained statements that no information about Mr Vatsayev was available. 36.  On 24 January 2006 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 54006 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). 37.  On 30 January 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status. According to the applicant, on several occasions between 2006 and 2011 she contacted the authorities with requests for assistance in the search for her son. 38.  On 24 March 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 4 June 2011, then suspended on 16 June 2011 and resumed again on 21 July 2011. 39.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 40.  On 1 July 2011 the applicants challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation of 16 June 2011 and their failure to take basic steps before the Grozny District Court. On 22 July 2011 the court terminated the proceedings having found that the day before the investigation had been resumed. On 24 August 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal. 41.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev, who was born in 1964. The first applicant is his wife and other applicants are his children. 42.  Around 5 a.m. on 17 July 2002 several armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants’ house in Shali. Another group of service personnel also broke into the house of Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev’s brother, which was situated nearby. The service personnel, who spoke unaccented Russian, asked for the identity documents of Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev. After checking them, the service personnel handcuffed Mr Chapsurkayev. Then they pulled his shirt over his head, forced him into the one of three APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and drove off in the direction of Shali town centre. One of the service personnel filmed the events on a video camera. The abduction took place in the presence of the applicants and their neighbours. 43.  The whereabouts of Mr Khamzat Chapsurkayev have remained unknown ever since. 44.  On 24 October 2002 the first applicant lodged an official complaint in respect of her husband’s abduction with the authorities and requested assistance in the search for him. 45.  On 29 November 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59267 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 46.  On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the events as described above. 47.  On 29 January 2003 the investigation was suspended. The first applicant was informed thereof. 48.  On 3 July 2003 the first applicant complained of the abduction to the military prosecutor of Shali and requested assistance in the search for him. 49.  On 17 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20166 replied to the applicant’s complaint, stating that on 17 July 2002 their service personnel had neither carried out any special operation nor detained anyone. 50.  In 2005 the first applicant complained about the abduction to the State Council of the Chechen Republic. It is unclear whether her complaint was forwarded to the investigators and whether any reply was given to it. 51.  On 30 November 2006 the first applicant again complained to the Shali district prosecutor in respect of the abduction. It is unclear whether she received any reply. 52.  On 29 February 2010 the first applicant requested that the investigators resume the investigation and grant her access to the case file. No reply was given to this request. 53.  However, following the above request, on an unidentified date in June 2010 the investigation was resumed. 54.  On 13 July 2010 the investigators questioned the first applicant. 55.  On 22 and 26 July 2010 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Mr A.D., who confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 56.  On 6 May 2012 the first applicant requested that the investigators inform her of the progress in the investigation. On the same day she challenged the investigators’ decision of 29 January 2003 to suspend the investigation and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court. The outcome of the court proceedings is unknown. 57.  It appears that the investigation is still pending. 58.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev (in the documents submitted also referred to as Lorsanukayev, Lorsunukayev, Lorsankayev), who was born in 1961. The second applicant is his wife. 59.  At the relevant time Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev lived as a refugee in Nazran, Ingushetia. On 10 May 2002 he went with his relative, Ms Ya.S., to Grozny to visit his brother Mr A.L. At around 2 p.m. on 12 May 2002 Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev, his brother and two neighbours, Mr V.B. and Mr S.E., were playing cards in Mr A.L.’s flat when a group of eight or nine armed service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke in. Without any explanation, they pulled Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev’s shirt over his head, took him barefoot outside and forced him into a UAZ minivan (таблетка) with tinted windows. The vehicle had no registration numbers. The service personnel spoke Russian and Chechen. 60.  Mr. V.B. attempted to inform the service personnel that he was a police officer from the Leninskiy district police station in Grozny. The service personnel disregarded this information, kicked him and then pushed him to the floor together with Mr. S.E. Then the service personnel took Mr A.L. outside and put him in a UAZ vehicle in which Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev was being held. Ms Ya.S. tried to stop the service personnel, but they hit her with their rifle butts and drove away. Five minutes later the service personnel pushed Mr A.L. out of the UAZ vehicle and proceeded to an unknown destination. 61.  The whereabouts of Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev have remained unknown ever since. 62.  About three weeks after the abduction a man visited Mr A.L. and passed him a written message from Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev. The message, written on an empty cigarette box, stated “I am here”. According to the man, that cigarette box had been thrown out of a vehicle parked near the building of the Federal Security Service in Grozny. 63.  On 20 June 2002 Mr A.L. complained to the Grozny prosecutor’s office of the abduction of his son and requested assistance in the search for him. 64.  On 24 July 2002 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 48116 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 65.  On 6 August 2002 Ms Ya.S. was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 66.  On the same day the investigators questioned Mr A.L. and his wife. They confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 67.  On 24 September 2002 the investigation was suspended. According to the applicants, between 2002 and 2008 they contacted the investigators and other authorities asking for information on the progress of the investigation. 68.  On 15 July 2008 the first applicant requested that the investigators inform her of the progress of the investigation, resume the investigation and allow her access to the case file. She stated, in particular, that they had passed the message from Mr Alvi Lorsnukayev to the investigators. 69.  On 23 July 2009 the investigation was resumed. 70.  On 20 August 2009 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 71.  On 22 August 2009 the investigation was suspended. 72.  On 29 June 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the case file. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request. 73.  On 20 April 2012 the second applicant asked the investigators to provide her with the copies of the investigation-file documents. It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request. 74.  On 30 August 2012 the investigation was resumed. It appears that it is still pending. 75.  On 26 June 2012 the second applicants challenged the investigators’ decision of 22 August 2009 to suspend the investigation before the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny. On 8 August 2012 the complaint was transferred to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny. On 31 August 2012 that court terminated the proceedings, having found that a day earlier the investigation had been resumed. On 24 October 2012 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld this decision on appeal. 76.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Arbi Isiyev, who was born in 1985. The second applicant is his sister. 77.  Around 1 p.m. on 29 September 2004 Mr Arbi Isiyev left his home in Argun to visit his aunt, who lived in the same town. When Mr Arbi Isiyev was walking down Gudermesskaya Street, several service personnel in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas forced him into a white GAZ-3110 car and took him to an unknown destination. Mr Arbi Isiyev managed to throw 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB) on the ground and asked a passer-by, Mr R.D., in Chechen (so that the service personnel could not understand him) to give that money to his relatives. The abduction took place in the presence of Ms S.Sh. and Mr R.D. 78.  Mr Arbi Isiyev has not been seen since. 79.  On 30 September 2004 the applicants’ relative, Mr I.K., complained of the abduction to authorities. 80.  On 23 October 2004 the Argun town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 48042 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). 81.  On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings. 82.  Between October and December 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant and the witnesses Ms S.Sh. and Mr R.D. They confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above. 83.  On 23 December 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was resumed on 18 February 2008 and suspended again on 18 March 2008. 84.  In 2009 the first 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 for her son. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who on 18 May 2009 replied that that the investigation had been suspended and that operational search activities were being carried out to establish Mr Isiyev’s whereabouts. 85.  On 22 April 2010 and then again on 22 July 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her access to the investigation file. 86.  On 1 August 2011 the applicants’ request was granted. 87.  On 26 October 2011 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 26 November 2011. 88.  On 4 September 2012 the applicants requested that the investigators inform them of the progress in the investigation. 89.  On 11 September 2012 the investigation was resumed. It appears that the investigation is still pending. 90.  On 17 October 2011 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation of 18 March 2008 and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court. On 17 November 2011 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that on 26 October 2011 the investigation had been resumed. On 21 December 2011 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld that decision on appeal. 91.  On 7 September 2012 the applicants challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation of 26 November 2011 before the Shali Town Court. On 17 September 2012 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that on 11 September 2012 the investigation had been resumed. On 31 October 2012 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld that decision on appeal.