CASE OF BITSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)

Last Updated on May 16, 2019 by LawEuro

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BITSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 14196/08 and 9 others – see list appended)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 October 2018

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Bitsayeva and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2018,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in ten applications against Russia 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.  The applications were communicated 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 the Chechen Republic. Their personal details are set out in the appended table. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen 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.

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 being achieved. The applicants lodged requests for information and assistance in the search for their relatives with the investigating authorities and various law-enforcement bodies. Their requests received either only formal responses or none at all. The perpetrators have not been identified 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 neighbours to both the Court and the domestic investigative authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases, as presented by the applicants, but questioned the involvement of servicemen in the events.

A.  Bitsayeva v. Russia (no. 14196/08)

7.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Vait Askhabov, who was born in 1976.

1.  Abduction of Mr Vait Askhabov

8.  At about 3 p.m. on 12 March 2001 a convoy of military vehicles, supported by four helicopters, arrived in the village of Chiri-Yurt. Mr Vait Askhabov at that time was working in his garden. As the main part of the convoy was passing along the main street, two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and four military lorries stopped next to his garden and their crew started to repair one of the APCs. Shortly thereafter something exploded next to the APC. The servicemen immediately cordoned off the area, including the applicant’s house. They went to the garden fence and ordered Mr Vait Askhabov to climb over the fence and come to them. They then forced him into a military Ural lorry and did not let anyone come close to that lorry. About thirty minutes later they drove away with Mr Vait Askhabov. Several people, including Mr Vait Askhabov’s sister (Ms L.A.) and his neighbours (Ms Z.Kh., and Ms A.U.) witnessed the incident. The applicant submitted to the Court their written statements, which confirmed the applicant’s account of the events. Mr Vait Askhabov has been missing ever since.

2.  Official investigation

9.  On 13 March 2001 the applicant complained to the Shali district prosecutor’s office of Mr Vait Askhabov’s abduction.

10.  On 12 July 2001 the Shali district prosecutor’s office openedcriminal case no. 23132 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code of Russia (“CC”) (abduction). Four days later Mr Vait Askhabov’s father was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.

11.  In September 2001 (the exact date is illegible) the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

12.  On 31 July 2002 the Shali District Court declared Mr Vait Askhabov a missing person.

13.  On 24 February 2004 the applicant asked the Ombudsman of Chechnya to request the investigators to conduct an effective investigation.

14.  On 19 March 2004 the investigation was resumed. The investigator sent several requests for the persons involved in the operation of 12 March 2001 to be identified, but to no avail. A month later the investigation was suspended.

15.  On 23 December 2004 the investigation was resumed in order for the crime sceneto be examined and several persons to be questioned concerning Mr Vait Askhabov’s possible membership in illegal armed groups. The persons questioned denied that possibility. A month later the investigation was suspended.

16.  On 28 May 2007 the applicant complained to the President of the Chechen Republicthat the investigation had been ineffective. That complaint was forwarded to the investigators.

17.  On an unspecified date in June 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Shali District Court alleging that the investigation had been ineffective and that the investigators had failed to take basic steps.

18.  On 29 June 2007 the Shali District Court allowed the claim. It noted that the investigation had not achieved any positive results, that it had been deliberately protracted, and that the applicant had been denied access to the criminal casefile. The court ordered the investigator to take all necessary investigative steps and to provide the applicant with access to the case-file documents.

19.  Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed on 11 December 2007 and 7 March 2008, and suspended on 12 January and 7 April 2008,respectively, without attaining tangible results.

20.  On 31 January 2011,following strong criticism from the Shali district prosecutor’s office, the proceedings were resumed.

21.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

B.  Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10)

22.  The first applicant is the wife of Mr Shamkhan Murdalov, who was born in 1977. The second applicant is his mother. The third, fourth and fifth applicants are his children.

1.  Abduction of Mr Shamkhan Murdalov

23.  Mr Shamkhan Murdalov was a member of illegal armed groups during Russia’s first military campaign in Chechnya between 1994 and1996.

24.  On the morning of21 May 2004 Mr Shamkhan Murdalov – with his relative, Mr R.B., and acquaintance, Mr Kh.Z. – left his home in the village of Valerik and went to Grozny to buy building supplies. On their way, at the entrance to Grozny, at the Chernorechensky traffic police station,they were stopped by a group of about ten armed police officers in uniforms. Some of the police officers were in balaclavas; those without were of Slavic and Chechen appearance. They forced Mr Shamkhan Murdalov, Mr R.B. and Mr Kh.Z. out of the car, pulled black plastic bags over their heads, put them into a Gazel vehicleparked nearby and drove off in the direction of Grozny. The arrest was witnessed by several persons.

25.  The applicants submitted to the Court written statements by Ms M.D. (Mr Shamkhan Murdalov’s aunt) and Ms P.M. (a resident of Valerik), who witnessed the events. According to the submitted statements, on 21 May 2004 the womenwere traveling from Valerik to Grozny in a bus. When the bus was stopped at the traffic police station they witnessed the arrest of three men, one of whom they recognised as Mr Shamkhan Murdalov.

26.  On 24 May 2004 Mr R.B. and Mr Kh.Z. were released. They stated that following their arrest they had been taken to the Russian military base in Khankala and questioned.

27.  On the same date, 24 May 2004, the police arrived to search the applicants’ house. Instead of searching the entire house, the police officers went straight to the rooftop, where they found hidden machine guns and bullets.

28.  The whereabouts of Mr Shamkhan Murdalov have been unknown since 21 May 2004.

2.  Official investigation

29.  After the abduction, the applicants requested a number of law enforcement agencies to provide assistance in the search for their relative. In particular, in December 2004 they complained to the military prosecutor’s office, the Chechnya prosecutor’s office and the Ministry of the Interior.

30.  On 5 April 2005 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 41035 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). Six days later the second applicant was granted victim status.

31.  Over the following days the investigator questioned the second applicant, witnesses to the search of 24 May 2004, and a police officer from the Chernorechensky traffic police station. He confirmed that on 21 May 2004 a car with several passengers had been stopped by a special unit responsible for combatting unlawful armed groups. The passengers had been forced out of the car and taken in the direction of Grozny.

32.  On 5 June 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

33.  On 19 January 2006 the proceedings were resumed. The investigatorsasked various authorities to provide information relevant to the proceedings, but no pertinent information was received. On 19 February 2006 the investigation was again suspended.

34.  On 10 October 2007 the investigators’ superiors overruled the suspension owing to the need to question the traffic police officers who had witnessed the arrest.

35.  In November 2007 the investigators obtained statements from the police officers on duty at the time of the arrest, Mr Kh.V, and Mr A.D. They stated that on 21 May 2004 officers from the North-Caucasus Regional Operative Military Headquarters and/or the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) had arrived at their traffic police station and arrested three persons on suspicion of their being members ofan illegal armed group.

36.  On 19 November 2007 the proceedings were suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

37.  Between June and December 2008 the proceedings were resumed and suspended on several occasions, but no tangible results were achieved. It appears that the investigation is still pending.

C.  Tatayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 12868/11)

38.  The first, second and third applicants are respectively the wife, daughter and son of Mr Rustam Makayev, who was born in 1973.

1.  Abduction of Mr Rustam Makayev and subsequent events

39.  At about 2.20 a.m. on 1 December 2001 armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in the town of Urus‑Martan in anUAZ minivan, Ural lorries and an APC. Three or four servicemen entered the applicants’ house for an identity check, while the othersentered the other house located in the same courtyard. The servicemen searched the applicants’ house, asked Mr Rustam Makayev a number of questions and took him to the courtyard, where another ten or eleven servicemen were waiting. One of them was filming the events on video camera. They then put Mr Rustam Makayev in the UAZ and drove off towards the centre of Urus-Martan.

40.  In the morning the applicants went to the Urus‑Martan district military commander’s office, where the FSB officer, Mr. S.G., told them that Mr Rustam Makayev would be questioned and released in two hours. On the same day the applicants complained of the abduction to the Urus‑Martan prosecutor’s office.

41.  According to the applicants, in January 2002 a person working at the Urus-Martan military commander’s office promised them that Mr Rustam Makayev would be released in return for their handing him over a gun. However, the next day the same person said that Mr Rustam Makayev had been transferred from FSB custody to the Main Intelligence Service and that he would not be able to release him.

42.  According to the applicants, several days later a man at the Urus‑Martan military commander’s office asked them to provide him with a list of persons who had been abducted in the area. Sometime later he told the applicants that all of the abducted men on the list had been killed.

43.  In October 2002 someone left a note in the applicants’ courtyard stating that Mr Rustam Makayev was allegedly detained in the Zverevo detention facility in the Rostov region. However, the applicants were unable to obtain any information from that facility.

2.  Official investigation

44.  Following complaints lodged by the applicant on 4 December 2001 and on 22 December 2001 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 25169 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

45.  Having questioned Mr Rustam Makayev’s father and wife, who confirmed the account of the events, as described above, the investigators suspended the proceedings on 22 February 2002 for failure to identify the perpetrators.

46.  Between May and June 2002 the applicants requested various authorities to assist them in establishing their relative’s whereabouts. In reply, the applicants were each time informed that their request had been forwarded to another law enforcement authority for examination.

47.  On 29 November 2002 the criminal proceedings were resumed.

48.  On 29 January 2003 the applicants requested the investigators to expedite the investigation into the abduction. Two days later Mr Rustam Makayev’s father was granted victim status in the proceedings.

49.  On 28 February 2003 the investigation was suspended again.

50.  On 1 August 2003 the applicants requested that the proceedings be resumed.

51.  On 5 September 2003and 19 February 2004 the criminal proceedings were resumed and on 5 October 2003 and 8 April 2004 they were again suspended.In the meantime,in September and November 2003 the investigatorsexamined the crime scene and questioned the applicants’neighbour, Ms R.A, who had witnessed the events of 1 December 2001. Her statements were similar to those of the applicants before the Court. On 24 March 2004 the investigators inspected a logbook from the Urus-Martan police station. No records with Mr Rustam Makayev’s name were found.

52.  On 17 August 2004 the applicants requested to be allowed to access to the investigation file.

53.  On 27 October 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed them that their request for assistance in the search for their relative had been forwarded to the investigators.

54.  On 27 May 2005 the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment in the North Caucasus Region (ВоеннаяпрокуратураОбъединеннойгруппировкивойск (сил) попроведениюконтртеррористическихоперацийнатерриторииСеверо‑Кавказскогорегиона) informed the applicants that their relative’s abduction was being investigated by the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office.

55.  Between January 2007 and August 2008 the applicants lodged a number of requests with various law-enforcement agencies. In reply, they were informed that their requests had been forwarded to another law‑enforcement body.

56.  The proceedings in the criminal case were resumed on 29 May and 1 September 2008, and suspended on 29 June and 1 October 2008 respectively. No tangible results were achieved.

57.  On 1 January 2009, at the first applicant’s request, the investigators produced a progress report, stating that the perpetrators had not been identified.

58.  On an unspecified date in early 2010, Mr Rustam Makayev’s mother contacted the head of the Chechen Parliament asking for assistance in the search for her son. The request was forwarded to the investigators, whoon 2 June 2010 informed her that the undertaken investigative measures had not brought any results. It appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending.

D.  Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11)

59.  The applicant is the sister of Mr Adam Sadgayev, who was born in 1967.

1.  Abduction of Mr Adam Sadgayev

60.  At the material time Mr Adam Sadgayev, his common-lawpartner, Ms M.Shch., and his mother, Ms A.S., lived in the town of Shali.

61.  At about 5 a.m. on 17 February 2005 a group of about twenty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at Mr Adam Sadgayev’s house in a Gazel vehicle and an UAZ minivan. Some of the servicemen were in balaclavas and military helmets.Those without were of Slavic appearance; they spoke unaccented Russian and used portable radio sets. The servicemen broke into the house and searched the premises. Thereafter, they took Mr Adam Sadgayev away to an unknown destination.

62.  Mr Adam Sadgayev’s abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including his partner, mother and neighbours.The applicant submitted written statements by Ms M.Shch., Ms A.S., and one of the neighbours, Mr D.V., who confirmed the account of the events,as described above. Mr Adam Sadgayev’s whereabouts remain unknown.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

63.  Immediately after the abduction the applicant and her relatives informed the authorities thereof and requested that a criminal investigation be initiated. According to the applicant, the investigators had lost their initial complaint of the abduction, which led to a delay in the opening of the criminal case.

64.  On 5 April 2005 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 46036 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

65.  A week later Ms M.Shch. was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned.

66.  On 5 July 2005 the investigators informed her that the proceedings in the case had been suspended.

67.  In 2006 the proceedings were resumed on 26 January, then suspended on 7 March, again resumed on 28 March and suspended on 28 April. During the active part of the investigation several relatives and neighbours of Mr Adam Sadgayev were questioned.

68.  On 14 February 2007 the suspended proceedings were resumed. The authorities added several of Mr Adam Sadgayev’scharacter references to the case file, questioned several witnesses, and then, on 5 April 2007, suspended the investigation again.

69.  On 1 December 2008 Ms M.Shch. asked to be allowed to access the criminal case file. Her request was allowed three days later.

70.  On 21 August 2009 the deputy Shali district prosecutor stated that Ms M.Shch had been granted victim status wrongly, as her marriage to Mr Adam Sadgayev had never been officially registered. As a result, her witness statements were excluded from the case file.

71.  On 16 September 2009 the suspended proceedings were resumed and lasted until a new suspension on 26 September 2009.

72.  On 24 December 2010 the investigators resumed the proceedings again. Four days later the applicant was granted victim status in the case.

73.  On 30 December 2010 the proceedings were suspended yet again. It appears that they are still pending.

E.  Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11)

74.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov, who was born in 1980. The second applicant is his wife and the third, fourth and fifth applicants are his children.

1.  Abduction of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov and subsequent events

75.  At about 6.30 a.m. on 13 April 2003 a group of fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived in two grey UAZ vehicles and one armoured personnel carrier (APC) without a registration plate at the applicants’ house in the village of Cheri-Yurt. The men spoke unaccented Russian, most of them were in balaclavas; those without were of Slavic appearance.

76.  Having checked the identity documents, the men ordered Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov to get into one of the UAZ vehicles and then drove off with him in the direction of the village of Stariye Atagi. Then they passed through the premises of a military unit stationed in the village of Chechen‑Aul and went in the direction of the town of Argun.

77.  In the search for their relative the applicants went to the office of the FSB in Stariye Atagi. One of the FSB officers confirmed that Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov had been brought to their premises but said that he had then been transferred to the town of Shali.

78.  At the Shali prosecutor’s office the applicants were informed that Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov had been detained there for a short time and thentransferred to Khankala, the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Chechnya.

79.  Sometime later the applicants received information from unidentified sources that Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov had allegedly been detained in a remand prison in Vladikavkaz. During one of the applicants’ visits to that prison, a senior officer, who introduced himself as “Yuriy Borisovich”, confirmed that the applicants’ relative had indeed been detained on their premises for some time but said that he had then been transferred elsewhere in the town of Pyatigorsk. The applicant provided that information to the investigators.

80.  The whereabouts of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov remain unknown.

2.  Official investigation

81.  On 13 April 2003 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that a criminal case be opened into the incident.

82.  On 12 May 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22080 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction). On the same day the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. She confirmed the circumstances of her son’s abduction, as described above. Several days later the investigator questioned the second applicant and other relatives of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov.

83.  On 12 July 2003 the investigation in the case was suspended.

84.  From the material in the case file it appears that between 2003 and 2005 the investigative authorities took some steps, the nature of which is unknown, as the copies of the relevant documents submitted by the Government are illegible.

85.  On 19 April 2006 the investigation was resumed. The investigatorsexamined the crime scene, questioned several relatives and neighbours of Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov, and then decided to suspend the proceedings on 21 May 2006.

86.  On 22 July 2006and 30 January and 6 March 2009 the first applicant herself, and Memorial, anon-governmental organisation, acting on her behalf,enquired about the progress in the case. By letters dated 20 November 2006, 24 March 2007, and 12 March 2009,respectively, the investigators informed her that the proceedings had been suspended.

87.  On 7 May 2009 the proceedings were resumed and the first applicant was granted access to the case file. The next day the proceedings were again suspended.

88.  On 21 December 2010 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Shali Town Court, complaining of the investigator’s failure to take basic steps.

89.  On 14 January 2011 the deputy Shali district prosecutor ruled the suspension unsubstantiated and resumed the proceedings. The investigatorswere instructed to question the first applicant, request the remand prison in Vladikavkaz to provide information about Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov’s detention between 2003 and 2004, and to obtain blood samples from his relatives.

90.  In view of the above-mentioned developments, on 17 January 2011 the Shali Town Court dismissed the applicants’complaint.

91.  On 10 February 2011 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who reiterated the statement that she had given previously, and obtained blood samples from her. A week later the investigation was suspended again.

92.  On 30 April 2012 the first applicant enquired about progress in the proceedings. By a letter of 27 May 2012 she was informed that the proceedings had been suspended. It appears that the investigation is still pending.

F.  Mutsayeva v. Russia (no. 44311/11)

93.  The applicant is the mother of Mr Salakh Yakhyaev, who was born in 1975, and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev, who was born in 1982.

1.  Abduction of Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev

94.  At about 6.30 a.m. on 17 March 2003 a group of about thirty armed servicemen in camouflage and black uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicant’s house in the village of Avtury, where she lived with her and her sons’families. The servicemen took three of the applicant’s sons to the courtyard and ordered the applicant in unaccented Russian to show their passports. Having received and examined the documents, the servicemen left the applicant’s youngest son in the courtyard and took the other two, Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev, away with them. When the applicant went outside she saw that the servicemen had arrived in two grey UAZ minivans,a white VAZ-2106 vehicle and a white VAZ-21099 vehicle. The vehicles had no registration plates. The abductors drove off in the direction of the village of Geldegen. Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev have not been seen since.

95.  The applicant submitted written statements by eyewitnesses to the events, including the grandmother of Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev (Ms Sh.G.) and their aunt (Ms Z.A), who both confirmed the account of the events described above. She also submitted written statements by their neighbour, Ms Kh.M., who had witnessed the abduction from her window.

2.  Official investigation

96.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant complained of the abduction to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office.

97.  On 15 May 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22081 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

98.  On 20 May 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

99.  On 15 July 2003 the investigation was suspended owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators.

100.  On 8 April 2004 the Shali District Court declared Mr Salakh Yakhyaev a missing person.

101.  On 26 October and 19 November 2004 the applicant requested the investigators to resume the proceedings.

102.  On 27 May 2005 she asked the Government of Chechnya to assist in the search for Mr Salakh Yakhyaev and Mr Anzor Yakhyaev. Her request was forwarded to the investigators.

103.  By a letter of 31 August 2005 the Shali district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that operational search measures had beentaken to find her missing sons.

104.  On 17 July 2006 the criminal proceedings were resumed. Having questioned the applicant on 10 August 2007 the investigator suspended the proceedings on 17 August 2006.

105.  On 22 December 2006 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the investigation had been resumed on 5 December 2006.

106.  On 24 December 2006 the investigator questioned Mr Salakh Yakhyaev’s wife, who had witnessed the events of 17 March 2003 and who gave a statement similar to that of the applicant. On 6 January 2007 the investigation was suspended again. It was resumed on 5 April and 3 August 2007, and 21 April and 6 October 2008, and suspended on 6 May 2007, and 3 January,21 May and 7 November 2008 respectively.

107.  On 21 May 2009 the applicant requested permission to access the criminal case file. On 3 July 2009 the investigators allowed the request in part and she was granted access to some of the documents in the file. A request lodged by the applicant for the proceedings to be resumed was refused.

108.  On 17 August 2010 the applicant appealed to the Shali District Court against the investigators’ decision of 21 May 2008 to suspend the proceedings.

109.  In the meantime, the investigators resumed the investigation on 4 September 2010. Taking that into account the Shali District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on 7 September 2010.

110.  The applicant appealed against the above-mentioned decision before the Chechnya Supreme Court. She stated that the investigation had been pending for seven years and had not yet attained any tangible results. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal on 22 December 2010.

111.  Meanwhile on 3 October 2010 the proceedings were suspended yet again. It appears that the investigation is still pending.

G.  Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11)

112.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Rizvan Oybuyev, who was born in 1974, the third applicant is his wife and the fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are his children.

1.  Abduction of Mr Rizvan Oybuyev

113.  At around 11 p.m. on 1 April 2005 a group of armed servicemen in a green Gazelminivan, a grey VAZ-21099 car,a VAZ-2109 vehicle and a VAZ‑2106 vehicle arrived at the applicants’ family house in the village of Stariye Atagi. The men were in camouflage uniforms and spoke unaccented Russian. Most of them were in balaclavas; those without were of Slavic appearance. Having broken into the house, they searched the premises and checked Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s identity documents. Then they forced him into one of the vehicles and drove off.

114.  Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s brother, Mr I.O., ran after the convoy of military vehicles and saw them heading in the direction of an abandoned mill at the outskirts of the village, where a Russian military unit was stationed.Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s whereabouts have been unknown since.

115.  The abduction of Mr Rizvan Oybuyev took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. The applicants submitted to the Court written statements by Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s brothers and their neighbours. They confirmed the account of the events described above.

2.  Official investigation

116.  Immediately after the abduction the applicants informed the authorities of the incident and requested, both orally and in writing, that criminal proceedings be opened.

117.  On 6 May 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44037 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

118.  On 17 May 2005 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned by the investigators.

119.  Having questioned several relatives of Mr Rizvan Oybuyev the investigator suspended the proceedings on 6 August 2005.

120.  After the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Government of the Chechen Republic the investigation was resumed on 20 January 2006. On the same day the authorities carried out an examination of the crime scene.

121.  Between 21 and 27 January 2006 several neighbours and Mr Rizvan Oybuyev’s close relatives were questioned.

122.  On 22 February 2006 the investigation was suspended owing to a failure to identify the perpetrators.

123.  On 20 November 2007 the Stariye Atagi administration – apparently at the applicants’ request – issued a certificate stating that on 1 April 2005 Mr Rizvan Oybuyev had been detained and taken away from his home by Russian servicemen.

124.  On 14 March 2008 the Grozny District Court of the Chechen Republic declared Mr Rizvan Oybuyev a missing person.

125.  On 27 June 2008 the sixth applicant asked the Grozny district prosecutor’s office about progress in the investigation. By a letter of 2 July 2008 he was informed that the proceedings had been suspended.

126.  On 21 July 2009, apparently after the resumption of the proceedings, the third applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

127.  On 10 March 2011 the third applicant enquired about recent developments in the investigation and requested access to the investigation file. By a letter of 1 April 2011 she was informed that the proceedings had been suspended on 22 February 2006. It appears that the investigation isstill pending.

H.  Khamidova and Elmurzayeva v. Russia (no. 13843/12)

128.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein (also spelled as Suliman Said-Khusin) Elmurzayev, who was born in 1978. The first applicant is his late mother, who died on 17 October 2013. The second applicant is his sister.

1.  Abduction of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev

129.  At about 4 a.m. on 2 April 2005 the applicants’ family was at home in the village of Duba-Yurt when a large group of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at their house in two UAZ minivans and a white Niva car. Having ordered all male members of the family to go outside, the servicemen searched the premises, speaking Russian among themselves. Then they forced Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev and his father, Mr S.E., into the vehicles and drove off in the direction of Khankala, passing unrestrictedly through a military checkpoint located at the outskirts of the village.

130.  On 8 May 2005 the body of Mr S.E. was found on the bank of the Sunzha River, Chechnya.

131.  The whereabouts of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev have remained unknown since his abduction. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants, their family members and neighbours. The applicants submitted written statements by Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev’s wife and one of his sisters.

2.  Official investigation

132.  Shortly after the incident the applicants complained about the abduction to the authorities.

133.  On 5 April 2005 the police officers from the Shali district department of the interior (ОМВД России по Шалинскому району Чеченской Республики)questioned three neighbours and two relatives of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev. The witnesses confirmed the circumstances of the abduction,as described by the applicants in their submission to the Court.

134.  On 14 June 2005 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 46060 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

135.  On 2 August 2004 the uncleof Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev was granted victim status in the criminal case.

136.  On 14 August 2005 the investigators suspended the proceedings.

137.  On 19 January 2006 the proceedings were resumed. Following the interrogation of several witnesses, the investigator suspended the proceedings on 20 February 2006.

138.  The investigation was again resumed on 1 March 2006. Fifteen days later the investigators joined the criminal proceedings with those opened into the murder of Mr M.S. on 2 August 2005.

139.  On 1 April 2006 the legal classification of the crime against Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev was changed to that of aggravated murder committed by a group of persons (Article 105 § 2 of the CC).

140.  On 2 June 2006 the proceedings were suspended. They were subsequently resumed on 21 July 2006 but then suspended again on 21 August 2006.

141.  In the meantime, on 19 August 2006 the uncle of Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev was deprived of victim status for lack of close blood ties with the abducted persons.

142.  On 11 February 2008 the investigation questioned several witnesses.

143.  On 20 February 2009 the investigators requested the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Groznyto grant them access to classified documents relating to the special operation in the village of Duba‑Yurt. The request was granted on 4 March 2009. No pertinent information on the abductionwas found during an examination of the classified files on 7 April 2009. On the next day the proceedings were suspended again.

144.  On an unspecified date between 2009 and 2010 the first applicant asked the Chechen President to assist in the search for Mr Suleiman Said‑Khusein. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who informed her that the proceedings had been suspended but that the operational search activity was ongoing.

145.  On 19 August 2011 the first applicant enquired about the progress of the investigation. From the response of the Groznydistrict prosecutor’s office dated 25 August 2011 she learned that the proceedings had been resumed on 24 August 2011. It appears that they are still pending.

I.  Elzhurkayevy v. Russia (no. 13909/12)

146.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev, who was born in 1982. The third applicant is his sister.

1.  Abduction of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev and subsequent events

147.  At about 4 a.m. on 3 August 2004 the applicants’ family was at home in Grozny when a group of approximately thirty armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at their house in a VAZ-21010, a UAZ minivan and a Zhiguli car. Most of the servicemen were in balaclavas and only one of them, apparently a commander, was unmasked; they spoke Chechen and Russian. A group of about fifteen of them broke into the applicants’ house and searched the premises. Having checked their identity papers, they seized the service identity card of the brother of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev, Mr R.E., who was a police officer. Then the servicemen forced Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev outside, put him into one of the vehicles and drove off, passing unhindered through checkpoints on their way.

148.  On the same morning an acquaintance of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev was arrested by the North Caucasus Regional Department for the Fight Against Organised Crime (Северокавказское региональное управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью) (“the RUBOP”). He was detained in a detention facility for five days and then released. He stated that he had been held in the same facility with Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev and that he had been able to hear the latter’s voice. The applicants provided this information to the investigators.

149.  The whereabouts of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev have remained unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their neighbours. The applicants submitted written statements by three neighbours, who confirmed the applicants’account of the events.

150.  About a month after the abduction, the RUBOP arrested Mr A.I., a friend of Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev. Mr A.I. was questioned about his relations with Elzhurkayev’s family, shown Mr R.E.’s service identity card seized from the applicants’ house on 3 August 2004, and subsequently released.

151.  On an unspecified date in 2008 the first applicant went to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny in connection with the investigation into the abduction. At the office she saw a RUBOP officer called “Muslim”. She recognised him as the unmasked serviceman who had been in charge of her son’s abduction on 3 August 2004. The applicant immediately informed the investigators about it.

2.  Official investigation

152.  On 3 August 2004 the applicants informed the authorities of the abduction and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.

153.  On 13 August 2004 the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 33066 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

154.  On 3 and 18 August 2004 the second and third applicants, respectively, were granted victim status in the case. They were questioned, and confirmed the circumstances of the abduction,as described above.

155.  On 4 August 2004 the investigators requested a number of State authorities to inform them whether they had arrested or detained Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev. No replies in the positive were received.

156.  On 20 October 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction, as described above.

157.  On 13 October 2004 the investigation in respect of the case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators and then resumed on 24 May 2005. The applicants were informed of that resumption on 14 June 2005.

158.  On 24 June 2005 the investigation in the case was suspended. Subsequently, it was resumed on 28 June 2005, 1 November 2005 and 12 December 2005, 22 May 2006, 2 February, 24 March, 7 July, 3 September and 24 November 2008 and 19 July 2009 and 7 July 2010 (following criticism by the investigating authority supervisors, who each time ordered it to be resumed), and again suspended on 28 July and 1 December 2005, 12 January and 22 June 2006, 4 March, 25 April, 8 August, 3 October and 25 December 2008, 29 July 2009 and 12 July 2010.

159.  On 9 July 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status in the case and questioned. She reiterated the statements that she had previously given.

160.  On 27 August 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators to inform her about the progress in the proceedings and to grant her access to the case file. The outcome of this request is unknown.

161.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

J.  Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12)

162.  The first applicant is the wife of Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev (in the documents submitted also spelled as Dudurkayev), who was born in 1954. The second applicant is his brother. The other five applicants are his children.

1.  Abduction of Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev

163.  At about 3 a.m. on 4 November 2002 a group of ten to twelve armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas broke into the applicants’ house in the village of Goyskoye. Speaking unaccented Russian, the servicemen searched the premises, checked Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev’s passport and took him away to an unknown destination. At the time of the events the applicants’ neighbours saw heavy military vehicles parked on the road near their house.

164.  Two days after the abduction, on 6 November 2002, the same military servicemen again arrived at the applicants’ house in an Ural lorry. They thoroughly searched the premises and left.

165.  The whereabouts of Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev have remained unknown since the date of his abduction. The abduction took place in the presence of the applicants.

2.  Official investigation

166.  On 5 November 2002 the first applicant informed the authorities of the abduction and requested assistance in the search for her husband.

167.  On 8 November 2002 the first applicant was questioned by the investigators. Her statement to the authorities was similar to the account submitted by the applicants before the Court.

168.  On 23 December 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 61164 under Article 126 of the CC (abduction).

169.  On the same date, 23 December 2002, the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

170.  It appears that on 1 February 2003 the investigators resumed the proceedings and questioned the first applicant, who was also granted victim status in the criminal case. She confirmed the circumstances of the abduction, as specified above. It appears that shortly thereafter the investigation was suspended again.

171.  On 1 April 2004 the first applicant submitted requests to several law enforcement agencies for assistance in the search for her husband. It is unclear whether any reply was given to these requests.

172.  On 6 April 2005 the investigator in charge of the case issued an information note describing the course of the proceedings and the main versions of the events, according to which Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev had been variously abducted by servicemen, members of an illegal armed group, or private persons aiming to extract information/obtain a ransom or to pursue a blood feud. It was noted that the operative search measures conducted in the case had been inefficient.

173.  On 18 June 2007 the supervising prosecutor requested that operational search activities be undertaken in order to establish Mr Dudarkayev’s whereabouts.

174.  On 23 June and 5 July 2007 the investigators informed their superiors that the operational search activities had not produced any positive results.

175.  On 14 February 2008 the supervising prosecutor ruled that the decision of 23 December 2002 to suspend the investigation had been premature and unlawful and ordered that the proceedings be resumed. Subsequently, the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions in response to criticism from the supervising prosecutors: it was suspended on 26 March 2008 and 16 May 2008 and 14 January 2012, and then resumed on 16 April 2008 and 7 December 2011 respectively.

176.  Between February and April 2008 the investigators asked a number of law-enforcement authorities and detention facilities whether they had arrested or detained Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev or whether any special operation had been conducted on the date of his abduction in Goyskoye. No information in the affirmative was received.

177.  On 13 March 2008 the first applicant was questioned again. She reiterated the statements that she had previously given.

178.  Between 15 and 20 March 2008 the applicants’ neighbours were questioned. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the abduction, as described by the applicants.

179.  On 18 February 2011 the first applicant lodged a request to be granted full access to the investigation file. Her request was refused.

180.  On 18 March 2011 the first applicant appeared before the Urus‑Martan Town Court to complain about her lack of access to the criminal case file. On 28 March 2011 the court allowed the complaint and ordered the investigators to grant her access to the contents of the investigation file.

181.  On 2 December 2011 the first applicant lodged another complaint challenging the decision of 16 May 2008 to suspend the investigation. On 7 December 2011 the court dismissed her complaint, having learned that the investigators had resumed the proceedings on the same date (7 December 2011).

182.  Later in December 2011 the investigators questioned the first applicant and seven fellowresidents of her village. Two of them had witnessed the incident of 4 November 2002, and five of them had heard about it from their relatives.

183.  On 23 January 2012 the investigation was suspended. It was again resumed on 19 August 2013. It appears that the proceedings are still pending.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS

184.  For a summary of the relevant domestic law and international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012).

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

185.  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.  The Government

186.  In their observations the Government argued that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court several years after the abductions of their relatives and more than six months after the date on which they ought to have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation. They pointed out that the applicants had remained passive and had not maintained contact with the investigating authorities for a significant amount of time, and that the applicants’ representative in Tatayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 12868/11) had unduly delayed lodging the application with the Court. Therefore, according to the Government, the applications should be declared inadmissible as lodged “out of time” unless the applicants admitted that the respective investigations had been effective.

2.  The applicants

187.  The applicants submitted that they had complied with the six‑month rule. They had taken all possible steps within a reasonable time‑limit to initiate the search for their missing relatives and to assist the authorities in the proceedings. They submitted that there had been no excessive or unexplained delays in lodging their applications with the Court; those applications had been brought as soon as they had considered the domestic investigations to be ineffective. According to them, the armed conflict which was taking place in Chechnya at the material time had led them to believe that investigative delays were inevitable. Owing to their lack of legal knowledge and financial means to hire a lawyer, and in the absence of any domestic provisions for free legal assistance to victims of enforced disappearances, they had been unable to assess the effectiveness of the investigations. It was only with the passage of time and a lack of information from the investigating authorities that they had begun to doubt the effectiveness of the investigation and had started looking for free legal assistance to assess the effectiveness of the proceedings and then, subsequently, to lodge their applications with the Court without undue delay.

B.  The Court’s assessment

1.  General principles

188.  A summary of the principles concerning compliance with the six‑month rule in disappearance cases may be found in Sultygov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 369‑74, 9 October 2014.

2.  Application of the principles to the present case

189.  Turning to the circumstances of the cases, the Court notes that the applicants in each application had lodged their complaints with the Court less than ten years after the respective incidents in question and the initiation of the related investigations (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, ECHR 2009).

190.  In each of the applications, save for Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10), the applicants informed the authorities of the abductions either immediately after the incident, or shortly thereafter. In Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10) the exact date of the first official complaint regarding the abduction of 21 May 2004 is unclear. Formally, it was lodged in December 2004 – that is to say about seven month after the incident (see paragraph 29 above).

191.  The authorities opened official criminal investigation into each of the applicants’ complaints of abduction; in each case, the investigation was still pending when the applications were lodged with the Court.

192.  The Court notes in each of the cases at hand that the respective investigation was repeatedly suspended and resumed throughout the periods concerned. Each time it was suspended and then resumed following the supervisors’ criticism and that there were certain lulls during the proceedings.

193.  In Tatayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 12868/11) and Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12)the longest periods during which the investigation remained suspended lasted from8 April 2004 to 29 May 2008 and from1 February 2003 to 14 February 2008 respectively (see paragraphs 51, 56, 170and 175 above). They thus amounted to around four and five years respectively. The Court notes that in the meantime in both cases the applicants did not remain idle. They requested various authorities to assist them in the search for their missing relatives (see paragraphs 53-55 and 171 above). The applicant in Tatayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 12868/11) also requested access to the relevant case file (see paragraph 52 above).

194.  In Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11), and Mutsayeva v. Russia (no. 44311/11), the lulls in the respective investigations occurred between 15 July 2003 and 17 July 2006 and 22 February 2006 and 21 July 2009 respectively (see paragraphs 99, 104, 122, and 126). Accordingly, theyranged from about three to three and a half years. At the time,the applicants contacted the investigation authorities with requests for information regarding the progress in the cases, or requested to have the proceedings resumed (see paragraphs 101, 102, 123 and 125 above).

195.  In Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11), Bitsayeva v. Russia (no. 14196/08), Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11), Khamidova and Elmurzayeva v. Russia (no. 13843/12), Elzhurkayevy v. Russia (no. 13909/12), and Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10) the lulls in the proceedings did not exceed a total of three years. The applicants maintained contact with the authorities during the breaks in the respective investigations.

196.  Given thatthe overall time frame for lodging the applications did not exceed ten years,thatthe delays in bringing theabduction complaints to the investigating authorities did not undermine the efficiency of their ensuing investigation, thatthe applicants attempted to resume the dormant proceedings, and that the cases were complex, and in view ofthe nature of the alleged violations, 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 delays that arose cannot therefore be held against them or interpreted as constituting a failure on their part to comply with the six-month requirement contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants delayed lodging a formal complaint with the domestic authorities and did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, even though the investigation was seemingly dormant.

197.  The Court therefore concludes that the investigations in the cases at hand, albeit sporadic, were being conducted during the periods in question and it is satisfied with the explanationsfor the delays submitted by the applicants (see Varnava and Others, cited above,ibid). Accordingly, the latter complied with the six-month rule.

III.  COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXHAUSTION RULE

A.  The parties’ submissions

1.  Government

198.  In Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10), Tatayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 12868/11), Mutsayeva v. Russia (no. 44311/11), Khamidova and Elmurzayeva v. Russia (no. 13843/12), and Elzhurkayevy v. Russia (no. 13909/12) the Government argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions on the part of the investigating or other law-enforcement authorities, but that the applicants had failed to do so. Accordingly, they had not exhausted the domestic remedies.

2.  The applicants

199.  The applicants disputed the Government’s argument that lodging complaints against the investigators would have remedied the shortcomings of the proceedings. They submitted that the only effective remedy – a criminal investigation – had proved to be ineffective.

B.  The Court’s assessment

200.  The Court has already concluded that the ineffectiveness of investigationsinto disappearances that have occurred in Chechnya between 2000 and 2006 constitutes a systemic problem, and that criminal investigations do not constitute an effective remedy in this regard (see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, § 217, 18 December 2012). In such circumstances, and noting the absence of any tangible progress in any of the criminal investigations into the abductions of the applicants’ relatives, the Court concludes that this objection must be dismissed, since the remedy relied on by the Government is not effective in the circumstances (for similar reasoning, see Ortsuyeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 3340/08 and 24689/10, § 79, 22 November 2016.)

IV.  ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A.  The parties’ submissions

1.  The Government

201.  The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying each application, but submitted that the applicants’ allegations were based on assumptions, as there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged abductions, or that the applicants’ relatives were dead.

2.  The applicants

202.  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 documents from the criminal investigation files disclosed by the Government. They also submitted that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by State agents, and that 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 at the relevant time, they asked the Court to consider their relatives dead.

B.  The Court’s assessment

1.  General principles

203.  A summary of the principles concerning the assessment of evidence and establishment of facts in disappearance cases and the life-threatening nature of such incidents may be found in Sultygov and Others(cited above, §§ 393‑96).

2.  Application of the above-mentioned principles to the present case

204.  Turning to the circumstances of the cases presently before it, and in view of all the material (including the copies of the documents from the relevant criminal case files) submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the applicants have presented prima facie cases that their relatives were abducted by State agents under the circumstances set out above. The Court notes thateach of the abductions took place in areas under the control of the State byarmed persons in camouflage uniforms.

205.  Moreover, in Bitsayeva v. Russia (no. 14196/08), Tatayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 12868/11), Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11), Mutsayeva v. Russia (no. 44311/11), Khamidova and Elmurzayeva v. Russia (no. 13843/12), and Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12) (see paragraphs8, 39, 60,7594,129, and163above),specialised military vehicles, APCsor UAZ minivans wereused by the abductors.In Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10) the abduction took place in the presence of police officers at the Chernorechensky traffic police station (see paragraph 24 above). InOybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11) the perpetrators arrived at the applicants’ house in several vehicles, at night, and searched the premises without fear of being discovered (see paragraph 113 above). In Elzhurkayevy v. Russia (no. 13909/12) theabducted person was subsequently identified as a prisoner in a detention facility (see paragraphs 147and 148 above).

206.  In the cases at hand, the investigating authorities themselves accepted as fact the primary versions of events presented by the applicants and took steps to verify whether State servicemen had indeed been involved therein(by sending information requests to the relevant authorities).

207.  In their submission to the Court, the Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question. They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof.

208.  Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above, the Court finds that the applicants’ relatives were taken into custody by State agents during the special operations. Given the lack of any news about them since their detention and its life‑threatening nature,Mr Vait Askhabov, Mr Shamkhan Murdalov, Mr Rustam Makayev, Mr Adam Sadgayev, Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov, Mr Salakh Yakhyaev, Mr Anzor Yakhyaev, Mr Rizvan Oybuyev, Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev, Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev, and Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention.

V.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

209.  The applicants complained, under Article 2 of the Convention, that their relatives had disappeared after having been detained by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out effective investigations into the matter. 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…”

A.  The parties’ submissions

210.  In all cases save forBitsayeva v. Russia (no. 14196/08), Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10), and Elzhurkayevy v. Russia (no. 13909/12), the Government contended that Article 2 of the Convention was inapplicable to the applicants’ complaints of abduction, which must be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. To this end they referred to the case ofKurtv. Turkey (25 May 1998, §§ 101‑09, Reports of Judgments and Decisions1998‑III).

211.  In Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10), Khamidova and Elmurzayeva v. Russia (no. 13843/12), Elzhurkayevy v. Russia (no. 13909/12), and Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12) the Government submitted that the complaints should be dimissed, because the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations of enforced disappearancesat the hands of servicemen. Furthermore, the Government argued that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence that the applicants’ relatives had been held under State control or that they had been killed.

212.  In Tatayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 12868/11), Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11), Mutsayeva v. Russia (no. 44311/11), and Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11) the Government submitted that the mere fact that the investigations had not produced any specific results, or had yielded only limited ones, did not mean that they had been ineffective. They claimed that all necessary steps had been taken to comply with the positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention.

213.  The applicants maintained their complaint, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and intentionally deprived of their lives in circumstances violating Article 2 of the Convention. They furthermore argued that the investigation into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set down in the Convention and national legislation.

B.  The Court’s assessment

1.  Admissibility

214.  The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaints raise serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The complaints under Article 2 of the Convention must therefore be declared admissible.

2.  Merits

(a)  Alleged violation of the right to life of the applicants’ relatives

215.  The Court furthermore notes that is undisputed by the parties that the whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives was unaccounted for from the time of their abduction to the lodging of the applications with the Court. The question arises whether, as the Government submit, Article 2 of the Convention is applicable to the applicants’ situations.

216.  The Court has previously held that Article 5 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the State to account for the whereabouts of any person taken into detention and who has thus been placed under the control of the authorities (see Kurt, cited above, § 124). Whether a failure on the part of the authorities to provide a plausible explanation as to a detainee’s fate, in the absence of a body, might also raise issues under Article 2 of the Convention will depend on all the circumstances of the case, and in particular on the existence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, based on specific evidence, from which it may be concluded to the requisite standard of proof that the detainee must be presumed to have died in custody (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV, and Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, § 131, ECHR 2000-V).

217.  In this connection, the Court notes that the Government denied that the applicants’ relatives had been detained by State agents or had been under the control of the authorities after their abduction. Therefore, the Government’s argument concerning the applicability of Article 5 of the Convention instead of Article 2 is inconsistent. However, leaving aside the contradictory nature of the Government’s position in this regard, and assuming that the applicants’ abducted relatives were under the control of State agents after the abductions, then the period of time which has elapsed since each person was placed in detention, although not decisive in itself, is a relevant factor to be taken into account. It must be accepted that the more time that goes by without any news of the detained person, the greater the likelihood that he or she has died. The passage of time may, along with other elements of circumstantial evidence before the Court, provide grounds to conclude that the person concerned is to be presumed dead. In this respect the Court considers that such a situation gives rise to issues which go beyond a mere “irregular detention” in violation of Article 5. Such an interpretation is in keeping with the effective protection of the right to life, as afforded by Article 2, which ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention (see, among other authorities, Çakıcı, cited above, § 86, and Timurtaş v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 83, ECHR 2000‑VI). Accordingly, the Court finds that Article 2 of the Convention applies and that the Government’s objection in this respect should be dismissed.

218.  On the basis of the above, and noting that it has already been found that in all of the applications under examination the applicants’ relatives may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by State agents (see paragraph 208 above),the Court finds, in the absence of any justification put forward by the Government, that the deaths of the applicants’ relatives can be attributed to the State and that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Vait Askhabov, Mr Shamkhan Murdalov, Mr Rustam Makayev, Mr Adam Sadgayev, Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov, Mr Salakh Yakhyaev, Mr Anzor Yakhyaev, Mr Rizvan Oybuyev, Mr SuleimanSaid-Khusein Elmurzayev, Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev and Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev.

(b)  Alleged inadequacy of the investigations into the abductions

219.  The Court has already found that a criminal investigation does not constitute an effective remedy in respect of disappearances which have occurred, in particular, in Chechnya between 1999 and 2006, and that such a situation constitutes a systemic problem under the Convention (see paragraph 200above). 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 means and not of results, the Court notes that each set of criminal proceedings has been plagued by a combination of the defects similar to those enumerated in the Aslakhanova and Othersjudgment (cited above, §§ 123‑25). Each was subjected to several decisions to suspend the investigation, followed by periods of inactivity, which further diminished the prospects of solving the crimes. No timely and thorough measures were taken to identify and question the servicemen who could have participated in the abductions.

220.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances of the disappearance and death of Mr Vait Askhabov, Mr Shamkhan Murdalov, Mr Rustam Makayev, Mr Adam Sadgayev, Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov, Mr Salakh Yakhyaev, Mr Anzor Yakhyaev, Mr Rizvan Oybuyev, Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev, Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev and Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev. Accordingly, there has been a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention.

VI.  ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 3, 5 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

221.  The applicants complained of a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention. They furthermore argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, they had had no available domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The applicants in Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10), Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11), Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11), and Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The invoked Articles read, in so far as relevant:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 5

“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.”

Article 13

“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 persons acting in an official capacity.”

A.  The parties’ submissions

222.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims. They alleged, in particular, that the applicants’ mental suffering had not reached the minimum level of severity required to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention, as certain applicants had been minors at the time of the abductions of their parents. The Government also noted that the domestic legislation provided the applicants with effective remedies for their complaints.

223.  The applicants maintained their complaints.

B.  The Court’s assessment

1.  Admissibility

224.  The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It furthermore notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2.  Merits

225.  The Court has found on many occasions that a situation of enforced disappearance gives rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the close relatives of the victim. The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly 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)). Where the news of a missing person’s death has been preceded by a sufficiently long period during which he or she has been deemed to have disappeared, there exists a distinct period during which the applicants have sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress characteristic of the specific phenomenon of disappearances (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts).

226.  The Court reiterates its findings regarding the State’s responsibility for the abductions of Mr Vait Askhabov, Mr Shamkhan Murdalov, Mr Rustam Makayev, Mr Adam Sadgayev, Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov, Mr Salakh Yakhyaev, Mr Anzor Yakhyaev, Mr Rizvan Oybuyev, Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev, Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev and Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev, and the failure to carry out meaningful investigations into the incidents. It finds that the applicants, who are close relatives of the abducted men, must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish they suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of their inability to ascertain the fate of their missing family members and of the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with.

227.  The Court has found on several 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,cited above).The Court furthermore confirms that since it has been established that the applicants’ relatives were detained by State agents, apparently without any legal grounds or acknowledgement of such detention (see paragraphs 208 and 218 above), this constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security of persons enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention.

228.  The Court reiterates its findings regarding the general ineffectiveness of criminal investigations in cases such as those under examination. In the absence of the results of a criminal investigation, any other possible remedy becomes inaccessible in practice.

229.  In the light of the above, and taking into account the scope of the applicant’s complaints, the Court finds that the applicants in all cases did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 2, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. Moreover, the applicants in Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10), Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11), Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11), and Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12) did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

230.  As regards the alleged breach of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, as submitted by the applicants in Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10), Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11), Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11), and Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12), the Court notes that according to its established case-law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 of the Convention, absorb its requirements.In view of its finding above of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention (see paragraph 227), the Court considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention (see, among many examples, Zhebrailova and Others v. Russia, no. 40166/07, § 84, 26 March 2015, and Aliyev and Gadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 11059/12, § 110, 12 July 2016).

VII.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

231.  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

232.  The applicants claimed compensation for loss of financial support from the breadwinners of their respective families. The applicants in Bitsayeva v. Russia (no. 14196/08) and Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10)based their calculation on the minimum subsistence level in Chechnya at the relevant time; the applicants in Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12) invoked the Court’s case-law referring to subsistence level and the UK Ogden Actuarial Tables; the remainder of the applicants made their calculations on the basis of the UK Ogden Actuarial Tables, using domestic subsistence levels and the applicable inflation rates. The amounts claimed by the applicants were as follows.

233.  The applicant in Bitsayeva v. Russia (no. 14196/08) claimed 53,719 euros (EUR).

234.  In Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10) the first applicant claimed EUR 21,500; the third applicant claimed EUR 13,700; the fourth applicant claimed EUR 19,500; and the fifth applicant claimed EUR 21,300.

235.  In Tatayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 12868/11)the first applicant claimed 413,322 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately EUR 4,630); the second applicant claimed RUB 405,620 (approximately EUR 4,540); and the third applicant claimed RUB 462,806 (approximately EUR 5,180).

236.  In Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11) the applicant did not submit a claim in respect of pecuniary damage.

237.  In Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11) the first and the second applicants claimed RUB 391,899 (approximately EUR 5,050) each; and the third, fourth and fifth applicants claimed RUB 616,555(approximately EUR 7,940) each.

238.  In Mutsayeva v. Russia (no. 44311/11) the applicant claimed RUB 785,566 (approximately EUR 8,790).

239.  In Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11) the first and the second applicants claimed RUB 588,760 (approximately EUR 7,590) each; the third applicant claimed RUB 883,140 (approximately EUR 11,380); the fourth applicant claimed RUB 82,584 (approximately EUR 1,060); the fifth applicant claimed RUB 191,039 (approximately EUR 2,460); and the sixth applicant claimed RUB 129,065 (approximately EUR 1,660).

240.  In Khamidova and Elmurzayeva v. Russia (no. 13843/12) the first applicant claimed RUB 981,511 (approximately EUR 12,760).

241.  In Elzhurkayevy v. Russia (no. 13909/12) the first applicant claimed RUB 1,826,112 (approximately EUR 23,740), and the second applicant claimed RUB 1,085,713 (approximately EUR 14,110).

242.  In Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12) the applicants claimed EUR 70,000 jointly under this head.

243.  The Government submitted that the applicant in Bitsayeva v. Russia (no. 14196/08) had failed to substantiate the allegation that her disappeared husband had been the family breadwinner. The Government also noted that it was open for her to apply for a social allowance in the light of the loss of the breadwinner. In respect of the remainder of the applications, the Government left the matter of the award to the Court’s discretion.

2.  Non-pecuniary damage

244.  The applicant in Bitsayeva v. Russia (no. 14196/08) claimed EUR 1,000,000.

245.  The applicants in Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10) claimed EUR 500,000 jointly.

246.  The applicants in Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12) claimed EUR 100,000 jointly.

247.  In Tatayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 12868/11), Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11), Mutsayeva v. Russia(no. 44311/11), Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11), Khamidova and Elmurzayeva v. Russia(no. 13843/12), and Elzhurkayevy v. Russia (no. 13909/12)the applicants claimed compensation for non‑pecuniary damage in an amount to be determined by the Court.

248. The Government left the matter of the award to the Court’s discretion.

B.  Costs and expenses

249.  The applicant in Bitsayeva v. Russia (no. 14196/08) claimed EUR 4,293 forher legal representation before the Court, of which EUR 3,808 was for legal expenses, EUR 75 for administrative expenses, EUR 15 for clerical expenses, and EUR 395 for the cost of translation.

250.  InKhuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10) theapplicants claimed EUR 4,283 for their legal representation before the Court, of which EUR 3,808 was for legal expenses, EUR 100 for administrative expenses, EUR 15 for clerical expenses, and EUR 360 for the cost of translation.

251.  In Tatayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 12868/11) the applicants claimed EUR 5,116.63 for their legal representation before the Court.

252.  In Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11) the applicant claimed EUR 5,261 for her legal representation before the Court.

253.  In Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11) the applicants claimed EUR 2,488 for their legal representation before the Court.

254.  In Mutsayeva v. Russia (no. 44311/11) the applicant claimed EUR 3,391 for her legal representation before the Court.

255.  In Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11) the applicants claimed EUR 2,274 for their legal representation before the Court.

256.  In Khamidova and Elmurzayeva v. Russia (no. 13843/12) the applicants claimed EUR 2,770 for their legal representation before the Court.

257.  In Elzhurkayevy v. Russia (no. 13909/12) the applicants claimed EUR 5,578 for their legal representation before the Court.

258.  In Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12) the applicants claimed EUR 2,467 for their legal representation before the Court, of which EUR 2,450 was for legal expenses, and EUR 17 for the cost of translation.

259.  The applicants asked for the awards to be paid into the bank accounts of their respective representatives.

260.  The Government argued that the legalexpenses in Bitsayeva v. Russia (no. 14196/08) had been unnecessary. In respect of the remainder of the applications, the Government left the matter of the award to the Court’s discretion.

C.  The Court’s assessment

261.  The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between damages claimed by 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 disappeared persons, including spouses, elderly parents and minor children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 213).

262.  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.

263.  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).

264.  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 are to be paid into the representatives’ bank accounts, as indicated by the applicants.

D.  Default interest

265.  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.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

2.  Declares the applications admissible;

3.  Holds that there has been a substantive violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ relatives Mr Vait Askhabov, Mr Shamkhan Murdalov, Mr Rustam Makayev, Mr Adam Sadgayev, Mr Ruslan Edilsultanov, Mr Salakh Yakhyaev, Mr Anzor Yakhyaev, Mr Rizvan Oybuyev, Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein Elmurzayev, Mr Magomed Elzhurkayev, and Mr Zayndi Dudarkayev;

4.  Holdsthat there has been a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to investigate the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives;

5.  Holds that 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;

6.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ relatives on account of their unlawful detention;

7.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;

8.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the following applications: Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10), Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11), Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11), and Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12);

9.  Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, in respect of the following applications: Khuchbarova and Others v. Russia (no. 62409/10), Shovkhalova v. Russia (no. 34290/11), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41877/11), Oybuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 62172/11), and Betereskhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 32554/12);

10.  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 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;

11.  Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş Aracı                                                                      Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President

 

APPENDIX

No.	Application no. and date of introduction	Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Kinship with the abducted person(s)	Abducted person(s)	Represented by	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses
1.	14196/08 22/01/2008	Ms Khava BITSAYEVA 30/09/1969 Chiri-Yurt wife	Mr Vait ASKHABOV	Mr Dokka ITSLAYEV	EUR 6,000 (six thousandeuros)	EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros)	EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
2.	62409/10 14/10/2010	1)  Ms Zaira KHUCHBAROVA 10/12/1979 Valerik wife   2)  Ms Satsita MURDALOVA 19/07/1951 Valerik mother   3)  Ms Shaykhan MURDALOV 29/10/1997 Valerik son   4)  Ms Rayana MURDALOVA 28/11/2002 Valerik daughter   5)  Ms Radima MURDALOVA 06/08/2004 Valerik daughter	Mr Shamkhan MURDALOV	Mr Dokka ITSLAYEV	EUR 6,000 (six thousandeuros) to the first, third, fourth and fifth applicants each	EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly	EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
3.	12868/11 14/02/2011	1)  Ms Luiza TATAYEVA 08/09/1974 Urus-Martan wife   2)  Ms Dzhanetta MAKAYEVA 20/09/2000 Urus-Martan daughter   3)  Mr Artur MAKAYEV 15/09/2001 Urus-Martan son	Mr Rustam MAKAYEV	STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE/ ASTREYA	EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to each of the applicants	EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly	EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
4.	34290/11 26/04/2011	Ms Rizan SHOVKHALOVA 02/07/1961 Avtury sister	Mr Adam SADGAYEV	STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE/ ASTREYA	–	EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros)	EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
5.	41877/11 01/07/2011	1)  Ms Aset EDILSULTANOVA 17/11/1956 Chiri-Yurt mother   2)  Ms Zarema CHOKKARAYEVA 01/07/1982 Chiri-Yurt wife   3)  Ms Myalkhazni EDILSULTANOVA 09/10/2001 Chiri-Yurt daughter   4)  Mr Magomed EDILSULTANOV 05/10/2000 Chiri-Yurt son   5)  Mr Movladi EDILSULTANOV 07/05/2003 Chiri-Yurt son	Mr Ruslan EDILSULTANOV	STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE/ ASTREYA	EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to the first and second applicants eachEUR 4,000 (four thousand euros)to the third, fourth and fifth applicants each	EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly	EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
6.	44311/11 12/07/2011	Ms Khadishat MUTSAYEVA 13/06/1956 Avtury mother	1)  Mr Salakh YAKHYAEV   2)  Mr Anzor YAKHYAEV	STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE/ ASTREYA	EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros)	EUR 120,000 (one hundred and twenty thousand euros)	EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
7.	62172/11 30/09/2011	1)  Mr Movldi OYBUYEV 10/05/1946 Stariye Atagi father   2)  Ms Yakha OYBUYEVA 15/08/1954 Stariye Atagi mother   3)  Ms Moltkhan GELISKHANOVA 15/01/1981 Stariye Atagi wife   4)  Ms Petimat OYBUYEVA 26/10/1998 Stariye Atagi daughter   5)  Ms Yasmina OYBUYEVA 28/11/2005 Stariye Atagi daughter   6)  Mr Iznaur OYBUYEV 14/01/2001 Stariye Atagi son	Mr Rizvan OYBUYEV	STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE/ ASTREYA	EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to the first and second applicants each   EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to the third applicant   EUR 500 (five hundred euros) to the fourth applicant   EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to the fifth and sixth applicants each	EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly	EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
8.	13843/12 27/02/2012	1)  Ms Minga KHAMIDOVA 08/10/1950 Duba-Yurt mother, passed away   2)  Ms Roza ELMURZAYEVA 04/08/1976 Duba-Yurt sister	Mr Suleiman Said-Khusein (also spelled as Suliman Said‑Khusin) ELMURZAYEV	STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE/ ASTREYA	–	EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the second applicant	EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
9.	13909/12 27/02/2012	1)  Ms Tamara ELZHURKAYEVA 27/06/1954 Groznyy mother   2)  Mr Mumady ELZHURKAYEV 23/12/1941 Groznyy father   3)  Ms Layla ELZHURKAYEVA 05/02/1972 Groznyy sister	Mr Magomed ELZHURKAYEV	STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE/ ASTREYA	EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros) to the first and second applicants each	EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly	EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros)
10.	32554/12 25/05/2012	1)  Ms Larisa BETERESKHANOVA 27/06/1971 Goyskoye wife   2)  Mr Sharpudi DUDARKAYEV 31/08/1949 Goyskoye brother   3)  Mr Shaaman DUDARKAYEV 02/07/1994 Goyskoye son   4)  Mr Shamkhan DUDARKAYEV 05/01/1992 Goyskoye son   5)  Ms Birlant DUDARKAYEVA 11/11/1990 Goyskoye daughter   6)  Mr Rizvan DUDARKAYEV 24/04/1999 Goyskoye son   7)  Ms Petimat DUDARKAYEVA 16/03/1997 Goyskoye daughter	Mr Zayndi DUDARKAYEV (also spelled as DUDURKAYEV)	Mr Tagir SHAMSUDINOV	EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly	EUR 60,000 (sixty thousand euros) to the applicants jointly	EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros)