I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in MAKHMUDOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 10 other applications.

Information

• Judgment date: 2018-12-20
• Communication date: 2015-08-26
• Application number(s): 22983/10
• Country:   RUS
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 2, 2-1, 3, 5, 5-1, 13
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.76426
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicants are thirty four Russian nationals listed in the Appendix.
They live in various villages and towns in the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia.
The applicants are close relatives of the fifteen men who were allegedly abducted between 2002 and 2011 by servicemen from various places in Chechnya and Ingushetia.
The circumstances of the applications as presented by the applicants can be summarised as follows.
A.
General information pertaining to all of the applications The applicants are close relatives of men who disappeared after having been abducted by servicemen from their homes and public places in Chechnya and Ingushetia.
In each of the applications the events took place in the areas under full control of the military forces.
The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives thereafter, except for Mr Sukhrap Makhauri, whose body was discovered six and a half months after the abduction in the Grozny morgue.
In each of the cases the applicants complained about the abduction to law enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted.
In some of the cases the applicants complained of the ill-treatment of their relatives by the abductors.
In each case the proceedings, after having been suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results.
According to all of the applicants, they have not been regularly informed of the progress in the criminal proceedings.
Some of the applicants have been provided with partial access to the investigation files.
In all of the cases the applicants requested information about the progress of the proceedings from the investigative authorities; in response they received formal letters stating either that the investigation was in progress or that their requests had been forwarded to another law enforcement agency for examination.
No active investigative steps were taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions in Chechnya and the North Caucasus.
According to the applicants, the authorities either failed to take the most important investigative steps, such as questioning of witnesses to the abductions, or they took those essential steps with significant and inexplicable delays.
B. Peculiarities of the individual applications Summaries of facts for each of the applications and the most important investigative steps taken by the authorities are outlined below.
1.
Application no.
22983/10 Makhmudova and Others v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ismail Makhmudov, who was born in 1976: 1) Ms Tamara Makhmudova, who was born in 1950 and lives in Oiskhar village, the mother; 2) Mr Umar Makhmudov, who was born in 1949 and lives in Grozny, the father; 3) Ms Medina Makhmudova, who was born in 1979 and lives in Oiskhar village, the wife; 4) Ms Aminat Makhmudova, who was born in 2002 and lives in Oiskhar village, the daughter; 5) Mr Ruslan Makhmudov, who was born in 1971 and lives in Oiskhar village, the brother; 6) Mr Aslanbek Makhmudov, who was born in 1983 and lives in Oiskhar village, the brother.
They are not legally represented.
(a) Abduction of Mr Ismail Makhmudov and subsequent events (i) Abduction of Mr Ismail Makhmudov At about 7 p.m. on 4 January 2003 a grey UAZ minivan (“tabletka”) without registration numbers, which according to the applicant belonged to the Gudermes district department of the interior (the ROVD), parked in the street near the applicants’ house.
At 8 p.m. Mr Ismail Makhmudov left his house and when he was passing by the UAZ, ten armed men in camouflage uniforms, some of them in balaclavas, jumped out of the vehicle.
They surrounded Mr Ismail Makhmudov, forced him into the vehicle and drove off to an unknown location.
Mr Ismail Makhmudov has not been seen since.
At around 7 p.m. a police officer, Mr O. M. (whose initials were also spelled as U. M.), noticed the UAZ vehicle in the village and five armed men, two of whom were in balaclavas, in it.
When he asked them what they were doing, they replied that they were fixing an electric wire.
On that date, 4 January 2003, the applicant’s neighbours also saw the UAZ vehicle in the applicants’ street.
One of them, Mr Kh.
R., saw Mr Ismail Makhmudov walking in the street in the direction of that vehicle.
(ii) Subsequent events On 5 January 2003 the first applicant went to the Gudermes ROVD, where she met police officer Mr L. Kh.
who told her that they had already taken Mr Ismail Makhmudov back home.
On 9 January 2003 the other police officer, S. T., mentioned to her that Mr Ismail Makhmudov had threatened him on several occasions, and, therefore, he would not hesitate to detain her son.
(b) Official investigation of the abduction On 5 January 2003 the applicants complained about the abduction to the Gudermes ROVD.
On 9 January 2003 the Gudermes ROVD refused to initiate a criminal investigation into the incident for the lack of corpus delicti.
On 21 January 2003 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office overruled the above refusal and opened criminal case no.
32004 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 20 March 2003 the first applicant (Ms Tamara Makhmudova), was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
On 28 May 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators.
Then on an unspecified date the criminal proceedings were resumed.
On 15 September 2003 the prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that Mr Ismail Makhmudov’s whereabouts remained unestablished, the perpetrators were not identified and that the police officers of the Gudermes ROVD were not involved into the alleged abduction.
On 1 March 2004 the applicants requested access to the investigation file.
On 18 March 2004 the investigators refused to grant the applicants’ request stating that they would be able to access the file only upon the completion of the investigation.
Between 2004 and 2008 the applicants requested information about the progress of the investigation from various authorities and in reply received formal letters stating either that the investigation was in progress or that their requests had been forwarded to another law enforcement agency for examination.
On 25 May 2005 the criminal case was suspended for failure to establish the perpetrators and then on 7 April 2008 the investigators resumed the criminal proceedings.
On 19 May 2008 the investigation was again suspended.
On 21 November 2008 the Gudermes district investigations committee requested the operative-search Bureau no.
2 of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (ORB-2) as well as the Federal Security Service (the FSB) to provide information concerning possible involvement of Mr Ismail Makhmudov into criminal activities.
On 13 December 2008 and on 21 January 2009 the ORB-2 and the FSB replied that they did not have such information.
Between 2008 and 2012 the criminal proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions.
Meanwhile, the applicants lodged a number of requests to various authorities asking for assistance in the search for their relative but to no avail.
The investigation is still pending.
2.
Application no.
44116/10 Timerbulatova v. Russia The applicant is Ms Saydat Timerbulatova (also spelled as Temirbulatova) who was born in 1940 and lives in Gudermes, Chechnya.
She is not legally represented.
The applicant is a relative of three abducted persons.
She is the mother of Mr Ali Timerbulatov (also spelled as Temirbulatov), who was born in 1977 and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova, who was born in 1963 and the stepmother of Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov, who was born in 1956.
(a) Ill-treatment and abduction of Mr Ali Timerbulatov, Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova and subsequent events (i) Ill-treatment of Mr Ali Timerbulatov, Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova On 13 August 2001 the applicant’s son Mr M. T. was apprehended by the military servicemen in Belorechiye village and handed over to the Gudermes district department of interior (the Gudermes ROVD).
According to Mr M. T., on 16 August 2001 when he was held in the temporary detention facility of Gudermes ROVD (IVS), he was visited by his relatives Mr Ali Timerbulatov (brother), Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova (sister) and Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov (brother-in-law).
His relatives were detained on the spot by the police officers, who beat Mr Ali Timerbulatov and Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov in front of him and threatened to rape Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova to make him confess to illegal activities.
At some point later Mr M. T. confessed to commission of a number of crimes, including terrorist acts and was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment.
After the above incident the relatives of Mr M. T. complained of their ill‐treatment by police officers to the various authorities.
(ii) Subsequent events On 7 January 2002 a police officer S. T. took Mr M. T. outside of the detention facility and organised meeting with his sister Ms T. T. Mr M. T. told her to ask the relatives to stop complaining about their ill-treatment owing to the threats for further repercussions he received from the police officers.
(iii) Abduction of Mr Ali Timerbulatov At 9 a.m. on 11 January 2002 several armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicant’s house in Gudermes in a green UAZ minivan (“tabletka”) and a white VAZ-2106.
The applicant’s household consisted of two houses in shared courtyard.
The armed servicemen broke into the house where Mr Ali Timerbulatov and his wife resided and blocked the door of the second house with the applicant and her sister inside.
They forced Mr Ali Timerbulatov into one of the vehicles and drove off in the direction of the railway bridge, where a permanent checkpoint manned by military servicemen was located.
(iv) Subsequent events On or about 19 January 2002 Mr Ali Timerbulatov was taken to cell no.
5 in the IVS of the Gudermes ROVD.
Mr M. T. was held in cell no.
11 of the same IVS and could talk to his brother through the feeding latch of the cell.
Mr Ali Timerbulatov told his brother Mr M. T. that he had been arrested by police officers S. T. and R. U.
On the next day Mr Ali Timerbulatov was taken away by police officers, including S .T., to an unknown location.
Mr Ali Timerbulatov has not been seen since.
A few days later Mr M. T. was visited by his sister Ms T. T. and told that the police officer S. T. demanded 5,000 US dollars for the release of Mr Ali Timerbulatov.
(v) Abduction of Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova At 6 a.m. on 29 January 2002 several armed servicemen in balaclavas broke into the flat of Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova.
The servicemen took all gold and silver jewelry that Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova sold at the local market and took both Mr Saidal‐Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova away in the white UAZ minivan to an unknown location.
The block of flats was located in about a hundred meters from the Grozny military commander’s office, and the abductors could approach the block of flats only by passing through the Russian military checkpoint located next to the office.
Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova have not been seen since.
(b) Official investigation of the abductions On 25 January 2002 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.
57005 into the abduction of Mr Ali Timerbulatov under Article 126 (abduction) of the Criminal Code.
On 1 February 2002 the same prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.
57006 into the abduction of Mr Saidal-Khadzhi Magomedov and Ms Sovdat Timerbulatova under Article 126 (abduction) of the Criminal Code.
On 29 April 2005 the applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no.
57005.
Between 2002 and 2010 the investigation in both criminal cases was suspended and resumed on several occasions.
The last decision to suspend the investigation in both cases was taken on 31 August 2013.
The investigation is still pending.
3.
Application no.
70640/10 Makhauri v. Russia The applicant is Ms Zelimat Makhauri, who was born in 1953, and lives in Nesterovskaya, the Republic of Ingushetia.
She is not legally represented.
The applicant is the mother of Mr Sukhrap (also spelled as Sukhrop) Makhauri, who was born in 1980.
(a) Abduction of Mr Sukhrap Makhauri At about 4 p.m. on 6 July 2006 a group of about thirty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicant’s house in armoured UAZ vehicles, GAZEL minivans and armoured personnel carriers (APCs).
The servicemen broke into the house and without identifying themselves beat Mr Sukhrap Makahuri unconscious in front of the applicant demanding to tell them where he hid weapons.
He was then thrown into one of the vehicles and taken away to an unknown location.
The applicant has not seen her son since.
(b) Official investigation of the abduction From the documents submitted it follows that the applicant complained of the abduction to a number of law-enforcement authorities.
On 21 August 2006 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.
06600061 under Article 126 (abduction) of the Criminal Code.
On 23 August 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
On 21 November 2006 the criminal case was suspended.
The applicant was informed thereof on 5 February 2009.
On 2 April 2009 the applicant requested the investigators to inform her of the progress in the proceedings and the measures taken to establish the whereabouts of her son.
On the same day the investigators replied to her by sending a copy of text of the letter of 5 February 2009.
According to the applicant, she learned from unidentified sources that the person responsible for the search in their house on 6 July 2006 was Mr G., an investigator from the Chechnya prosecutor’s office.
Therefore, in April 2009 the applicant requested that the investigation be resumed and Mr G. be questioned.
On 20 April 2009 the investigators resumed the proceedings and questioned Mr G., who stated that he had searched the applicant’s house with officers from the Federal Security Service (the FSB).
However, they had not taken Mr Sukhrap Makhauri away and had left without him in the direction of the town of Magas.
On the way over there, Mr G. had received information that as soon as they had left the applicant’s house, Mr Sukhrap Makhauri had received a phone call from a person, who had been wanted by the authorities for the involvement in illegal armed groups.
Mr G. and the officers had immediately returned to the applicant’s house, but Mr Sukhrap Makhauri had already been gone.
On 11 July 2009 the investigation was again suspended.
It is still pending.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators On 17 March 2010 the applicant appealed the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation of 11 July 2009 to the Sunzhenskiy District Court in Ingushetia (the District Court).
She, in particular, stated that a number of witnesses had seen Mr Sukhrap Makhauri being detained and taken away by Mr G. and the FSB officers and, therefore, it was necessary to continue the investigation to clarify the circumstances of the abduction.
On 22 March 2010 the District Court dismissed the complaint stating that the investigators had taken all the necessary steps.
On 6 April 2010 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Ingushetia, which on 11 May 2010 upheld the decision of 22 March 2010.
4.
Application no.
52064/11 Islamova and Tsamarayeva v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Ismail Dashtayev, who was born in 1975: 1) Ms Esyat Islamova, who was born in 1954, the mother; 2) Ms Aza Tsamarayeva, who was born in 1986, the sister.
The applicants live in Noviye Atagi in Chechnya.
They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni.
(a) Abduction of Mr Ismail Dashtayev On 30 January 2002 Mr Ismail Dashtayev and his fellow villager Mr L.‐A.
Ch.
were going home to Noviye Atagi by a taxi from Nazran.
They passed the checkpoint stationed on the junction between Grozny and Shali and three kilometres further, just before the entrance to Noviye Atagi, they were stopped by servicemen who had blocked the road in two APCs.
Speaking unaccented Russian the servicemen asked for identity papers.
They wore camouflage uniforms without identifying insignia, except of the one serviceman who had Colonel’s shoulder straps.
Few minutes later two grey UAZ minivans without registration numbers arrived.
Suddenly, one of the servicemen pointed his gun at Mr Ismail Dashtayev’s head, while the other searched his pockets.
They then put Mr Ismail Dashtayev in one of the UAZ minivans and drove off towards Shali.
When Mr L.-A.
Ch.
asked the servicemen where Mr Ismail Dashtayev was taken, the servicemen shouted at him saying whether he wanted to join him.
Having searched Mr L.-A.
Ch.
the servicemen put a black plastic bag over his head, forced him into the other UAZ minivan and drove him to Shali, where he was released in front of the central district hospital.
Mr Ismail Dashtayev has not been seen since.
(b) Official investigation of the abduction On 31 May 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.
59116 under Article 126 (abduction) of the Criminal Code.
On 2 July 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
On various dates in 2002, 5 March 2004 and 22 February 2008 the applicants requested the Chechnya Prosecutor, the Russian Ministry of Justice and Chechnya Ombudsman to help them in establishing the whereabouts of their relative.
On 17 March 2008 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation suspended on 28 February 2003 had been resumed.
On 19 April 2008 the investigation was again suspended.
The applicants were not informed thereof.
On 10 February 2010 the applicants’ representative forwarded a number of requests to various authorities to establish Mr Ismail Dashtayev’s whereabouts.
On 9 March and 8 April 2010 the Main Military prosecutor’s office forwarded the assistance request to the other military prosecutors’ offices and informed the applicants thereof.
On 7 April 2010 the Shali district prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that they were taking operative-search measures and that the criminal case file had been forwarded for the supervisor’s examination to the North-Caucasus Investigations Committee.
On 26 April 2010 the North Caucasus Military Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicants’ representatives that they did not have ever investigated abduction of Mr Ismail Dashtayev and that they therefore did not have criminal case on that matter.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators On 27 December 2010 the applicants complained to the Shali Town Court of the decision of 19 April 2008 to suspend the proceedings and the investigators’ failure to take all necessary investigative steps.
On 24 January 2011 the Shali District Court dismissed the complaint as on 20 January 2011 the investigators had resumed the investigation.
On 28 January 2011 the applicants appealed.
The applicants, in particular, complained that the District Court had not examined the investigators’ failure to act for a long period of time and that the examination had been held in their absence.
On 6 April 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of the District Court for technical reasons, i.e.
that the District Court should not have dismissed the applicants’ appeal but terminated proceedings as the impugned decision had been overruled by the investigators, and again dismissed the applicants’ appeal.
5.
Application no.
52089/11 Novrzukayeva and Others v. Russia The seven applicants are close relatives of Mr Idris Novrzukayev (also spelled as Novrzakayev, Nouruzukayev, Novzurkayev and Novrznukayev), who was born in 1984, Mr German Abuyev, who was born in 1984 and Mr Abdul-Vab (also spelled as Abdulvab) Dilayev (also spelled as Gilayev and Delayev), who was born in 1984.
1) Ms Tamara Novrzukayeva (also referred to as Naurzukayeva and Novrzakayeva), who was born in 1950 and lives in Agishty, the mother of Mr Idris Novrzukayev; 2) Mr Isa Novrzakayev (also spelled as Novrzukayev and Naurzukayev), who was born in 1949 and lives in Agishty, the father of Mr Idris Novrzukayev; 3) Ms Rumi Magomedkhadzhiyeva, who was born in 1963 and lives in Agishty, the mother of Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev; 4) Ms Manash Abuyeva, who was born in 1973 and lives in Agishty, the sister of Mr German Abuyev; 5) Ms Malkan Abuyeva, who was born in 1970 and lives in Agishty, the sister of Mr German Abuyev; 6) Ms Elima Zakarayeva, who was born in 1980 and lives in Noyber, the sister of Mr German Abuyev; 7) Ms Elita Abuyeva, who was born in 1983 and lives in Grozny, the sister of Mr German Abuyev.
They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya).
(a) Abduction of Mr Idris Novrzukayev, Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev, Mr Isa Novrzakayev and Mr German Abuyev, ill-treatment of Mr Isa Novrzakayev and Mr German Abuyev and subsequent events (i) Abduction of Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev At about 9 a.m. on 14 August 2002 servicemen from the 45th regiment started a “sweeping-up” operation in Agishty village.
At about 10 a.m. that morning, after the servicemen checked his identity documents, Mr Idris Novrzukayev left his house to visit his aunt Ms A. N., who lived in the centre of Agishty.
A few minutes later Ms Rumi Magomedkhadziyeva (the third applicant) also gone out and followed her son, Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev.
In the village centre she saw twenty armed servicemen next to Ms A. N.’s house and two APCs.
According to Rumi Magomedkhadziyeva, Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev were on the ground face down with the hands behind their backs in the courtyard of Ms A. N. When neighbours started to gather, the servicemen quickly forced Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev into the APC with registration plate no.
424 and drove off.
Later on the same day the third applicant and other women went to the temporary military headquarters located at the outskirts of Agishty, where all arrested men from the village were usually held.
She noticed the APC no.
424 parked nearby.
When she asked for the reasons of Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev’s detention, the servicemen replied that they would be released after the identity check.
(ii) Abduction and ill-treatment of Mr Isa Novrzakayev and Mr German Abuyev At about 12 p.m. on the same day, 14 August 2002, servicemen arrived in APC to Mr Isa Novrzakayev’s house (the second applicant) at 20 Molodezhnaya Street.
Five to six servicemen remained outside, while the other twelve broke into the house.
After checking Mr Isa Novrzakayev’s identity papers and searching the house, the servicemen took him outside and forced into APC with registration no.
424.
Mr Isa Novrzakayev saw his son Mr Idris Novrzukayev inside that APC.
One of the servicemen told Mr Isa Novrzakayev that his son had been detained as he had attempted to run away.
Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev was also in the APC.
Mr Isa Novrzakayev and Mr Idris Novrzukayev as well as other detainees were taken to the basement of an abandoned building at the outskirts of Agishty.
Nicknames of two of the servicemen who kept them in that building were “Kvadrat” (Square) and “Otets” (Father).
On the next morning, 15 August 2002, Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev were put to the APC and driven away.
At 3 p.m. on that day another APC arrived with Mr German Abuyev in it.
He was out of the vehicle to the basement, while Mr Isa Novrzakayev was put in it.
The servicemen turned on loud music in the APC but Mr Isa Novrzakayev still could hear Mr German Abuyev’s screams of pain coming from the basement.
When the torture had finished, Mr German Abuyev was taken out of the basement and Mr Isa Novrzakayev was returned to the basement and tortured.
In the basement one of the servicemen held Mr Isa Novrzakayev’s legs, while the other suffocated him.
They then closed Mr Isa Novrzakayev’s nose and poured water in his mouth from a five-litre canister.
Once the canister was emptied, they kicked Isa in the stomach and all of the water came out.
They repeated this for five times.
Then they put Mr Isa Novrzakayev on the table and tortured him with electricity.
Mr Isa Novrzakayev still refused their offer to work for them and the servicemen pulled him from the table on the floor and broke few ribs by jumping on his chest.
Being in pain Mr Isa Novrzakayev begged the servicemen to shoot him, but the servicemen replied “Ah, you want to have an easy death!” and continued jumping on his chest.
Then one of them took the knife and cut Mr Isa Novrzakayev in the groin, so latter started to pass out.
Then servicemen brought a doctor to the basement, who concluded that Mr Isa Novrzakayev would not survive further ill-treatment.
After that the servicemen threw Mr Isa Novrzakayev on the floor and he passed out.
When he regained his consciousness, he discovered that he was lying on the grass behind a building.
Ten minutes later APC no.
424 arrived and took Mr Abdul-Vab Gilayev and Mr German Abuyev away to Khatuni, where the 45th military regiment was stationed.
On 15 August 2002 Mr Isa Novrzakayev was found at the outskirts of Agishty next to the temporary military headquarters.
He did not seek medical help in the hospital as he was afraid of revenge from the servicemen.
(iii) Subsequent events According to the applicants, a certain FSB officer of the military headquarters of the 45th regiment informed them that Mr Idris Novrzukayev and Mr Abdul-Vab Dilayev confessed to membership in illegal armed groups.
The FSB officer and a serviceman promised to release the applicants’ missing relatives in exchange for a gun and a TV set.
The second applicant bought a gun and the third applicant bought a TV set which they handed over to the FSB officer and serviceman.
However, their relatives were not released.
In 2008 the first and third applicants learned from a man, who had been released from a prison in Pyatigorsk, that Mr Idris Novrzukayev, Mr Abdul‐Vab Dilayev and Mr German Abuyev had been allegedly held in that prison in a neighbouring cell.
It appears that the applicants furnished this information to the investigators into the abduction (see below).
(b) Official investigation of the abduction On 21 November 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.
59260 under Article 126 (abduction) of the Criminal Code.
On 21 November 2002 and 14 December 2006 the first and third applicants respectively were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
Between 2002 and 2011 the applicants submitted a number of requests to various investigative, military and other bodies asking for assistance in establishing their relatives’ whereabouts and requesting an effective investigation into the abduction.
In reply they mainly received letters stating that the investigation was in progress and their relatives’ whereabouts where not established.
The investigation is still pending.
6.
Application no.
52167/11 Isiyevy v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Razambek Isiyev, who was born in 1983: 1) Ms Taus Isiyeva, who was born in 1956, the mother; 2) Ms Zarema Isiyeva, who was born in 1980, the sister; 3) Ms Amina Isiyeva, who was born in 2002, the daughter.
The applicants live in Argun, Chechnya.
They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya).
(a) Abduction of Mr Razambek Isiyev and subsequent events (i) Abduction of Mr Razambek Isiyev On 22 July 2002 Mr Razambek Isiyev was driving his purple VAZ‐2106 car with registration number K795RX 50 on the Argun-Shali highway.
At about 3 or 4 p.m. a group of servicemen in APCs stopped his car on the highway and took him to the Federal Security Service (the FSB) office in Argun.
(ii) Subsequent events Later on the same day the first applicant contacted Mr M.
Kh., the head of a unit at the FSB office, where Mr Razambek Isiyev had been hired a day before.
According to Mr M.
Kh., the FSB officer D. Ts.
told him that Mr Razambek Isiyev had been detained for questioning.
At 5 p.m. on 23 July 2002 an APC, UAZ minivan (“tabletka”) and a URAL lorry parked near the garages, next to the applicants’ house.
The first applicant saw her son, Mr Razambek Isiyev inside the UAZ minivan through its opened door.
Her son was pointing in the direction of the garages and explaining something.
He saw his mother but before he could say something the servicemen shut the vehicle’s door and drove off.
At 10 am on 24 July 2002 the same servicemen with Mr Razambek Isiyev arrived at the same place, this time with an excavator and dug the ground.
They did not find anything and left.
On 25 July 2002 the applicant with relatives gathered in front of the military commander’s office in Argun.
Mr M.
Kh., the head of the FSB unit, assured the first applicant that he would bring Mr Razambek Isiyev home.
For the next several days the first applicant visited the office of the military commander and each time Mr M. Kh.
assured her that her son would soon be released.
However, Mr Razambek Isiyev has not been seen since.
(b) Official investigation of the abduction On 3 August 2002 the first applicant complained of the disappearance of her son to the Argun district prosecutor’s office.
On the same date the prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.
78081 under Article 126 (abduction) of the Criminal Code and granted the applicant victim status in the proceedings.
On 3 October 2002 the investigation was suspended and then on 27 January 2004 it was resumed.
On 28 January 2004 the investigation again was suspended.
On 13 July and 5 August 2004 the North Caucasus Military prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicants’ requests for assistance in establishing her son’s whereabouts to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.
20102.
On 16 August 2004 the latter informed the applicants that the involvement of their servicemen in her son’s abduction had not been confirmed.
On 26 August 2004 the Argun district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been suspended but the search activities to establish her son’s whereabouts would be continued.
On 26 March 2007 the Argun district prosecutor’s office replied to the first applicant that the investigation was in progress.
On 27 April 2007 the investigation was again suspended.
The applicants were informed thereof on 10 March 2009.
On 5 August 2010 and 14 February 2011 the applicants requested the investigators to provide them with an update on the progress of the investigation.
No reply was given to these requests.
The investigation is still pending.
7.
Application no.
52173/11 Nauzova and Others v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Vakha Nauzov, who was born in 1974: 1) Ms Raiman Nauzova, who was born in 1950 and lives in Gudermes, the mother; 2) Ms Luiza Uspanova, who was born in 1977 and lives in Nizhniy Noyber, the wife; 3) Ms Farida Nauzova, who was born in 1999 and lives in Nizhniy Noyber, the daughter; 4) Mr Umar Nauzov, who was born in 2001 and lives in Nizhniy Noyber, the son; 5) Mr Ali Nauzov, who was born in 2002 and lives in Nizhniy Noyber, the son.
They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya).
(a) Background events and the abduction of Mr Vakha Nauzov (i) Background events On 6 June 2003 the Russian Parliament announced amnesty for illegal combatants involved in the armed conflict in Chechnya who voluntarily stopped their activities and surrendered their weapons.
In the beginning of June 2003 Mr Vakha Nauzov and Mr U. M. surrendered their weapons in the Gudermes department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and received official pardon.
A few days later both men were hired by the security service of the Head of the Administration of the Chechnya President.
Their workplace was supposed to be in Novoe Gordali village in the Gudermes district.
(ii) Abduction of Mr Vakha Nauzov On 20 June 2003 Mr Vakha Nauzov and Mr U. M. were driving to work in silver-blue VAZ-2106 car with registration number 173-05.
At 11 a.m. they were stopped at checkpoint no.
75 on the highway Rostov-Baku near Druzhba village.
Several of their fellow villagers, including Ms A. E. and Ms D.
Kh., who were passing the check-point on a mini-bus witnessed that some of the servicemen surrounded Mr Vakha Nauzov and Mr U. M., while the others searched their car.
Some of the witnesses, whose identities the applicants did not disclose before the Court, heard Mr Vakha Nauzov shouting to inform his boss that they were being taken away.
(b) Official investigation of the abduction On 22 June and then again on 6 August 2003 the applicants complained of the abduction to the Gudermes prosecutor’s office and the Gudermes ROVD.
On 6 August 2003 the Gudermes ROVD refused to institute an investigation into the abduction for the lack of corpus delicti.
On 19 July 2004 the Gudermes prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that the Gudermes ROVD opened a search case (розыскное дело) no.
063043 to establish their relative’s whereabouts.
On 15 July 2005 the Gudermes prosecutor’s office revoked the refusal to open criminal case of 6 August 2003 and ordered the Gudermes ROVD to conduct additional examination of the abduction complaint.
On 4 August 2005 the Gudermes ROVD again refused to open a criminal case for the lack of corpus delicti.
On 31 October the Gudermes prosecutor’s office revoked the refusal and ordered the ROVD to again examine the abduction complaint.
On 31 November 2005 the Gudermes prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.
45129 under Article 105 (murder) of the Criminal Code.
On 31 December 2005 the investigation was suspended.
On 24 October 2007 the first applicant requested that the investigators resumed the proceedings and granted her victim status.
On 10 November 2007 she was informed that the proceedings had been resumed.
On 13 December 2007 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
On 19 December 2007 the investigation was suspended again.
Between 2008 and 2010 the applicants forwarded a number of requests to various authorities asking for assistance in establishing their relative’s whereabouts.
On 21 April 2010 the second applicant requested that the investigators granted her victim status.
On 12 January 2011 the applicants requested the Chechnya prosecutor’s office to establish their relative’s whereabouts and identify the culprits.
On 31 January 2011 they were informed that their request had been forwarded to the Gudermes prosecutor’s office.
On 14 February 2011 the applicants requested that the investigation be resumed and they be allowed to access the investigation file.
On 18 February 2011 the applicants were allowed to access a few documents from the investigation file.
On 11 June 2011 the applicants again requested access to the case file.
On 30 June 2011 the investigators rejected their request on the grounds that the same request had already been granted on 18 February 2011.
On 28 July 2011 the applicant again requested access to the investigation file.
The outcome of this request is unknown.
The investigation is still pending.
8.
Application no.
7214/12 Satuyev and Others v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Alikhan Satuyev, who was born in 1975: 1) Mr Imran Satuyev, who was born in 1980 and lives in Grozny, the brother; 2) Ms Sadsit Eltsebekova, who was born in 1955 and lives in Katar-Yurt, the mother; 3) Mr Zelimkhan Satuyev, who was born in 1982 and lives in Katar‐Yurt, the brother; 4) Ms Zulikhan Madagova, who was born in 1986 and lives in Katar‐Yurt, the sister.
They are not legally represented.
(a) Abduction of Mr Alikhan Satuyev and subsequent events (i) Abduction of Mr Alikhan Satuyev At 4 a.m. on 14 June 2003 twelve to fifteen armed servicemen in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms arrived in white Niva car and armoured UAZ vehicles without registration numbers at the flat of Mr Alikhan Satuyev in Grozny.
Some of them surrounded the building, while the others broke into the flat, handcuffed Mr Alikhan Satuyev and took him away to an unknown location.
Mr Alikhan Satuyev has not been seen since.
(ii) Subsequent events Mr S.
Kham., the uncle of Mr Alikhan Satuyev, who worked at the time as a local judge, found out that Mr Alikhan Satuyev had been taken to the Oktyabrskiy temporary district department of interior (the VOVD) by the head of the VOVD criminal search department, Mr Kh.
S. In a private conversation with the latter, Mr S. Kham.
was told that Mr Alikhan Stauyev had been allegedly released on the same day, shortly after his arrest.
However, Mr Alikhan Stauyev has not been seen since his abduction.
(b) Official investigation of the abduction On 24 June 2003 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.
30097 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 11 August 2003 the applicants requested the Russian Ministry of the Interior to establish the whereabouts of Mr Kh.
S. and question him in connection with the abduction.
On 28 February 2004 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office initiated the search for Mr Kh.
S. Between 2004 and 2007 the criminal proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions.
On 21 November 2006 the second applicant wrote to the Chechen Parliament and the Chechnya prosecutor’s office asking for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of Mr Kh.
S. and his arrest as a suspect in connection with Mr Alikhan Satuyev’s abduction.
On 19 September 2011 the criminal proceedings were resumed.
On 5 October 2011 the second applicant was granted victim status.
On 20 October 2011 the investigation was suspended.
It is still pending.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators On 12 August 2011 the second applicant complained of the investigators’ decision to suspend the investigation to the Zavodskoy District Court.
On 20 September 2011 the latter dismissed the complaint as a day earlier the investigators had resumed the investigation.
On 20 December 2011 the Zavodskoy District Court declared Mr Alikhan Satuyev a deceased person.
(d) Civil proceedings On 8 January 2013 the applicants lodged a civil claim seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 3,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (about 75,100 euros (EUR)) caused in the result of their relative’s abduction before the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny.
On 21 March 2013 the Leninskiy District Court awarded the applicants RUB 1,000,000 (about EUR 25,033).
On 18 April 2013 the applicants appealed on the grounds that the amount of the compensation awarded by the court was inadequately low.
On 19 April 2013 the Chechen prosecutor’s office appealed on the grounds that the involvement of the state agents into the applicants’ relative’s abduction was not established.
On 2 July 2003 the Chechen Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in full on the grounds of lack of evidence of the State agents’ involvement into the abduction.
9.
Application no.
44658/12 Vatsayeva and Others v. Russia The applicants are close relatives of Mr Khalid Dushayev, who was born in 1951: 1) Ms Yezira Vatsayeva, who was born in 1987, the wife; 2) Mr Sayfulla Vatsayev, who was born in 2008, the son; 3) Mr Usman Dushayev, who was born in 2011, the son.
The applicants live in Chechen-Aul, Chechnya.
The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya).
(a) Abduction of Mr Khalid Dushayev and subsequent events (i) Abduction of Mr Khalid Dushayev At 9 p.m. on 24 June 2011 in the centre of Gudermes two officers from the Security Service of the Chechen President requested Mr Khalid Dushayev and his two friends Mr A.
A. and Mr I.
A. to provide their identity papers.
They did not have identification documents and after having checked their mobile phones the two officers left.
Few minutes later when they arrived at the gas station “Leader” in Gudermes, several armed men approached Mr Khalid Dushayev and his two friends and arrested them.
Mr I.
A. asked to make a phone call to Mr A., who was also working for the President’s Security Service.
One of the officers who carried out the arrest happened to know Mr A. and called him himself.
After the short phone conversation Mr I.
A. was released, whereas Mr Khalid Dushayev and A.
A. were taken to the Tsentaroy district department of the interior (the ROVD).
On the next day Mr I.
A. was taken away from his work and has not been seen since.
(ii) Subsequent events On 24 June 2011, immediately after the abduction of Mr Khalid Dushayev, his relatives attempted to go to the Tsentaroy ROVD but they were not allowed even to enter the village.
They were also told that they better not to complain to the authorities for the sake of Mr Khalid Dushayev’s personal safety.
On 10 January 2012 Mr Khalid Dushayev’s relatives were asked to come to Grozny morgue for identification.
His uncle and cousin could not identify the body shown as that of Mr Khalid Dushayev.
However, when the first applicant went to the morgue she identified her husband by a birth-mark on the little finger of his right hand.
The body of Mr Khalid Dushayev was very skinny and had long beard.
Several teeth were missing; the body bore traces of electricity and cigarettes burns.
The right ankle was broken.
No underware, except for the boxers was on the body under the camouflage uniform.
The first applicant identified also the body of Mr A.
A.
The body of Mr Khalid Dushayev was returned to the applicants one week later in exchange for RUB 5,000 (about EUR 123).
(b) Official investigation of the abduction On 19 July 2011, upon the applicants’ request, the Gudermes district investigations committee opened criminal case no.
53050 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 21 July 2011 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
On 6 September 2011, 30 November 2011, 20 February 2012 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended.
On 7 November 2011, 18 January 2012, 6 November 2012 the criminal proceedings were resumed.
On 23 November 2012 the applicants requested the investigators that they be allowed to access the investigation file.
On 11 December 2012 the investigators informed the applicants that the criminal case was suspended and that they could access the file.
The investigation is still pending.
10.
Application no.
53074/12 Izhayeva v. Russia The applicant in this case is Ms Elizaveta Izhayeva, who was born in 1952, and lives in Grozny, Chechnya.
She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (SRJI), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia (in partnership with NGO Astreya).
The applicant is the mother of Mr Arsen Izhayev, who was born in 1980.
(a) Abduction of Mr Arsen Izhayev and subsequent events (i) Abduction of Mr Arsen Izhayev At 3 am on 6 June 2007 about seven-eight armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms in GAZEL minivan with registration number A783AP 95 and VAZ-2110 parked near the applicant’s house.
They broke into the applicant’s house and took away Mr Arsen Izhayev to an unknown location.
The servicemen also apprehended Mr A. Dzh.
from the neighbouring house.
(ii) Subsequent events Next day Mr A. Dzh.
with clear signs of torture was released in Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny.
According to Mr A. Dzh.
when they arrived to the final unknown location Mr Arsen Izhayev had been taken yet to another location and he never had seen him again.
(b) Official investigation of the abduction On 6 June 2007 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Leninskiy district interior department (“the ROVD”).
On 7 June 2007 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Chechen prosecutor’s office.
On 18 June 2007 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal case no.
10067 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 25 June 2007 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.
On 2 August 2007 the applicant received a letter from the Chechen Interior Ministry stating that the search measures were carried out.
On 23 August 2007 the applicant complained of the investigator’s failure to act to the Chechen prosecutor’s office.
On 29 October 2007 the applicant requested the Military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment to take measures to establish her son’s whereabouts.
On 30 October 2007 the applicant’s request was forwarded to the Military prosecutor’s office of military unit no.
20102, which on 25 November 2007 replied the applicant that they did not have information concerning her son’s abduction.
On 30 January 2009 the criminal case was suspended for the failure to establish perpetrators.
On 7 October 2010 the applicant requested the Leninskiy district investigative committee to resume criminal proceedings.
On 27 August 2011 the applicant requested the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office to inform her of the progress of investigation and to allow her to make copy of the criminal case file.
On 26 June 2012 the applicant requested the Leninskiy district investigative committee to grant her access to the criminal case file.
On 28 June 2012 the applicant was granted access to the criminal case file.
The investigation is still pending.
11.
Application no.
25514/13 Daniyeva v. Russia The applicant is Ms Zukhra Daniyeva, who was born in 1966 who lives in Shaami-Yurt, Chechnya.
She is not legally represented.
The applicant is the wife of Mr Umar Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1953.
(a) Abduction of Mr Umar Dzhabrailov At about 3 a.m. on 12 December 2003 six armed men in balaclavas who had arrived at the applicant’s house in an UAZ vehicle took her husband Mr Umar Dzhabrailov away to an unknown location.
Mr Umar Dzhabrailov has not been seen since.
(b) Official investigation of the abduction On 12 December 2003 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD.
On 15 December 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no.
44091 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
On 16 December 2003 the applicant was granted a victim status in the criminal proceedings.
On 15 February 2004 and 16 July 2008 the investigation was suspended and then resumed and then on 6 September 2009 it was again suspended.
On 22 June 2011 the applicant requested that the investigation be resumed.
On 1 December 2011 the proceedings were resumed and on 6 December 2011 they were suspended again.
On 12 March 2012 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr Umar Dzhabrailov a deceased person.
On 24 January 2013 the criminal proceedings were resumed.
They are still pending.
(c) Proceedings against the investigators On 16 November 2011 the applicant complained of the investigators’ decision of 6 September 2009 to suspend the investigation to the Urus‐Martan Town Court.
On 2 December 2011 the latter dismissed the complaint as a day earlier the investigators had resumed the investigation.
On 5 December 2011 the applicant appealed and on 28 December 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
On 17 January 2013 the applicant complained of the investigators’ decision of 6 December 2011 to suspend the criminal case to the Achkhoy‐Martan District Court.
On 25 January 2013 the latter dismissed the complaint as a day earlier the investigators had resumed the investigation.
COMPLAINTS 1.
Referring to Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications complain of the violation of the right to life of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix and submit that the circumstances of their abduction and ensuing disappearance indicate that they had been abducted by State agents.
The applicants further complain that no effective investigation was carried out into the incidents.
2.
The applicants in applications Temirbulatova (no.
44116/10), Makhauri (no.
70640/10) and Vatsayeva and Others (no.
44658/12) in respect of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix, as well as the second applicant in application Novrzukayeva and Others (no.
52089/11), complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment and that no effective investigation was carried out in that respect.
3.
Referring to Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications complain that they suffer severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the national authorities in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives and the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation in that respect.
4.
The applicants in all the applications submit that the unacknowledged detention of their relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix violates all guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention.
5.
The applicants in all the applications complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention.
COMMON QUESTIONS 1.
Have the applicants complied with the six‐month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, were there on behalf of the applicants “excessive or unexplained delays” in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relatives, have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity, which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009)?
The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their respective applications with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction and/or disappearance of their relatives.
2.
Having regard to: - the Court’s numerous previous judgments in which violations of Article 2 were found in respect of both disappearances of the applicants’ relatives as a result of detention by unidentified members of the security forces and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos.
2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia, nos.
61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30 January 2014), and; - the similarity of the present eleven applications both to each other and to the cases cited above, as can be derived from the applicants’ submissions and the interim results of the respective investigations: (a) Did the applicants make out a prima facie case that their relatives (referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix) were detained by State servicemen in the course of security operations?
(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in order to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants’ relatives’ abductions and ensuing disappearances (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others, cited above, § 184)?
Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants’ submissions that State agents were involved in the abductions, by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events by other means?
(c) Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of the applicants’ missing relatives?
(d) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.
21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearances of the applicants’ missing relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?
3.
Has the applicants’ mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relative, the authorities’ alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into his disappearance been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?
If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants?
4.
Were the applicants’ relatives, referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix, as well as the second applicant, Mr Isa Novrzakayev, in application no.
52089/11 Novrzukayeva and Others v. Russia, deprived of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
If such detention took place, was it in compliance with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1-5 of the Convention?
5.
In respect of all the applications, did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
6.
The Government are requested to submit copies of the investigation files in all criminal cases instituted in relation to the abduction of the applicants’ relatives referred to as “abducted persons” in the Appendix, including the following cases: nos.
32004, 57005, 57006, 06600061, 59116, 59260, 78081, 45129, 30097, 53050, 10067 and 44091.
Further to the provisions of Article 38 of the Convention, the Government are, in particular, requested to provide the following information in respect of each of the applications: (a) any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants’ allegations that their relatives had been abducted by State servicemen; and, in any event, (b) a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants’ complaints about the abduction of their relatives, in the chronological order, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings; as well as: (c) copies of documents from the investigation files in respective criminal cases, such as, in particular: (i) the applicants’ initial complaints about the abduction of their relatives which had prompted the opening of the investigation; (ii) decision(s) to initiate criminal proceedings; (iii) decision(s) to grant the applicants victim status in the criminal proceedings, if any; (iv) record(s) of any interviews of State servicemen (such as, for instance, military servicemen, local administration and police officers, servicemen at roadblocks and checkpoints, employees of other law enforcement agencies, etc.)
held in connection with the investigation; (v) statements of the eye witnesses to the abductions, if any; (vi) if crime scene (s) were examined, expert and/or forensic examinations were ordered in the course of the investigation, copies of all the relevant expert reports and findings; (vii) where the investigations were suspended and reopened, copies of each and every decision on suspension/resumption of the proceedings and of the documents containing the reasons for such decisions (such as prosecutor’s orders to resume investigation and take investigative steps); (viii) any other documents relevant for the establishment of the factual circumstances of the allegations and the evaluation of the effectiveness of the criminal investigations.
CASE SPECIFIC