Last Updated on May 1, 2020 by LawEuro
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SAIDOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 36963/09 and 4 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 January 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Saidova and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 December 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in five applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. Notice of the applications was given to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
3. The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in Chechnya, Ingushetia or Dagestan. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly having been unlawfully detained by service personnel during special operations. The events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have not seen their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. Their whereabouts remain unknown.
5. The applicants reported the abductions to law‑enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without any tangible results having been achieved. The applicants lodged requests with the investigating authorities and various law-enforcement bodies for information and assistance in the search for their relatives. Their requests received either only formulaic responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been established by the investigating bodies.
6. Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or other witnesses to both the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. The Government did not dispute the facts of the case, as presented by the applicants and submitted only preliminary objections as to the admissibility of the applications.
A. Saidova v. Russia (no. 36963/09)
7. The applicant is the mother of Mr Salikh Saidov who was born in 1979.
1. Background information and the events preceding the abduction of Mr Saidov
8. In January 2005 the applicant’s son-in-law, Mr Shamil D., was killed during a special operation carried out by the State authorities in Kizil-Yurt, Dagestan. In October 2005 the applicant’s son, Mr Rustam S., also was killed during a special operation carried out in Makhachkala, Dagestan. The applicant’s other son, Mr Abdurakhman S., and daughter, Ms Sakinat S., (the wife of Mr Shamil D.) were suspected by the authorities of involvement in illegal armed groups. In 2005 the applicant asked the authorities to institute proceedings into abuse of power and other alleged illegal actions taken by the law-enforcement authorities against her son, Abdurakhman S., and her daughter, Sakinat S. Her requests were dismissed in 2006.
2. Disappearance of Mr Salikh Saidov
9. In 2004 Mr Salikh Saidov moved to Moscow. In July 2005 three friends of Mr Saidov from Dagestan informed the applicant that they had been arrested with her son Salikh in Moscow. They were released, whereas her son remained under arrest. The applicant found out that following a request by an investigator, Mr E.A., from the Dagestan prosecutor’s office, on 17 July 2005 Mr Saidov had been arrested by the police in Moscow and taken for questioning to Makhachkala by aeroplane. According to the applicant, in Makhachkala her son was held for three days in the police station where the Organised Crime Unit was based and then transferred to police operational-search bureau no. 2 (ORB-2) in Grozny, Chechnya. Since his detention in July 2005 Mr Saidov has been missing.
10. On 18 July 2006 in reply to the applicant’s request, Investigator E.A. informed the applicant’s lawyer that no criminal case had been opened against Mr Saidov and that he had not been either arrested or detained by the Dagestan police.
11. On 30 August 2006 the deputy prosecutor of Dagestan informed the applicant that on 14 July 2005 a decision to question Mr Saidov had been taken and a request for its execution forwarded to Moscow. However, that request remained unexecuted. At the same time, in his letter of 3 April 2006 Mr V.K, the head of the Department of Organised Crime of the Eastern Administrative Circuit in Moscow, and Mr V.R., the deputy head of the Internal Security Department of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, in their letter of 18 July 2006, both admitted that the applicant’s son had been detained in Moscow on 17 July 2005 following a request by an investigator from Dagestan to be questioned in criminal case no. 558754 opened by the Dagestan prosecutor’s office.
3. Official investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son
12. On 21 January 2006 the applicant requested information from various authorities concerning her son’s whereabouts. All her requests were forwarded to the investigators but to no avail.
13. On 27 July 2007 a local newspaper published an article on missing individuals; Mr Saidov was mentioned as one of them. The Dagestan prosecutor’s office forwarded this information to the investigators ordering them to take measures to investigate the allegations contained therein.
14. On 16 August 2007 the Sovetskiy district prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal case into the abduction of Mr Saidov owing to the lack of corpus delicti. On 23 October 2007 the investigators’ superior annulled that decision.
15. On 2 November 2007 the investigators again refused to institute criminal proceedings under Article 286 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power) owing to the lack of corpus delicti. This decision was annulled on 23 April 2008 by the investigators’ superior and the material was sent back for additional enquiries.
16. On 28 April 2008 the applicant yet again asked the investigators in Dagestan and in Moscow to open a criminal case into her son’s disappearance.
17. On 29 April 2008 the Dagestan prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal case for lack of corpus delicti.
18. On 29 May 2008 the refusal was annulled and the material was returned for additional enquiries. The applicant was informed.
19. On 9 June 2008 the Dagestan prosecutor’s office again refused to open a criminal case into the disappearance of Mr Saidov on the same grounds.
20. On 16 June 2008 the superior investigator annulled the refusal and instituted criminal proceedings (no. 802476) under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder). The applicant was informed.
21. On 24 June 2008 Investigator E.A. was questioned. He stated that in July 2005 criminal case no. 558754 had been opened into an assault on a police officer by Mr Rustam S. and two others. The investigators had decided to question Salikh Saidov about the whereabouts of his brother Rustam S. As Mr Saidov had left Dagestan for Moscow, on 14 July 2005 the investigator had ordered Mr Saidov’s arrest and subsequent transfer to Makhachkala for questioning by the police officers from T unit. Following a telephone conversation, a person named K. had confirmed to him that T unit had arrested Mr Saidov and had taken him to Makhachkala. However, neither he nor any other investigators had ever seen or questioned Mr Saidov.
22. On 4 July 2008 the applicant was questioned. She stated that she had heard from a man who had been arrested with Mr Saidov, that her son Salikh had been detained in Khankala, Chechnya. In 2006 she had received the same information from a lawyer, Ma., based in Grozny. She had contacted Mr Ya., a local military commander, who had agreed to release SalikhSaidov in exchange for 300,000 Russian roubles (RUB). Subsequently, it had turned out that SalikhSaidov had been detained by Mr R.K. and had absconded from detention along with several Chechens.
23. On 4 July 2008 the transport police in Makhachkala informed the investigators that at 3 p.m. on 17 July 2005 Mr Saidov had left Moscow for Makhachkala by aeroplane.
24. On 10 August 2008 the supervising prosecutor criticised the investigation and pointed out a number of defects in the proceedings to be remedied. The documents submitted show that the orders were not complied with.
25. On 10 September 2008 Ma. was questioned. He stated that his client, Mr Ch.U., who had been detained in Khankala, had confirmed that a person, whose name he had not been able to remember, had been detained with him in the same cell.
26. On 12 September 2008 A.I., a lawyer, was questioned. He stated that he had requested information concerning the whereabouts of Salikh Saidov from the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office, the commander of the Vostok military unit and the head of the Chechen Government, Mr R.K., but to no avail.
27. On 16 September 2008 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 31 October 2008.
28. On 24 December 2008 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She stated that Mr Saidov had been among the individuals detained in Khankala, but refused to disclose the source of information.
29. On 31 December 2008 the investigation was suspended again.
30. On 30 August 2009 the investigators’ superior annulled that decision and resumed the proceedings.
31. In September 2009 the investigators sent a number of requests to various law-enforcement authorities asking to question Mr Ch.U.
32. On 30 September 2009 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof.
33. On 11 November 2009 Mr Ch.U. was questioned in the correctional colony where he was serving his sentence. He stated that between 14 September and 10 October 2005 he had been detained in ORB-2 in Grozny. He had been in the same cell with Mr Saidov, who had later been moved to another cell. He then had been transferred to SIZO 20/1 (remand prison) whereas Mr Saidov had stayed in ORB-2. He had informed his lawyer about Mr Saidov and had asked to contact his relatives. Later he had learned from other detainees of ORB-2 that at around 11 p.m. on 10 October 2005 Mr Saidov had been blindfolded and taken to an unknown destination by prison officers of ORB-2.
34. On 4 February 2010 the investigation was resumed, then suspended and then resumed again on 27 March 2010. The applicant was informed of those decisions.
35. On 29 March 2010 the investigators examined the journals of registration of remand prison SIZO 20/1 and ORB-2 in Grozny. No information on Mr Saidov was obtained.
36. On 30 March 2010 officer S.A. from ORB-2 was questioned. He stated that he had never seen or heard of either Mr Saidov or Mr Ch.U. He further stated that individuals who were arrested by the police were not usually taken to ORB-2.
37. On the same day the lawyer Ma. was questioned. He reaffirmed his previous statements.
38. On 31 March 2010 another officer from ORB-2, Mr D.M., was questioned. He did not provide any relevant information.
39. On 27 March 2010 the investigators’ superior criticised the investigation and pointed out a number of defects in the proceedings to be remedied, but to no avail.
40. On 9 April 2010 Mr A.B., a former officer of the T police unit was questioned. He stated that following an order of the Dagestan prosecutor’s office he had arrested Mr Saidov in Moscow and transferred him to P. and T., officers of the special police unit. The latter then had taken Mr Saidov to Makhachkala. On arrival at Makhachkala Airport they had left Mr Saidov with the Dagestan police officers. No transfer document had been signed, given that Mr Saidov had had the status of a witness only.
41. On 12 April 2010 Mr Ch.U. was questioned again and reiterated his earlier statements. On the same day the investigators conducted photo‑identification and Mr Ch.U. identified Mr Saidov as his cellmate in ORB-2.
42. The investigators requested from the police information on the whereabouts of P. and T., officers of the special unit, but to no avail.
43. On 20 April 2010 Mr A.B. was questioned again. In addition to his earlier statements he stated that Officers P. and T. could have been transferred to the Centre for Control of Special Units of the Ministry of the Interior (ЦентрпорегулированиюдеятельностиспециальныхподразделенийМВДРФ). He further stated that he had seen them for the last time in 2007 or 2008 in the investigator’s office in Moscow, where they had been asked to give statements concerning Salikh Saidov.
44. On 28 April 2010 Officer T. was questioned and denied knowing either Mr A.B. or Officer P. He did not recognise Salikh Saidov by photograph either. According to his statements, on 17 July 2005 he had arrived in Makhachkala alone for a holiday. He further stated that at the material time he had been a student of the Police Academy and could not have been on a mission. In any event, if the aforementioned people had happened to be on the same flight with him, it must have been a coincidence.
45. From the documents submitted to the Court it transpires that Officer T. started his service as the police officer in 2006.
46. On 6 May 2010 the applicant was questioned again. She stated that another man had been in the same detention centre with Mr Saidov. The applicant, however, told the investigators that she would disclose her source of information only if the case were transferred to the Southern Federal Circuit investigators.
47. On the same day the applicant’s daughter was questioned. No new information was obtained.
48. On 20 April 2010 the head of the police of the Southern Federal Circuit informed the investigators that between 17 July and 31 December 2005 Mr Saidov had not been detained in ORB-2. From the documents submitted it transpires that the applicant’s son never officially registered as a detainee of the detention centre.
49. On 14 May 2010 the applicant’s representative requested that the investigators transfer the case to the Main Investigations Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia on the grounds that the investigators were partial and had not been able to remedy deficiencies in the proceedings. No reply followed.
50. On 1 and 19 June 2010 a number of witnesses were questioned. No new information was obtained.
51. On 27 June 2010 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 27 July 2010. The applicant was informed.
52. Meanwhile, on 8 July 2010 the head of the Rys special task force unit of the Ministry of the Interior (Отряд милиции специального назначения “Рысь” МВД РФ), Mr E., informed the investigators that Officer P., who had allegedly taken Mr Saidov to Makhachkala, had been questioned. However, a copy of his statement was not furnished to the Court.
53. On 11 August 2010 the investigation transferred to the Chechen Investigative Committee.
54. On 27 August 2010 the investigators suspended the proceedings, resumed and then suspended them again on 17 June 2011. It appears that the investigation is still pending.
B. Machigov v. Russia (no. 8417/10)
55. The applicant is the brother of Mr Kazbek Machigov, who was born in 1974.
1. Abduction of Mr Machigov
56. On 29 September 2000 Mr Kazbek Machigov was arrested on his way to the Central Market in Grozny by three officers, Mr A.S., Mr A.G. and Mr V.S., on suspicion of alleged drug use. He was taken in their UAZ vehicle to Oktyabrskiy district police station in Grozny. He has been missing since.
57. For relevant information on disappearance of individuals after their detention in that police station, see also Magomadov and Magomadov v. Russia, (no. 68004/01, § 76, 12 July 2007).
2. Official investigation into the abduction of the applicant’s brother
58. According to the applicant, between 29 September and 16 October 2000 his relatives complained to various law-enforcement authorities of the abduction of Kazbek Machigov and asked for assistance in the search for him.
59. On 26 October 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 12222 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).
60. On 17 October 2001 the applicant was granted victim status.
61. On 21 October 2003 the investigators instituted criminal proceedings (no. 12260) in respect of two suspected officers, Mr A.S. and Mr A.G. Subsequently their names were put on the wanted list.
62. On 15 July 2004 criminal case no. 12222 was joined with criminal case no. 12260 under the number 12260.
63. On 1 November 2005 a separate case, no. 61878, against the two officers was severed from case no. 12260.
64. On 30 November 2005 the investigation in case no. 61878 was suspended for the failure to identify the whereabouts of the perpetrators. On 25 October 2006 the applicant was informed thereof.
65. On 22 January 2009, the applicant appealed against the suspension of the investigation in case no. 61878. He subsequently complained to the human-rights defender of the Chechen Republic of the shortcomings in the investigation and asked for assistance in the search for his brother. This request was forwarded to the investigators.
66. On 10 February 2009 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 24 May 2009 for failure to identify the perpetrators. The proceedings are still pending.
C. Patsuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 9862/12)
67. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Adam Patsuyev, who was born in 1984, Mr Ibragim Idigov, who was born in 1983, Mr Salam Kerimov, who was born in 1985 and Mr Lom-Ali Shaipov, who was born in 1982.
1. Abduction of the applicants’ relatives
68. The applicants’ relatives Mr Patsuyev, Mr Idigov and Mr Kerimov were cousins.
69. On 21 August 2003 the three cousins went to the Sunzhenskiy District Hospital in Ingushetia, where Mr Idigov was to have a wound bandaged. At about 2 p.m. two GAZelle minivans arrived at the hospital. A group of about fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas shouted to those present to get on the ground. They kept shooting in the air and running around, looking for someone. Six of the armed men ran into the surgical unit, where they beat unconscious Mr R.S., who was having a wound dressed, and Mr Shaipov, who was there with him, breaking Mr Shaipov’s arm. Then they forced Mr R.S. and Mr Shaipov into one of their vehicles.
70. Meanwhile, Mr Idigov saw the armed men beating Mr R.S. and Mr Shaipov. He tried to escape from the skirmish through the courtyard, but was shot in the shoulder. Mr Patsuyev and Mr Kerimov wanted to help Mr Idigov, but were beaten by the armed men. Then all three of them were forced into the white GAZelle minivan, which had a registration number containing digits A-63 and region 95.
71. According to eyewitnesses, the armed men dragged several other men out of the hospital, and one of them was shot dead on the porch. After that the abductors drove off. At about 60 m from the hospital they pushed Kh., a surgeon whom they had forced into their vehicle along with other abducted individuals, out of the vehicle. The abductors drove next to the local police car; it had been responding to a call from the hospital’s security staff. The police officers did not take any steps to stop the abductors.
72. On 22 August 2003 the federal television channel ORT stated in its evening news programme that “as a result of a successful special operation five individuals [had been] detained, three of those bandits ha[d] been identified”.
73. On the same day a news programme of the Russkaya Liniya news agency broadcast a report, referring to information from the law‑enforcement agencies of the Southern Federal Circuit, that five people suspected of involvement in illegal armed groups had been detained as a result of a special operation carried out at the hospital.
74. On 23 August 2003 the newspaper Pravozaschita (issue 5(56)) stated that law-enforcement agencies had been involved in the special operation carried out at the hospital.
2. Official investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives
75. On 21 August 2003 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office in Ingushetia opened criminal case no. 23600052 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
76. On the same day the investigators examined the crime scene. They collected three pistol bullet cartridges, samples of a brown substance, cloth and an armoured BZT-7521 shield with registration number 9207005.
77. On 22 August 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.
78. On the same day two medical assistants of Sunzhenskiy district hospital, Ms S.F. and Ms A.Kh., were questioned. No new information was obtained.
79. On 22 August 2003 the surgeon Mr Kh. was questioned. He stated that he had been in the hospital in the process of treating Mr Shaipov when several armed individuals had rushed into treatment room no. 5 through room no. 4. He had tried to escape but had been captured. The rest of his statement was similar to the account of events described above.
80. On 22 August 2003 the commander of the police OMON (Special Task Force Unit), Mr O.Ch., was questioned. He stated that on 21 August 2003 a group of policemen in two GAZelle minivans and one Niva jeep had arrived at their military base. The leader of the group, Major I.N., had asked him to provide him and his men with several helmets and a bulletproof vest, which he had done. Mr O.Ch. had then left for Khankala; after his return he had learned that a special operation had been conducted in Sunzhenskiy district hospital, where several individuals had been abducted. An armoured shield had been left behind at the crime scene by the abductors.
81. On 24 August 2003 the investigators ordered a ballistic examination of the bullet cartridges found at the crime scene.
82. On 25 August 2003 the deputy commander of the OMON was questioned. He stated that following orders from Mr O.Ch., he had briefed the group of the Temporary Joint Unit (“the TJU”). Then he had informed Mr O.Ch. that the members of the group had not had special individual protection equipment. Only at some point later had he become aware that Commander O.Ch. had provided the group with an armoured shield. He further stated that none of the members of the TJU had introduced themselves.
83. On 25 August 2003 the mother of Mr Patsuyev, Ms M.P., was granted victim status and questioned. She stated that on 21 August 2003 her son had left for university and had been missing ever since. Later that day she had learnt that her son had been abducted along with four other men from Sunzhenskiy District Hospital by a group of armed military men.
84. On 25 August 2003 the third applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She gave the same account of events as submitted to the Court.
85. On 26 and 27 August 2003 the first, second and third applicants complained to the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor’s office, asking to institute criminal proceedings into the abduction of their relatives.
86. On 27 August 2003 Ms F.E., a medical assistant of Sunzhenskiy district hospital, was questioned. She stated that she had seen a young man being shot in the shoulder and then taken in a GAZelle minivan by a group of armed men.
87. On the same day, 27 August 2003, the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. He stated that he had heard about his son’s abduction from Mr I.A., an ambulance driver.
88. On 27 August 2003 the investigator’s examined the armoured shield, three bullet cartridges, a hat and a vest collected from the crime scene.
89. On 5 September 2003 the head of the Ingushetia Department of the Federal Security Service (FSB) was questioned. He denied that on 21 August 2003 the FSB had conducted a special operation in Sunzhenskiy district hospital.
90. On 10 September 2003 a doctor from Sunzhenskiy District Hospital was questioned. His statements were similar to the account of events submitted before the Court.
91. On 17 September 2003 the first applicant wrote to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office asking for assistance in the search for his son and the other abducted men.
92. On 30 September 2003 Officer A.B. of the OMON was questioned. He stated that on 21 August 2003 he had been on duty at the check point in Karabulak and seen two GAZelle minivans and a Niva jeep entering the military base and then leaving it. He further stated that he had heard about the abduction of five men from the hospital.
93. On 7 October 2003 the medical assistant from Sunzhenskiy District Hospital, Ms S.F., who had been questioned earlier, stated that she could identify one of the perpetrators – the one who had beaten Mr R.S. and who had had an armoured shield with him.
94. On 8 and 10 October 2003 Ms R.K., an eyewitness and a doctor from Sunzhenskiy District Hospital, was questioned. She provided no new information.
95. On 16 October 2003 Mr M.Ch., a medical intern from Sunzhenskiy District Hospital, was questioned. He stated that while he had been examining Mr Idigov, a group of armed men had rushed into the surgery and started beating the man who had been getting treatment from the medical assistant. He and Mr Idigov had tried to escape from the hospital, but the latter had been shot in the shoulder. Subsequently, Mr M.Ch. had been captured by one of the armed men, beaten unconscious and taken to the GAZelle minivan. There had been many witnesses to the incident, including Ms A., a dentist. Mr M.Ch. had been released later on and gone to the hospital for medical assistance.
96. On 16 October 2003 the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the blood samples collected from the crime scene.
97. On 27 October 2003 the forensic-examination report indicated that blood found was group B.
98. On 8 February 2004 following a request by the investigators the Federal Security Service informed them that Mr Shaipov had been a member of an illegal armed group in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya, and that he had been put on the wanted list within the framework of criminal cases nos. 63063 and 63810, which had been instituted by the Chechen investigators. The FSB further stated that Mr R.S., who had been abducted along with the applicants’ relatives, had also been a member of an illegal armed group, had always been armed and was also on the wanted list.
99. On 21 February 2004 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof.
100. Meanwhile, on 26 February 2004 the head of Achkhoy-Martan police was questioned and confirmed the information received from the FSB.
101. On the same day, 26 February 2004, the fourth applicant was questioned. He stated that his son, Mr Shaipov, while living in Achkhoy‑Martan, Chechen Republic, had been taken to the police on several occasions. Then he had moved to Ingushetia and had lived there ever since. According to the applicant, Mr Shaipov had never taken part in illegal armed groups. Subsequently, the investigators questioned the father of Mr R.S., who denied that his son had had any affiliation with illegal armed groups.
102. On 15 March 2004 the mother of Mr Shaipov, Ms G.Sh., was granted victim status and questioned by the Chechen investigators. She stated that her son had never engaged in any illegal activities or been arrested.
103. On 17 March 2004 the father of Mr R.S. was granted victim status and was questioned. He provided no new information.
104. On 20 May 2004 the investigation was resumed.
105. On 18 June 2004 the second applicant was questioned but provided no new information.
106. On the same day, 18 June 2004, the wife of Mr Shaipov was granted victim status.
107. On an unspecified date in June 2004, Mr B., an OMON officer, was questioned. He stated that on 21 August 2003 he had seen two GAZelle minivans and a Niva jeep entering the military base and then leaving it. He further stated that later he had learned about the abduction from the hospital.
108. On 20 June 2004 the investigators suspended the proceedings for failure to identify the perpetrators.
109. On 9 December 2004 the applicants complained to the FSB and requested assistance in the search for their abducted relatives. Their requests were transferred to the investigators.
110. On 28 March 2005 the mother of Mr Shaipov, Ms G.Sh., requested that the investigators inform her of the progress in the proceedings and grant her as well as Mr Shaipov’s wife victim status in the criminal case. It appears that no reply followed.
111. On 27 June 2005 the applicants requested that the investigators inform them of the progress in the proceedings.
112. On 4 July 2005 the applicants requested that the investigators resume the proceedings and take steps to identify the perpetrators and bring charges against Mr O.Ch. The investigators provided the applicants with a summary information statement, but rejected the request.
113. On 13 December 2005 the first applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings. On 14 December 2005 his request was granted and the investigation was resumed.
114. On 14 December 2005 the investigators collected from the first applicant issue 5(56) of the newspaper Pravozaschita for examination and added it to the case file.
115. On an unspecified date in December 2005 the second applicant wrote to the military prosecutor’s office, complaining of the lack of progress in the investigation and asking for assistance in the search for his son.
116. On 16 December 2005 the first applicant was questioned. No new information was obtained.
117. On 14 January 2006 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 22 June 2006.
118. On 26 June 2006 the first, the second and the third applicants were questioned. They stated that they had called a reporter from Pravozaschita, Ms A.Ch., and had asked her about a photo of the applicants’ relatives published in one of the issues where they had been depicted squatting with their hands up. Ms A.Ch. had told them that she had received that photo via email and she would try to find the sender’s email address. Then they had lost contact with her.
119. On 23 July 2006 the investigation was suspended.
120. On an unspecified date between August and December 2006 the aunt of Mr Kerimov, Mr Patsuyev and Mr Idigov, Ms Z.K., complained to the investigators of the lack of progress in the criminal case and asked the investigators to expedite the investigation.
121. On 26 February 2007 the applicants requested that the investigators inform them of the progress in the proceedings.
122. On 5 December 2008 the deputy head of the FSB counter-intelligence unit informed Ms Z.K. that they did not have any information on the abduction of her relatives. He further stated that the GAZelle minivan with registration number A632VX95RUS was registered under the name of Mr T.
123. On 27 August 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings and then suspended them again on 26 September 2010. The applicants were informed thereof.
124. On 10 March 2011 the mother of Mr Shaipov requested that the investigators inform her of the progress in the case. In reply, the investigators allowed her to study the case file and make copies of certain documents.
125. On 5 October 2011 the first applicant complained to the President of Russia of the investigators’ inactivity.
126. On 7 December 2011 the investigation was resumed, then suspended and then again resumed again on 10 April 2014.
127. On 19 April 2014 Mr I.A. was questioned and stated that on 21 August 2003 he had arrived at Sunzhenskiy District Hospital in an ambulance and had seen two young men being taken by a group of about ten armed men from the hospital to a GAZelle minivan. During the questioning Mr I.A. was shown a photo of the applicants’ relatives from issue 5(56) of Pravozaschita. He did not recognise the place where the photo had been taken.
128. On 11 May 2014 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It appears that the investigation is still pending.
3. Proceedings against the investigators
(a) First set of proceedings
129. On 9 June 2006 the applicant appealed against the decision of 14 January 2006 to suspend the criminal proceedings.
130. On 23 June 2006 the Sunzhenskiy District Court rejected the complaint as the investigation had already been resumed on 22 June 2006.
(b) Second set of proceedings
131. On 23 June 2010 the applicants challenged the decision of the investigators on suspension of the proceedings before the Sunzhenskiy District Court.
132. On 29 June 2010 the District Court allowed the applicants’ complaint regarding the investigators’ inaction. It stated, amongst other things, that the investigators had failed to verify the involvement of the officers from the TJU who had been stationed at the material time in Karabulak, Ingushetia, given that an armoured shield of that unit had been found at the crime scene. In addition, the investigators had failed to order a comparative examination of the three bullet cartridges found at the crime scene with the firearms used by the “mobile group”.
D. Adisova and Others v. Russia (no. 13793/13)
133. The applicants are close relatives of Mr Musa Adisov, who was born in 1978, Mr Ashab Aliyev, who was born in 1964, Mr Khamdula Gayrbekov (also spelt Gayribekov), who was born in 1964 and Mr Vakharsolta Ibalayev, who was born in 1972.
1. Abduction of the applicants’ relatives
134. On 12 April 2002 a group of officers in military uniforms and in special military vehicles, armed and with service dogs conducted a special operation in Alleroy, in Nozhay-Yurt District, Chechnya. They cordoned off the village, carried out identity checks, searched houses and questioned local residents. They abducted the applicants’ relatives from their homes.
135. One of the officers told the first applicant that her son would be taken to the local office of the FSB for an identity check and released afterwards. After that the abducted individuals had been taken to the police station in Alleroy and then transferred to the police station in Khankala.
2. Official investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ relatives
(a) Investigation into the abduction of Mr Musa Adisov, Mr Ashab Aliyev, Mr Khamdula Gayrbekov
136. On 22 and 26 April 2002 the applicants complained to the Nozhay Yurt District Prosecutor’s office of the abductions and asked to assist them in the search for their missing relatives.
137. On 22 April 2002 Ms A.Z., the wife of Mr Ashab Aliyev, was questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.
138. On 15 June 2002 the first applicant applied to the Special Representative of the Russian President on Human Rights in Chechnya for assistance in the search for her missing son. Her request was forwarded to local law-enforcement authorities.
139. On 20 June 2002, the Nozhay-Yurt district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings into the abduction of Mr Khamdula Gayrbekov (no. 71030), Mr Musa Adisov, (no. 71031) and Mr Ashab Aliyev (no. 71032) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). Subsequently, on 18 July 2002 the prosecutor merged all three criminal cases under the joint number 71030.
140. In June and July 2002 the investigators sent several requests to the law‑enforcement authorities concerning the whereabouts of the abducted men.
141. On 16 July 2002 the head of the Nozhay-Yurt district police, in reply to the prosecutor’s inquiry, stated that Mr Adisov, Mr Aliyev and Mr Gayrbekov had been taken to the premises of the joint special-force group (сводная специальная группа), to check their possible affiliation with illegal armed groups.
142. On 9 and 13 August 2002 the investigators interviewed the fathers of Mr Adisov and Mr T.S., both of whom provided an account of events similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court. They further stated that in the past, between 1999 and 2000, Mr Adisov had served in the so‑called national armed forces of the self-proclaimed Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, but he had not taken part in clashes with the federal forces.
143. On 15 August 2002 the wife of Mr Aliyev requested that the investigators inform her of the progress in the proceedings. No reply followed.
144. On 19 August 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court. On the same day, the investigators granted Ms A.Z., the wife of Mr Aliyev, victim status and questioned her. She stated that her husband had worked in the customs service of the self-proclaimed Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. After the service had been dissolved, in June 2001 Mr Aliyev had been pardoned by the authorities and had returned to Alleroy.
145. On 24 August 2002 the applicants requested the investigators to intensify the search for their abducted relatives. In addition, they informed them that in 2001 Mr Aliyev and Mr Gayrbekov had given up their machine guns to the authorities and had been pardoned. According to the applicants, none of their relatives had participated in clashes with the federal forces.
146. On 20 September 2002 the investigation was suspended, resumed and then suspended again on 12 April 2003.
147. On 17 February 2004 the investigation was resumed and on the same day suspended again.
148. On 6 April 2004 in reply to the investigators’ enquiries, the head of the Nozhay-Yurt police stated that Mr Adisov, Mr Aliyev and Mr Gayrbekov had been arrested by the FSB on the suspicion of membership of illegal armed groups.
149. On 11 May 2004 the investigators’ superior annulled the suspension and resumed the proceedings.
150. In May or June 2004 the first applicant complained to the investigators, asking for the search for the abducted men to be intensified.
(b) Investigation into the abduction of Mr Vakharsolta Ibalayev
151. On 23 August 2002 the fourth applicant asked the authorities to assist her in the search for her missing husband.
152. On 28 August 2002 the fourth applicant again complained of the abduction of her husband.
153. On 7 February 2003 Mr I.Kh. complained of Mr Ibalayev’s abduction to the Special Representative of the Russian President in Chechnya. That request was forwarded to the investigators.
154. On 25 March 2003 the Nozhay-Yurt district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings into the abduction of Mr Ibalayev (no. 36024) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).
155. On 12 and 28 April 2003 Ms A.Z., the wife of Mr Aliyev, and Mr I.Kh. were questioned and gave statements similar to the applicants’ submissions before the Court.
156. On 7 April 2003 the fourth applicant was interviewed and reaffirmed her previous statements.
157. On 25 May 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
158. On 27 June 2003 in reply to the investigators’ information request Mr Pe.A., the commander of the Nozhay-Yurt military command, informed them that Mr Ibalayev, Mr Adisov, Mr Aliyev and Mr Gayrbekov had been arrested during the special operation in Alleroy.
159. On 17 February 2004 the investigation was resumed, then suspended later on the same day and then again resumed on 11 May 2004.
(c) Joinder of the criminal cases and further investigation
160. On 11 May 2004 the investigators joined criminal case no. 7130 (see paragraphs 139 and 154 above) to criminal case no. 36024.
161. On the same day the investigators requested the head of the military unit stationed in the Nozhay-Yurt district whether that unit had carried out the special operation on 12 April 2002 in Alleroy. In reply, the officer informed the investigators that joint special-force group SSG-6 (сводная специальная группа-6) along with the FSB and special police units had conducted a special operation in the Nozhay-Yurt district and set up a checkpoint in the Alleroy village. During the operation Mr Gayrbekov, Mr Adisov and Mr Ashab Aliyev had been arrested on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups.
162. On 15 May 2004 the fourth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She stated that Mr Ibalayev and his brother had been arrested by military service personnel and taken in a UAZ type vehicle to the SSG-6 unit, which was stationed in the vicinity of Alleroy village. In addition, she stated that after the abduction she and other relatives had gone to Mr Pa.A., the Nozhay-Yurt district military commander, and sought information on the abducted men. They had been informed that both of them had been transferred to a police station in Khankala.
163. On 17 May 2004 the third applicant was granted victim status and questioned along with the first applicant. Their statements were similar to that of the fourth applicant. In addition, they stated that Mr Z.B., the mayor of Alleroy village had gone to Khankala and had then told them that their relatives had been detained there.
164. On 18 May 2004 Mr Z.B. was questioned and denied having personally been to Khankala. He had just heard from Mr Pa.A. that the applicants’ relatives had been detained in Khankala and had told the applicants about it.
165. In June 2004 a number of police officers from the Alleroy police were questioned and stated that they were never informed of special operations conducted by the FSB and the military commander’s office.
166. On 11 June 2004 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof.
167. On 29 June 2004 the head of the Alleroy police station, Mr D.V., was questioned. He stated that on 12 April 2002 a special operation had been conducted in Alleroy, a number of individuals had been arrested and taken to the checkpoint for an identity check. Not everyone had been transferred to the police station. He could not recall whether the applicants’ relatives had been among the arrested men. According to the witness, the operation had been supervised by the Nozhay-Yurt military commander.
168. On 2 August 2004 the investigation was resumed. The investigators requested the record of the military operations from the Nozhay-Yurt military commander. On 10 August 2004 the latter replied, refusing to furnish the records, due to the confidentiality of its contents.
169. On 3 November 2004 the wife of Mr Ibalayev, Ms I.Kh., was granted victim status in the criminal case. She and three witnesses were questioned on the same day and gave accounts of events similar to the applicants’ submission before the Court.
170. On 22 November 2004 the proceedings were suspended, then resumed on 13 January 2005 and then again suspended again on 14 February 2005.
171. On 17 February 2005 the Nozhay-Yurt military commandersubmitted the extract from the record of military operations according which the applicants’ relatives had been arrested on the suspicion of involvement in illegal armed groups.
172. On 3 March 2005 the investigators requested that the Moscow Region prosecutor question the Nozhay-Yurt military commander, Mr Pa.A. No reply followed.
173. On 12 September 2006 the investigators’ superior annulled the suspension and ordered additional investigative steps. On 16 and 23 September 2006 sixteen residents of Alleroy were questioned. No new information was obtained.
174. On 12 October 2006 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed.
175. In May 2010 the first, the second and the third applicants wrote to the Parliament of Chechnya, asking for assistance in the search for their abducted relatives. Their requests were forwarded to the investigating authorities. In reply, the investigators informed the applicants of the progress in the investigation.
176. On 4 February 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings, grant her access to the case file and allow her to make copies of some documents. On 10 February 2011 the investigators partially granted her request, but refused to resume the proceedings.
177. On 21 February 2011 the second applicant requested that the investigators grant her victim status and inform her about the progress in the case. Her request was rejected.
178. On 17 March 2011 the second applicant lodged yet another request for victim status and access to the investigation file. On 29 March 2011 the investigation was resumed and her request was fully granted. On the same day the second applicant was questioned. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted by the applicants to the Court. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended.
179. On 26 December 2011 the investigation was resumed and the first, the second and the third applicants were granted civil plaintiff status in the criminal case. On 27 December 2011 the investigation was suspended, resumed and then suspended on 13 June 2012. The applicants were informed thereof.
180. On 3 February 2012 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her access to the investigation file and to allow her make copies of some documents. Her request was granted and her representative studied the case file on 27 April 2012.
181. On 24 December 2012 the Shelkovskoy District Court in Chechnya declared Mr Gayrbekov dead following an application by the third applicant.
182. On 25 December 2012 the Nozhay-Yurt District Court declared Mr Adisov dead following an application by the first applicant.
183. On 7 November 2013 the second applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings, grant her victim status and allow her access to the investigation file. The investigators partially granted her request, but refused to resume the proceedings.
184. On an unspecified date in December 2013 the Nozhay-Yurt District Court declared Mr Ibalayev dead following an application by the fourth applicant.
185. It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending.
3. Civil proceedings concerning non-pecuniary damage
186. On 11 December 2013 and 13 February 2014 the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny allowed claims lodged by the applicants and awarded each of them RUB 1 million (about 13,000 euros) as compensation in respect of the non-pecuniary damage caused by the abduction of their relatives.
E. Dzhalilov v. Russia (11499/14)
187. The applicant is the husband of Ms Serizha Dzhalilova, who was born in 1960.
1. Disappearance of Ms Dzhalilova
188. Between 5 December 2004 and 6 January 2005 five people were arrested at the Yarag-Kazmalyar checkpoint in Derbent district in Dagestan on suspicion of involvement in illegal armed groups. The checkpoint was located about 50 km from another larger checkpoint called “Dagestan”, situated in Derbent, Dagestan.
189. On 6 January 2005, during her shopping trip to Azerbaijan Ms Dzhalilova was arrested at the Yarag-Kazmalyar checkpoint on the border between Dagestan and Azerbaijan. Her identity was checked as she was suspected of being a suicide bomber. It appears that shortly after her arrest at Yarag-Kazmalyar, she was taken to the Dagestan checkpoint and then, on the following day, to the FSB headquarters in Khankala in Chechnya (Оперативное управление ФСБ России по координации проведения конттеррористической операции н.п. Ханкала). It appears that her arrest at Yarag-Kazmalyar and subsequent placement in detention at the Dagestan checkpoint were carried out by officers from military unit no. 2087, Col. Ab., Lt. Col. R., Maj. Is. and Capt. B.
190. It appears that the FSB headquarters in Khankala was disbanded in July 2005. All the documents were destroyed. The FSB officers who arrested the applicant’s wife were never subjected to identification.
2. Official investigation into the abduction of the applicant’s wife
191. On 24 March 2005 the applicant asked the Derbent district prosecutor’s office to assist him with the search for his missing wife.
192. On 24 March 2006 the applicant asked the head of the Gudermes police to assist him with the search for his wife.
193. In July, October and November 2006 the ten officers who had been manning the Yarag-Kazmalyar and Dagestan checkpoints at the material time, including Col. Ab., Lt. Col. R., Maj. Is. and Capt. B., were interviewed. They stated that Ms Dzhalilova had been arrested following an FSB request. Another woman, Ms T., who had been accompanying Ms Dzhalilova, had been also arrested. The next day they had both had been transferred by Lt. Col. R. to the Dagestan checkpoint in Derbent. Subsequently, two FSB officers had arrived at the checkpoint in a GAZelle minivan and had taken Ms Dzhalilova away with them.
194. On 19 April 2007 the officers of the Yarag-Kazmalyar and Dagestan checkpoints were interviewed. They reiterated their earlier statements.
195. On 12 June 2007, following an application by the applicant, the Gudermes District Court declared Ms Dzhalilova a missing person.
196. On 6 December 2007 the applicant complained to the Russian President of Ms Dzhalilova’s abduction and asked for assistance in the search for his wife. In reply, he was informed that his complaint had been transferred to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office.
197. On 14 November 2007 Mr R. and Mr A.M., drivers from the FSB, were interviewed by the prosecutor of the Makhachkala Military Garrison. They stated that they had never driven a GAZelle minivan through the Dagestan checkpoint and suggested that the vehicle could have been used by other members of the FSB staff with a special permit.
198. On 6 December 2007 the investigators examined the Dagestan checkpoint. No evidence was collected.
199. On the same day Ms T., who had been arrested with Ms Dzhalilova, was interviewed by the military prosecutor. She stated that Ms Dzhalilova was her relative. After their arrest at the checkpoint they had been taken to Derbent and questioned by officer Kh. On the next day Ms Dzhalilova had been taken for questioning, while Ms T. had been given her documents and released. Officer Kh. had told her that Ms Dzhalilova had left for Gudermes.
200. On 21 June and 4 August 2008 the military prosecutor interviewed Lt. Col. R., Col. Ab., Maj. Is. and Capt. B., none of whom provided new information. Col. Ab., Maj. Is. and Capt. B.stated that the detention of Ms Dzhalilova had not been officially registered in the Dagestan checkpoint since she had not been detained in a cell.
201. On 20 October 2008 the applicant requested that the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 505 institute proceedings into the abduction of his wife.
202. On 1 February 2010 the North-Caucasus military district prosecutor’s office transferred the case file in respect of the disappearance of Ms Dzhalilova to military investigations department no. 315 for further examination. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Derbent prosecutor’s office. The latter sent the case file back to military investigations department no. 315. It appears that until July 2011 the case file was transferred back and forth between various prosecutors’ offices in Dagestan.
203. On 7 July 2011 the Dagestan Investigative Committee opened criminal case no. 104268 into the abduction of Ms Dzhalilova and five other individuals under Articles 105 (murder) and 126 (abduction) of the Criminal Code.
204. On 8 July 2011 the military investigations department no. 315 refused to institute criminal proceedings against the suspected abductors Col. Ab., Lt. Col.R., Maj. Is. and Capt. B. for lack of corpus delicti. There is no evidence that the applicant was informed thereof.
205. On an unspecified date in 2011 the relatives of the other abducted individuals lodged complaints with the Makhachkala Garrison Military Court against the refusal of 8 July 2011.
206. On 13 July 2011 the military court upheld the refusal in respect of Capt. B. Then on 15 July 2011 the same court upheld the refusal in respect of two other officers – Col. Ab. and Maj. Is. It is unclear whether any appeal was lodged against the refusal to initiate an investigation in respect of Lt. Col. R.
207. In August and September 2011 Col. Ab., Maj. Is., Capt. B. and two other officers were questioned. They reaffirmed their earlier statements.
208. On 2 November 2011 the investigators’ superior annulled the decision of 7 July 2011 to open criminal case no. 104268 on the grounds that the investigators had not taken steps to verify the extent of the involvement of the FSB officers in the alleged abduction. He also ordered additional enquiries into the abduction, and, depending on its results, instructed that the case file be forwarded to the military investigators in accordance with the rules of jurisdiction. The document stated, in particular, that the investigators had failed to verify whether the missing individuals had been kept in a remand prison or a temporary detention centre; they had not obtained registration logs from the Dagestancheckpoint. Nor had they requested the FSB operative reports on the missing individuals. The applicant was not informed of that decision.
209. On 10 November 2011 the case file was transferred to the Southern Circuit investigations department for additional enquiries and then to military investigations department no. 315. Until February 2012 the case file was transferred between various prosecutors’ offices.
210. On 15 February 2012 the Dagestan Investigative Committee refused to institute criminal proceedings into the abduction and murder of six individuals including Ms Dzhalilova owing to the absence of the elements of a crime (отсутствие события преступления). The applicant was not informed of that decision.
211. On 12 January 2014 the applicant complained to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office of the shortcomings in the investigation. No reply followed.
212. On 2 March 2014 the applicant lodged a request with the Dagestan Investigative Committee, asking to be provided with information about the investigation.
213. On 23 May 2014 the investigators’ superior annulled the refusal of 15 February 2012 and sent the file for a fresh examination.
214. On 27 June 2014 the Dagestan Investigative Committee again refused to institute criminal proceedings into the abduction and murder of six individuals including Ms Dzhalilova owing to the absence of the elements of a crime.
215. On 13 March 2015 the investigators’ superior annulled that refusal and ordered a fresh examination of the case file.
216. On 23 March 2015 the Dagestan Investigative Committee refused on the same grounds yet again to institute criminal proceedings into the abduction and murder of six individuals including Ms Dzhalilova. That decision was annulled on 18 September 2015 by the investigators’ superior and the case file was sent back for a fresh examination.
217. Subsequently, between October 2015 and June 2016 two more refusals to open a criminal case were issued. The investigators’ superior annulled both of them and ordered a new pre-investigation inquiry. The last decision to annul the refusal was issued on 11 May 2018.
218. From the documents submitted it appears that no criminal case has been opened into the abduction of Ms Dzhalilova.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
219. For a summary of the relevant domestic law and international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012), and Turluyeva v. Russia (no. 63638/09, §§ 65-74, 20 June 2013).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
220. In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-MONTH RULE
A. The parties’ submissions
1. Government
221. The Government in all cases submitted that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court with an unjustifiable delay and had therefore failed to comply with the six-month time-limit.
222. The applicant in Saidova (no. 36963/09) had lodged her application about four years after the alleged abduction. According to the Government, the applicant must have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the pending investigation long before lodging of the application since the criminal case had been opened almost three years after the alleged abduction and had been suspended in December 2008, whereas the application had been lodged in July 2009.
223. In Machigov (no. 8417/10)the investigation had been suspended in November 2005, whereas the applicant had challenged that decision only almost four years later, in February 2009, and had failed to contact the authorities in the meantime.
224. In Patsuyev and Others (no. 9862/12) there had been two significant lulls in the investigation – from June 2004 to December 2005 and from July 2006 to August 2010. The applicants had remained passive during those periods and had not applied to the investigators for information. Moreover, until 2005 the applicants had applied to various law-enforcement authorities and not just the investigators, which had showed that they had realised the ineffectiveness of the investigation.
225. As for Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13) the Government submitted that there had been two significant lulls during the investigation comprising one year and seven months and four and a half years respectively. In addition, the applicants had lodged their application with the Court eleven years after the alleged abduction.
226. In Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the Government pointed out that the criminal case had been opened more than six years after the alleged abduction. Furthermore, the decision to open a criminal case had been annulled and the reopening of a criminal case refused on several occasions. The applicant had failed to contact investigators for almost three years. He should have applied to the Court long before 2014.
2. The applicants
227. The applicant in Saidova (no. 36963/09) submitted that she had complied with the admissibility criteria. She had taken all possible steps within a reasonable time to initiate the search for her missing son and had lodged her application with the Court as soon as she had become convinced that the investigation into the abduction had been ineffective.
228. In Machigov (no. 8417/10) the applicant argued that he had applied to the Court within nine years of his brother’s abduction and eight years after the opening of the criminal case, which had been in compliance with the time-limits established by the Court’s case-law.
229. The applicants in Patsuyev and Others (application no. 9862/12) argued that, unlike in Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia ((dec.) no. 58055/10, 31 May 2016), they had been in regular contact with the authorities. Moreover, they had successfully challenged the investigators’ inaction before the domestic court and thus could have expected that the investigators would have complied with the District Court’s rulings.
230. In Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13) the applicants submitted that they had complied with the six-month time-limit as they had brought their application to the Court as soon as they had realised that the delays in the criminal investigation had been unreasonably long.
231. The applicant in Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) stated that he had complained to the authorities shortly after the incident and had hoped that a criminal investigation would be initiated and produce results. He further submitted that he had maintained regular contact with the authorities, had been active both before the institution of the investigation in 2011 and after the termination of the investigation and had contacted authorities regularly. Lastly, he argued that he had not received a copy of any of the refusals to open a criminal case, which made it impossible for him to challenge them in court.
B. The Court’s assessment
232. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that in each application, the applicants lodged their complaints within less than ten years of the incidents (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, ECHR 2009).
233. It further notes that the applicants informed the authorities of the abductions of their relatives shortly after the incidents (see paragraphs 12, 58, 75, 136, 151 and 191 above).
234. The Court also observes that in each of the applications, save for Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14), the authorities opened a criminal investigation into the applicants’ complaints of abduction, which was repeatedly suspended and then resumed following criticism by the supervising investigators. In each case, but Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14), the investigation was still ongoing or pending when the application was lodged with the Court.
235. The Court notes certain lulls in those investigations. In Saidova (no. 36963/09) and Machigov (no. 8417/10)they did not exceed three years. The most significant gaps occurred in Patsuyev and Others (no. 9862/12) – between 23 July 2006 and 27 August 2010 (see paragraphs 119 and 123 above) – and in Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13) – between 12 October 2006 and 29 March 2011 (see paragraphs 174 and 178 above). However, during that period the applicants remained active. More specifically, they requested access to the case file, sought to obtain victim status and complained of the ineffectiveness of the investigation (see paragraphs 120-121 and 175-177 above).
236. In assessing the circumstances of the present case, the Court takes into account that all of the applications were lodged within ten years of the incidents and that the authorities became aware of the abductions without undue delays. It also notes the applicants’ efforts to have the dormant proceedings resumed and their overall active stance in the proceedings. Therefore, it concludes that the applicants acted diligently and maintained contact with the investigators.
237. Given the fact that the investigations were complex and concerned very serious allegations, the Court concludes that it was reasonable for the applicants to wait for developments that could have resolved crucial factual or legal issues (see El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 142, ECHR 2012). The lulls in the proceedings, cannot therefore be interpreted as failure by the applicants to comply with the six-month requirement (contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov, cited above, §§ 41-47, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, while the investigation was seemingly dormant).
238. In the light of the above the Court concludes that the applicants in each of the cases under examination save for Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) have complied with the six-month rule.
239. Turning to Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14), the Court notes that the question whether the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit in respect of this complaint is closely linked to the question of whether the domestic authorities carried out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations. This issue relates to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article 2 of the Convention (see Dalakov v. Russia, no. 35152/09, § 59, 16 February 2016). The Court therefore decides to join this issue to the merits, which are to be examined below.
III. THE APPLICANTS’ VICTIM STATUS
A. The parties’ submissions
1. Government
240. In Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13) the Government submitted that all the applicants had lost their victim status given the compensation they had been awarded by the domestic courts with regard to their relatives’ abduction.
2. The applicants
241. In Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13) the applicants did not comment on the Government’s plea concerning the loss of victim status.
B. The Court’s assessment
242. The Court notes that at the outset that in Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13) the compensation received by the applicants at the domestic level was significantly lower than the Court’s awards in similar cases (compareUmarova and Others v. Russia, no. 25654/08, § 125, 31 July 2012, and Dudayeva v. Russia, no. 67437/09, § 116, 8 December 2015). In any event, in the instant case the domestic authorities did not acknowledge either expressly or in substance, the violations alleged. However, most importantly, in the civil proceedings referred to by the Government, the domestic courts were unable to conduct an investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the abductions and to provide adequate redress (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 121, 24 February 2005).
243. Accordingly, the Government’s argument regarding the loss of victim status with regard to the applicants in Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13) is also dismissed.
IV. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
A. The parties’ submissions
1. The Government
244. The Government did not contest any of the facts underlying the applications.
2. The applicants
245. The applicants submitted that it had been established “beyond reasonable doubt” that the men who had taken their relatives had been State agents. In support of that assertion, they referred to evidence contained in their submissions and in the information statement on the progress of the investigations submitted by the Government. They also submitted that they had each made out a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by State agents, and the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government. Given the lack of any news about their relatives for a long time and the life‑threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan at the relevant time, they asked the Court to consider their relatives dead.
B. The Court’s assessment of the facts
1. General principles
246. For a summary of general principles see Khava Aziyeva and Others (no. 30237/10, §§ 62-65, 23 April 2015, with further references).
2. Application of the principles to the present case
247. The Court notes that in reply to its request for an entire copy of the investigation files into the abductions of the applicants’ relatives the Government submitted relevant documents in all cases bar Machigov (no. 8417/10). Regard being had to the material in its possession, the Court considers that it is not precluded by the lack of certain documents from examining the issues raised in those applications.
248. Keeping in mind the parties’ submissions, the Court’s task is to decide whether the circumstances of the cases at hand could warrant the conclusion that State agents were responsible for the abductions of the applicants’ relatives.
249. The Court notes that, even though in each case at hand the abductors used civilian vehicles – unlike in numerous other cases concerning abductions by State agents (see, for example, Giriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 17879/08, 21 June 2011; Kosumova and Others v. Russia, no. 27441/07, 7 June 2011; Malika Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 37193/08, 24 May 2011; Matayeva and Dadayeva v. Russia, no. 49076/06, 19 April 2011; and Nasukhanovy v. Russia, no. 1572/07, 10 February 2011) – the material before it demonstrates the validity of the applicants’ allegations concerning the State agents’ involvement in their relatives’ abduction for the following reasons.
250. Firstly, it should be taken into account that the abductions took place in the Northern Caucasus, in the regions of Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan after the active phase of the large-scale counter-terrorist operations in Chechnya had ended, but at a time when incidents of enforced disappearances continued to occur (see, among many other authorities, Alikhanovy v. Russia, no. 17054/06, 28 August 2018; Tsakoyevy v. Russia, no. 16397/07, 2 October 2018; Turluyeva, cited above; Khava Aziyeva and Others, cited above; Makayeva v. Russia, no. 37287/09, 18 September 2014; and Askhabovav. Russia, no. 54765/09, 18 April 2013).
251. It is not disputed by the parties that in Saidova (no. 36963/09) prior to the abductions, the applicant’s son and his close relatives had been under surveillance by the authorities or at least the focus of attention on the part of the law-enforcement agencies (see paragraph 8 above). The documents submitted show that the applicant’s son had been detained in Moscow and transferred to Makhachkala following a request of the Dagestan prosecutor’s office (see paragraphs 9 and 40 above). In Machigov (no. 8417/10) the applicant’s brother was arrested by the police and taken to the police station in Grozny (see paragraph 56 above). In Patsuyev and Others (no. 9862/12), the applicants’ relatives disappeared as a result of a special operation carried out by an organised group of armed men at a district hospital (see paragraphs 71-74 above). In Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13), officers in military uniforms cordoned off the village and abducted the applicants’ relatives (see paragraph 134 and 161 above). In Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the applicant’s wife disappeared after being arrested at a border checkpoint, detained and taken to the FSB headquarters in Khankala (see paragraphs 189 and 193 above).
252. The documents submitted show that the investigators did not take meaningful steps to check whether the abductions could have been perpetrated by other culprits for other reasons, such as a blood feud, ransom, drugs or hostility (contrast, Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 67797/01, § 81, 10 January 2008). Moreover, in Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the investigators’ superior annulled the decision to open a criminal case into the abduction and no fully-fledged criminal investigation was subsequently initiated despite the consistent orders of the superior to this end (see paragraphs 208, 210 and 213-217 above).
253. Lastly, the reluctance of the authorities to actively investigate the matter, along with the applicants’ consistent allegations that State agents were involved in the incidents, provide the Court with the grounds to conclude that the applicants each have made out a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by State agents.
254. Given that the Government did not put forward any explanation for the events in question, or an alternative version of the events, the Court finds that the applicants’ relatives were arrested by State agents.
255. There has been no reliable news of the applicants’ missing relatives since their disappearances. In a situation where a person is detained by State agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention and is then missing for several years, that situation can be regarded as life‑threatening. The absence of the applicants’ relatives or of any news of them for a number of years supports this assumption.
256. Accordingly, the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish to the requisite standard of proof that Mr Salikh Saidov, Mr Kazbek Machigov, Mr Adam Patsuyev, Mr Ibragim Idigov, Mr Salam Kerimov, Mr Lom-Ali Shaipov, Mr Musa Adisov, Mr Ashab Aliyev, Mr Khamdula Gayrbekov, Mr Vakharsolta Ibalayev and Ms Serizha Dzhalilova must be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by State agents.
V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
257. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relatives had been abducted by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the incidents. Article 2 reads as follows:
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”
A. The parties’ submissions
258. The Government did not contest the applicants’ complaints.
259. The applicants argued that their relatives had been abducted by State agents and that the ensuing investigations had not been ineffective.
260. In particular, the applicants in Machigov (no. 8417/10) alleged that the investigation, initiated with a one-year delay, had been ineffective.
261. In Saidova (no. 36963/09) the applicant drew the Court’s attention to the opening of the investigation with the delay of more than three years. She pointed to the numerous suspensions of the criminal proceedings and the investigators’ failure to take important investigative steps, such as identifying the State agents who had taken her son from Moscow to Makhachkala.
262. In Patsuyev and Others (no. 9862/12) the applicants submitted that while the investigation had been opened on the day of their relatives’ abduction, and the involvement of law-enforcement agents from Chechnya had been established, the investigators had failed to take steps to follow-up on that information.
263. The applicants in Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13) submitted that the investigation had been protracted and that the investigators had not informed them of the progress in the proceedings. The authorities had failed to take all necessary steps to elucidate the circumstances of the abduction.
264. In Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the applicant submitted that the authorities had not carried out a fully-fledged investigation by opening a criminal case and they had failed to take basic steps. He had not been granted victim status, which had precluded him from having access to the investigation file and being informed of the most important decisions by the investigators.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Admissibility
265. The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that the complaints are not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) Alleged violation of the right to life
266. The Court has already found that the applicants’ relatives must be presumed dead following unacknowledged detention by State service personnel. In the absence of any submission by the Government, the Court finds that their deaths can be attributed to the State and that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 in respect of Mr Salikh Saidov, Mr Kazbek Machigov, Mr Adam Patsuyev, Mr Ibragim Idigov, Mr Salam Kerimov, Mr Lom-Ali Shaipov, Mr Musa Adisov, Mr Ashab Aliyev, Mr Khamdula Gayrbekov (also spelt Gayribekov), Mr Vakharsolta Ibalayev and Ms Serizha Dzhalilova.
(b) Effectiveness of the investigations into the abduction of Mr Kazbek Machigov, Mr Adam Patsuyev, Mr Ibragim Idigov, Mr Salam Kerimov, Mr Lom-Ali Shaipov, Mr Musa Adisov, Mr Ashab Aliyev, Mr Khamdula Gayrbekov and Mr Vakharsolta Ibalayev
267. At the outset the Court notes that in Machigov (no. 8417/10) the Government did not submit copies of the investigation files (see paragraph 247 above). However, regard being had to the material provided by the applicants, the Court considers that it is not precluded by the lack of certain documents from examining on the merits the issues raised in the applications.
268. The Court has already found that a criminal investigation does not constitute an effective remedy in respect of disappearances occurring in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan between 1999 and 2006 in particular, and that such a situation constitutes a systemic problem under the Convention (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 219, and Turluyeva, cited above, §§ 65-74). In the case at hand, as in many previous similar cases reviewed by the Court, the investigations have been pending for many years without bringing about any significant developments as to the identities of the perpetrators or the fate of the applicants’ missing relatives. While the obligation to investigate effectively is one of best endeavours and not of results, the Court notes that each set of criminal proceedings has been plagued by a combination of defects similar to those enumerated in the Aslakhanova and Others judgment (cited above, §§ 123‑25). Each set of proceedings included several decisions to suspend the investigation; those suspensions were followed by periods of inactivity, which further diminished the prospects of solving the crimes. No timely and thorough measures have been taken to identify and question the service personnel who could have participated in the abductions.
(c) Effectiveness of the investigations into the abduction of Mr Salikh Saidov and Ms Serizha Dzhalilova
269. For a summary of relevant general principles see Khava Aziyeva and Others (cited above, §§ 62‑65).
270. The examination of the material submitted by the parties leads the Court to the conclusion that the investigations carried out into the abductions were ineffective for the following reasons.
(i) Investigation into the abduction of Mr Salikh Saidov
271. The documents submitted show that the investigation was opened with a significant delay of four years (see paragraph 20 above). The Court further notes that despite having information about the police officers who had accompanied Mr Saidov from Moscow to Makhachkala, the investigators failed to identify and question them (see paragraph 40 above). Nor did the investigators cross-examine Mr A.B., who mentioned special-unit Officers P.’s and T.’s involvement in Mr Saidov’s transfer, and Officer T., who denied his participation (see paragraphs 40 and 44 above). The investigators also failed to identify the Dagestan police officers to whom Salikh Saidov had been handed over upon his transfer to Makhachkala from Moscow. The Court is struck by the investigators’ failure to verify the applicant’s information about the person who had been detained with Mr Saidov (see paragraph 46 above).
272. Furthermore, between 2008 and 2011 the investigation was suspended and resumed on at least eight occasions (see paragraphs 27, 29, 32, 34, 51 and 54 above). The premature suspensions in a situation in which vital steps had not been taken undermined the investigators’ ability to identify and prosecute the perpetrators (see Ögur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21954/93, §§ 88, ECHR 1999‑III, and Khava Aziyeva and Others, cited above, § 86).
(ii) Investigation into the abductionof Ms Serizha Dzhalilova
273. The Court observes that the domestic authorities opened criminal case no. 104268 into the abduction of Ms Serizha Dzhalilova with a significant delay – almost six years after the incident (see paragraph 203 above). The investigation of case no. 104268 was de facto terminated, (see paragraph 208 above) and then on several occasions it was decided not to open a criminal case for the absence of the elements of a crime (see paragraphs 210, 213, 214-215 and 217 above). Every one of those decisions were annulled as unsubstantiated and the case file was sent for a fresh examination, but to no avail.
274. Furthermore, military investigations department no. 315 refused to initiate an investigation against the suspected abductors Col. Ab., Lt. Col. R., Maj. Is. and Capt. B. for lack of corpus delicti in their actions (see paragraph 204 above) but the applicant was not informed of those decisions.
275. Therefore, from the documents submitted it is clear that no criminal investigation, other than the short-lived investigation in criminal case no. 104268 and then the subsequent investigation by the Dagestan Investigative Committee, were officially carried out into the abduction of Ms Serizha Dzhalilova. Thus, the Court has to establish the circumstances on the basis of the documents furnished as part of criminal case no. 104268 and the investigations which resulted in the decisions not to open a criminal case.
276. The information collected by the investigators in criminal case no. 104268 contained clear indications that Ms Dzhalilova had disappeared while she had been in the hands of the State agents (see paragraphs 193 and 199 above). That should have prompted the authorities to initiate a fully‑fledged criminal investigation into the matter. However, in spite of the evidence contained in the file and the applicant’s consistent complaints to this end, the authorities limited themselves to the pre-investigation inquiry and refused to effectively investigate the applicant’s allegations. The Court reiterates in this regard, that Article 2 of the Convention means that there should be some form of effective, impartial investigation into credible allegations of deprivation of life.
277. As a result, neither Ms T., who had been arrested with Ms Dzhalilova, nor the officers from the Dagestan FSB who could have shed light on the circumstances of Ms Dzhalilova’s disappearance, were questioned as witnesses in the investigation into her abduction. Meanwhile, the implicated FSB officers were interviewed, within the framework of pre‑investigation inquiry (дознание), which did not commit them in the same way as it would have in the context of a criminal case if it had been opened against them, and did not entail the necessary safeguards inherent in an effective criminal investigation, such as criminal liability for perjury (see paragraph 193 above). No confrontation was ever held between Ms T. and the FSB officers who had manned the Yarag-Kazmalyar and Dagestan checkpoints and between the FSB officers themselves. Moreover, Officer Kh., to whom Ms T. had referred as the last person who had seen the applicant’s wife alive, was never questioned.
278. The Court observes further that the applicant consistently requested that the authorities open a criminal case (see paragraphs 191-192, 196, 201, and 211 above). However, his requests were to no avail. As noted above (see paragraph 277 above), at the material time, questioning of witnesses, confrontations and identity parades were among the investigative measures which could be carried out in the course of an investigation only after a criminal case had been opened.
279. The Court has already found that at the material time, a pre‑investigation inquiry alone was not capable of leading to punishment of those responsible as regards allegations concerning such serious violations as ill-treatment by State agents (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, § 135, 24 July 2014). In the present case, where the situation concerned deprivation of life, the Court’s findings in Lyapin are of particular relevance. The Court reiterates that the “pre‑investigation inquiry” (if it is not followed by a “fully-fledged investigation”), especially in view of conflicting versions of the events, as in the present case, is unable to elucidate the circumstances of the alleged use of lethal force.
280. The documents submitted indicate that despite the information collected by the investigators in criminal case no. 104268 and the applicant’s credible and consistent complaints, the domestic authorities, including the Dagestan Investigative Committee and the military investigations department, failed to demonstrate a proper response to the serious allegations of abduction by State agents. By failing in its duty to carry out an effective investigation, the State fostered State agents’ sense of impunity. The Court stresses that a proper response by the authorities in investigating serious allegations of use of lethal force by agents of the State in compliance with the Article 2 of the Convention standards is essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, among other authorities, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 108, 4 May 2001, and Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 167, ECHR 2011).
281. As to the Government’s objection concerning the applicant’s failure to comply with the six-month rule, the Court reiterates that where an applicant avails himself of an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, the six-month period starts from the date when the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001). Considering that it has been established that the investigation was terminated and the case file was sent for additional enquiries, and bearing in mind that the applicant was never informed of the respective procedural decisions (see paragraphs 208 and 210 above) as well as his active stance in January and March 2014 following the subsequent termination of proceedings (see paragraphs 211-212 above), uncontested by the Government, the Court accepts that the six-month time-limit could not have started to run before March 2014, which was when the applicant realised the ineffectiveness of the domestic remedy.
282. In the light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection (see paragraph 239 above) in respect of the complaint under Article 2 of the Convention.
d) Conclusion
283. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances of the disappearances and deaths of Mr Salikh Saidov, Mr Kazbek Machigov, Mr Adam Patsuyev, Mr Ibragim Idigov, Mr Salam Kerimov, Mr Lom-Ali Shaipov, Mr Musa Adisov, Mr Ashab Aliyev, Mr Khamdula Gayrbekov, Mr Vakharsolta Ibalayev and Ms Serizha Dzhalilova. Accordingly, there has been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.
VI. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
284. The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that as a result of their relatives’ disappearance and the State’s failure to investigate it properly, they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. The parties’ submissions
285. The Government did not contest the applicants’ complaints.
286. The applicants maintained their submissions.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Admissibility
287. The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
288. The Court has found on many occasions that in a situation of enforced disappearance, the close relatives of the victim may themselves be victims of treatment in violation of Article 3. The essence of such a violation does not mainly lie in the fact of the “disappearance” of the family member but rather concerns the authorities’ reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts)).
289. The Court further notes that for several years the applicants in all cases have not had any news of their missing relatives or any plausible explanation or information about what became of them following their arrests. The Court’s findings under the procedural aspect of Article 2 are also of direct relevance here.
290. The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants.
VII. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
291. The applicants submitted that their relatives had been detained in violation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follow:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
…
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
…
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”
A. The parties’ submissions
292. The Government submitted no argument in respect of the aforementioned complaint.
293. The applicants reiterated their complaints.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Admissibility
294. The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that the complaints are not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
295. The Court has found on a number of occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly grave violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)). The Court furthermore confirms that since it has been established that Mr Salikh Saidov, Mr Kazbek Machigov, Mr Adam Patsuyev, Mr Ibragim Idigov, Mr Salam Kerimov, Mr Lom-Ali Shaipov, Mr Musa Adisov, Mr Ashab Aliyev, Mr Khamdula Gayrbekov, Mr Vakharsolta Ibalayev and Ms Serizha Dzhalilova were detained by State agents, apparently in the absence of any legal grounds or acknowledgement of such detention, this constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security of individuals enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention in respect of them.
VIII. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
296. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. They also alleged the absence of effective remedies for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by individuals acting in an official capacity.”
A. The parties’ submissions
297. The Government submitted no argument in respect of the aforementioned complaints.
298. The applicants reiterated their complaints.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Admissibility
299. The Court notes that the applicants complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
300. The Court observes that the complaint under Article 13 in connection with Article 2 of the Convention concerns the same issues as those examined above under Article 2. Having regard to its conclusion in paragraph 283 above, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine that issue separately under Article 13 (see Gaysanova v. Russia, no. ,62235/09 § 142, 12 May 2016; Fanziyeva v. Russia, no. 41675/08, § 85, 18 June 2015; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 126, 24 April 2014, and Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 123, 14 February 2012).
IX. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
301. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
1. Pecuniary damage
302. Only the applicants in Patsuyev and Others (9682/12) and Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13) claimed compensation for loss of financial support by the breadwinners.
303. The applicants in Patsuyev and Others (9682/12)based their calculations on the average monthly wage in Ingushetia.
304. In Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13) the applicants relied solely on the Court’s case-law concerning just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage in similar cases.
305. In respect of both applications the Government argued that the applicants’ calculations were not substantiated by documents proving the amount of their relatives’ earnings as claimed and that they were based on assumptions. Furthermore, the applicants could have applied for a pension for the loss of a breadwinner but had failed to do so.
2. Non-pecuniary damage
306. The amounts claimed by the applicants under this head are indicated in the appended table.
307. In Saidova (no. 36963/09), Machigov (8417/10) and Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the Government left the issue to the Court’s discretion. The Government did not submit any comments on the claims in Patsuyev and Others (9682/12) and Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13).
B. Costs and expenses
308. All of the applicants claimed compensation for costs and expenses. The amounts are indicated in the appended table. All of them asked for the awards to be transferred into the bank accounts of their representatives. The applicant in Saidova (no. 36963/09) asked for the award to be converted into pounds sterling (GBP).
309. The Government submitted in respect of Saidova (no. 36963/09), Patsuyev and Others (9682/12) and Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13), that the applicants’ claims under this head were groundless. In particular, they stated that the cases involved little documentary evidence and that legal research and preparation had not been necessary to the extent claimed. Furthermore, the Government submitted that the applications were based on the well-established case-law of the Court.
310. In Machigov (no. 8417/10) and Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the Government did not comment on the applicants’ claims.
C. The Court’s assessment
311. The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damages claimed by the applicants and the violation of the Convention, and that this may, where appropriate, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings. The Court further finds that loss of earnings applies to close relatives of the disappeared individuals, including spouses, elderly parents and minor children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 213).
312. Wherever the Court finds a violation of the Convention, it may accept that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation, and make a financial award.
313. As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish whether they were actually incurred and whether they were necessary and reasonable as to quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
314. Having regard to the conclusions and principles set out above and the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on those amounts. The awards in respect of costs and expenses in respect of all cases are to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts, as indicated by the applicants.
D. Default interest
315. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
X. ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION
316. The applicants in Saidova (no. 36963/09) and Patsuyev and Others (no. 9862/12), asked the Court to indicate that there was an obligation on the respondent Government to identify and prosecute those responsible for the abduction of their relatives, and that an award in respect of non‑pecuniary damage should be coupled with a decision by the Court that a fresh investigation should follow the entry into force of the Court’s judgment. The applicants also asked the Court to indicate that, irrespective of the outcome of the investigation, the respondent Government should take all possible measures to locate the bodies of their abducted sons and return them to the family members, and should provide the applicants with access to the entire investigation files. Moreover, in each of the cases the applicants submitted a list of the investigative measures which should be taken by the authorities.
317. The Government did not comment on the applicants’ submission.
318. Article 46 of the Convention provides as far as relevant:
“1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.
2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.”
319. Bearing in mind its findings in Aslakhanova and Others (cited above, §§ 220-38) concerning the systemic problem of ineffective investigations into disappearances in the region at the material time, along with its findings in a number of similar cases in which it has decided, with reference to its established principles, that it was most appropriate to leave it to the respondent Government to choose the means to be used in the domestic legal order with a view to discharging their legal obligations under Article 46 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Mutsolgova and Others v. Russia, no. 2952/06, § 168, 1 April 2010, and Sultygov and Others, cited above § 504), the Court does not see any exceptional circumstances which would lead it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Decides to join to the merits the Government’s objection in Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) concerning compliance with the six-month time-limit and rejects it;
3. Declaresthe applications admissible;
4. Holdsthat there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ disappeared relatives;
5. Holdsthat there has been a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure to investigate effectively the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives;
6. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants on account of their mental suffering caused by their relatives’ disappearance and the authorities’ response to their suffering;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ disappeared relatives, on account of their unlawful detention;
8. Holdsthat no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;
9. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The awards in respect of costs and expenses in all cases are to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts as indicated by the applicants;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
10. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 January 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Alena Poláčková
Registrar President
Appendix
| No. | Application no.
Lodged on |
Applicant(s)
Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality |
Kinship to the abducted person | Represented by | Pecuniary damage | Non-pecuniary damage | Costs and expenses |
| 1 | 36963/09
08/07/2009 |
Ms Khatimat SAIDOVA
25/10/1955 Makhachkala Russian |
Mother of Mr Salikh Saidov | MEMORIAL HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE | Sought by the applicants | ||
| n/a | In the amount to be determined by the Court | 10,400 euros (EUR)
GBP 1,785 (EUR 2,026) |
|||||
| Awarded by the Court | |||||||
| EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) | EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) | ||||||
| 2 | 8417/10
24/11/2009 |
Mr Albert MACHIGOV
29/10/1966 Grozny Russian |
Brother of Mr Kazbek Machigov | STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE/
ASTREYA |
Sought by the applicants | ||
| n/a | In the amount to be determined by the Court | EUR 1,425 | |||||
| Awarded by the Court | |||||||
| n/a | EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) | EUR 1,425 (one thousand four hundred and twenty five euros) | |||||
| 3 | 9862/12
26/01/2012 |
1. Mr Murat PATSUYEV
19/11/1956 Nesterovskaya Russian
2. Mr Abaz IDIGOV 26/02/1950 Nesterovskaya Russian
3. Mr Vakha SHAIPOV 01/01/1956 Achkhoy-Martan Russian
4. Ms Eset KERIMOVA 25/11/1960 Ordzhonikidzevskaya Russian |
Father of Mr Adam PATSUYEV
Father of Mr Ibragim IDIGOV
Father of Mr Lom-Ali SHAIPOV
Mother of Mr Salam KERIMOV |
MEMORIAL HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE | Sought by the applicants | ||
| EUR 10,200 (to the first, second and forth applicant) each
EUR 24,480 (to the third applicant) |
In the amount to be determined by the Court | EUR 1,800 | |||||
| Awarded by the Court | |||||||
| EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to the first, second and fourth applicants each
EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to the third applicant |
EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to each of the applicants | EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros) | |||||
| 4 | 13793/13
30/01/2013 |
1. Ms Khalimat ADISOVA
14/03/1957 Alleroy Russian
2. Ms Aset GAYRBEKOVA 14/10/1969 Grebenskaya Russian
3. Ms Eset KHALADOVA 23/04/1976 Alleroy Russian
4. Ms Markha ALIYEVA 01/01/1966 Zamay-Yurt Russian |
Mother of Mr Musa ADISOV
Sister of Mr Ashab ALIYEV
Wife of Mr Khamdula GAYRBEKOV
Wife of Mr Vakharsolta IBALAYEV |
Mr Tagir SHAMSUDINOV | Sought by the applicants | ||
| EUR 50,000 (to each of the applicants) | EUR 100,000 (to each of the applicants) | EUR 2,087 | |||||
| Awarded by the Court | |||||||
| EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to each of the applicants | EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) to each of the applicants | EUR 850 (eight hundred fifty euros) | |||||
| 5 | 11499/14
12/04/2014 |
Mr Zayndi DZHALILOV
02/12/1953 Gudermes Russian |
Husband of Ms Serizha Dzhalilova | Mr Dokka ITSLAYEV | Sought by the applicants | ||
| n/a | EUR 250,000 | EUR 2,176 | |||||
| Awarded by the Court | |||||||
| EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros) | EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) | ||||||
Leave a Reply