PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 48145/99) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Italian national, Mr Giuseppe Fabi (“the applicant”), on 20 April 1999.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr A. Barbàra, a lawyer practising in Rome. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr U. Leanza, and by their successive co-agents, respectively Mr V. Esposito and Mr F.  Crisafulli.

3.  The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been unable to recover possession of his flat within a reasonable time. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he further complained about the length of the eviction proceedings.

4.  The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

5.  On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed First Section.

6.  On 27 June 2002 the Court declared the application admissible.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

7.  The applicant lives in Rome.

8.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to A.M.S.

9.  In a registered letter of 10 April 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.

10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 14 October 1987, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.

11.  By a decision of 1 February 1988, which was made enforceable on 22 April 1988, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 February 1989.

12.  On 24 May 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.

13.  On 18 July 1989 he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 July 1989.

14.  Between 25 July 1989 and 10 December 1998 the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.

15.  Pursuant to Article 6 of Law no. 431/98, the eviction proceedings were suspended until 30 November 2000.

16.  On 11 October 2000, the applicant served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.

17.  On 3 November 2000, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 November 2000.

18.  On February 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

19.  The relevant domestic law is described in the Court’s judgment in the case of Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, §§ 18-35, ECHR 1999-V.

THE LAW

I.	ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 AND OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

20.  The applicant complained that he had been unable to recover possession of his flat within a reasonable time owing to the lack of police assistance. He alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which provides:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

21.  The applicant also alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

22.  The Court has on several previous occasions decided cases raising issues similar to those in the present case and found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Immobiliare Saffi, cited above, §§ 46-66; Lunari v. Italy, no. 21463/93, 11 January 2001, §§ 34-46; Palumbo v. Italy, no. 15919/89, 30 November 2000, §§ 33-47).

23.  The Court has examined the present case and finds that there are no facts or arguments relied on by the Government which would lead to any different conclusion in this case. The Court refers to its detailed reasons in the judgments cited above and notes that in this case the applicant has had to wait for eleven years and seven months before repossessing his flat.

Consequently, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case.

II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

24.  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.  Non-pecuniary damage

25.  The applicant claimed ITL 25,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage (EUR 12,911.42).

26.  The Government submitted that a finding of a violation would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction. They further submitted that in any event the amount claimed was excessive. The Government stressed that the applicant had failed to adduce evidence of any non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged violation.

27.  The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage, which the mere finding of a violation cannot adequately compensate. Therefore, it decides, on an equitable basis, to award EUR 3,000 under this head.

B.  Costs and expenses

28.  The applicant sought reimbursement of his legal costs and expenses for the proceedings before the Court, which he put at ITL 8,422,650 (EUR 4,349.94).

29.  According to the Court’s case-law, an award can be made in respect of costs and expenses only in so far as they have been actually and necessarily incurred by the applicant and are reasonable as to quantum (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V). In the present case, on the basis of the information in its possession and the above-mentioned criteria, the Court considers that EUR 1,000 is a reasonable sum and awards the applicant that amount.

C.  Default interest

30.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:

(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;

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 April 2003, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.


PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 25221/09) against the  lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bulgarian national, Mr Stefan Georgiev Zafirov (“the applicant”), on 4 March 2009.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr E. Bitsaxis, a lawyer practising in . The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent’s delegates, Ms K. Paraskevopoulou, Senior Adviser at the State Legal Council, and Mr I. Bakopoulos and Ms G. Kotta, Legal Assistants at the State Legal Council.

3.  On 11 January 2011 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Patras.

5.  On 20 October 2006 the applicant was arrested and criminal proceedings were brought against him for drug related offences.

6.  After four adjournments - three on the court’s initiative and one on the request of the applicant - on 14 March 2008 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of 55,000 euros (judgment no. 1579/08).

7.  On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence, which was scheduled for hearing on 1st October 2010.

8.  After several adjournments the hearing of the appeal took place on 3 June 2011 and the applicant’s sentence was reduced to fourteen years of imprisonment.

9.  There is no indication in the case file whether an appeal on points of law was lodged challenging the appellate judgment.

THE LAW

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

10.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings, in so far as the proceedings before the first instance and the appellate court are concerned, had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...”

11.  The Government contested that argument.

12.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 20 October 2006, when the applicant was arrested and criminal complaints were brought against him and ended on 3 June 2011, when the decision of the appellate court was delivered. It thus lasted more than four years and seven months for two levels of jurisdiction.

A.  Admissibility

13.  The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Merits

14.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)

15.  The Court observes that the overall length of the proceedings in the present case was approximately four years and seven months for two levels of jurisdiction and that, in particular, the proceedings before the Criminal Court of Appeal lasted more than three years and two months. The Court is of the opinion that mainly the period of two years and six months that lapsed from the date the applicant lodged his appeal and the date the case was initially set for hearing was excessive and was completely attributable to the national authorities. Thus, the Court observes that the national courts’ handling of the case did not facilitate and unjustifiably prolonged its timely completion. In the Court’s opinion, the length of the proceedings can be explained by the failure of the domestic courts to deal with the case diligently (see Gümüÿten v. Turkey, no. 47116/99, §§ 24-26, 30 November 2004).

16.  In view of the above, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the overall duration of the proceedings and the delays attributable to the authorities, in particular with regard to the appellate court, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

17.  The applicant further complained of the fact that in  there was no court to which application could be made to complain of the excessive length of proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention which provides as follows:

“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.”

18.  The Government contested that argument.

19.  The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.

20.  The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI). It notes that the objections and arguments put forward by the Government have been rejected in earlier cases (see Konti-Arvaniti v. Greece, no. 53401/99, §§ 29-30, 10 April 2003 and Tsoukalas v. Greece, no. 12286/08, §§ 37-43, 22 July 2010) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

21.  Accordingly, the Court considers that in the present case there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of a remedy under domestic law whereby the applicant could have obtained a ruling upholding his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

22.  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

23.   The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of nonpecuniary damage.

24.  The Government considered the amount claimed exorbitant and submitted that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction. They submitted, however, that if the Court considers that an award should be made, an amount of EUR 1,000 would be adequate and reasonable.

25.  The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained nonpecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 2,500 under that head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.

B.  Costs and expenses

26.  The applicant did not submit a claim for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts or for those incurred before the Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.

C.  Default interest

27.  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.  Declares the application admissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.


PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in eight 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”). The application numbers and the dates on which they were lodged with the Court as well as the applicants’ personal details are listed in the appended table.

2.  The applicants were represented by various NGOs and lawyers indicated in the appended table. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

3.  Between 7 January 2016 and 31 May 2016 notice of the complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5, and Article 13 in conjunction with these provisions, was given to the Government and the remainder of the applications nos. 31143/11 and 40161/12 was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

4.  The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who at the material time lived in the Chechen Republic and the Republic of Ingushetia, a region neighbouring Chechnya. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in these regions in 2000-2005 after allegedly being unlawfully detained by servicemen. In each of the applications the events took place in the areas under full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants had no news of their missing relatives thereafter.

6.  In each of the cases the applicants complained about the abductions to law-enforcement bodies and an official investigation was instituted. In every case the proceedings, after being suspended and resumed on several occasions, have been pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. It follows from the documents submitted that no active investigative steps have been taken by the authorities other than forwarding formal information requests to their counterparts in various regions of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. Further to such requests, the authorities generally reported that the involvement of servicemen in the abductions had not been established and that no special operations had been carried out at the relevant time. The applicants also lodged requests for information and assistance in the search for their missing relatives to various authorities but received only formal responses, if any. The perpetrators have never been identified by the investigating bodies. It appears that all of the investigations are still pending.

7.  Summaries of the facts in respect of each application are set out below. Each account of events is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and the domestic investigating authorities. The Government did not dispute the principal facts of the cases as presented by the applicants, but contested the involvement of servicemen in these events.

A.  Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11)

8.  The applicant was the father of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov, who was born in 1970. He died on 13 October 2014. The applicant’s son, Mr Sayd-Khasan Dzhamakhadzhiyev, who is also the brother of the missing person Mr SaidMagomed Abdulazimov, expressed his wish to pursue the application.

1.  Abduction of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov

9.  On 12 May 2002 (in the documents submitted, the date was also referred to as 17 May 2002) a group of armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms opened fire and wounded Mr Abdulazimov on a street in the centre of Chiri-Yurt, Chechnya. While he was unconscious, they put him in a Gazel minivan and drove off to an unknown destination.

10.  The whereabouts of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov have remained unknown ever since.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

11.  On 8 June 2002 the applicant complained about the abduction of his son to the deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of Russia (the Russian Parliament). It is unclear whether any reply was given to his complaint.

12.  On 24 July 2002 the applicant lodged an official complaint with the Shali district prosecutor requesting assistance in the search for his son.

13.  On 1 August 2002 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59177 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

14.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the lawenforcement authorities. Most responses contained statements that no information about Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov was available.

15.  In a letter of 16 August 2002 the Shali district office of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) informed the investigators that Mr SaidMagomed Abdulazimov was the emir of Chiri-Yurt who had up to fifteen armed subordinates. Since 2001 he had been involved in planning and carrying out terrorist attacks against the Russian federal forces. Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov had a wide network involving leaders of the illegal armed groups and active representatives of Wahhabism. The letter also stated that Mr Abdulazimov carried a Makarov handgun on a permanent basis and was equipped with a grenade belt and a “Kenwood” portable radio set. The Shali district office was undertaking operational search activities aimed at establishing Mr Abdulazimov’s whereabouts.

16.  On 19 September 2002 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

17.  On 1 October 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed thereof. The investigators’ letter stated that the operational search activities aimed at establishing his son’s whereabouts were being undertaken despite the suspension of the investigation.

18.  On 8 January 2004 the applicant asked the Shali district prosecutor’s office for information about any progress in the investigation.

19.  On 30 January 2004 the investigation was resumed.

20.  On 20 February 2004 the investigators examined the crime scene.

21.  On 25 February 2004 the applicant was questioned again. He stated that Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov had participated in the first Chechen war against the Russian federal forces.

22.  On 3 March 2004 the investigation was suspended. The applicant was informed thereof.

23.  The investigation case file contained the death certificate of Mr SaidMagomed Abdulazimov stating that he had died on 27 May 2002.

24.  On 25 November 2009 the applicant requested the Shali inter-district investigation department to grant him full access to the criminal case file and to resume the proceedings. On 26 November 2009 the investigators allowed him to study the case file but refused to resume the investigation.

25.  On 8 November 2010 the deputy head of the Shali inter-district investigation department annulled the decision of 3 March 2004 as unlawful and ordered the resumption of the proceedings. It was stated that on 12 May 2002 Mr Abdulazimov was arrested by unidentified armed men on the street in Chiri-Yurt after an identity check. He offered armed resistance to his arrest and wounded one of the men. They returned fire and wounded Mr Abdulazimov; then they put him in a Gazel minivan and drove off in the direction of Stariye Atagi.

26.  Between 10 and 24 November 2010 the investigators questioned several neighbours and relatives of the applicant.

27.  On 25 November 2010 the investigators ordered a forensic DNA examination.

28.  On 8 December 2010 the investigation was suspended. It was resumed on 18 April 2011 and suspended again on 23 April 2011.

29.  On 26 November 2012 the applicant asked the Shali district interdistrict investigation department for information about any progress in the investigation. On 4 December 2012 the investigators allowed him to study the criminal case file and make copies of the documents.

30.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

31.  On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the investigators’ decision of 3 March 2004 to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Shali Town Court. On 19 April 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that a day earlier the investigators had already resumed the proceedings.

B.  Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11)

32.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Isa (also spelled as Issa) Tovdayev, who was born in 1984. The second applicant is his brother.

1.  Disappearance of Mr Isa Tovdayev

33.  On 29 April 2000 Mr Isa Tovdayev and his friend Mr I.T., who were teenagers at the time, left their homes in Petropavlovskaya village of Grozny District and went to a rubbish dump located on the outskirts of the village. Between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. they were seen near the road leading to the military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala. At that time a convoy of military vehicles, including an APC (armoured personnel carrier), an URAL lorry and an UAZ van, was driving in the same direction. Mr Tovdayev and Mr I.T. never returned home.

34.  The applicants later learned from unidentified servicemen that Mr Tovdayev had been detained at the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala.

35.  According to the statements of Mr A.T., the father of Mr. I.T., the disappeared teenagers had been transferred from the military base to the detention centre in Chernokozovo, Chechnya. In June 2000 they had been seen in “Beliy Lebed” prison near Pyatigorsk.

36.  The whereabouts of Mr Isa Tovdayev have remained unknown ever since.

2.  Official investigation into the disappearance

37.  Immediately after the disappearance the applicants informed the authorities and requested that an investigation be opened.

38.  On 3 May 2000 the head of the administration of Petropavlovskaya asked the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in Chechnya to provide assistance in the search for Mr Isa Tovdayev and Mr I.T. He indicated, in particular, the presence of military equipment and personnel on the day of the disappearance.

39.  On 13 June 2000 police officers from the Grozny department of the interior examined the crime scene.

40.  On 16 June 2000 the Grozny department of the interior (police station) refused to institute a criminal investigation into the disappearance. On 12 February 2001 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office overruled that decision and opened criminal case no. 19016 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

41.  On 12 March 2001 the grandfather of Mr Isa Tovdayev, Mr D.M., was granted victim status and questioned. He stated that after the disappearance of his grandson he had visited the military base in Khankala where General P. had informed him that both missing teenagers had been taken to Chernokozovo. Mr D.M. had then visited Chernokozovo, but neither his grandson nor Mr I.T. had been detained there.

42.  On 10 April 2001 Mr A.T. was granted victim status and questioned. He stated that on the next day after the disappearance he had visited the police station in Grozny. Police officers had informed him that when they had passed the outskirts of the village on 29 April 2000, they had seen servicemen driving an APC, URAL lorry and UAZ vehicle. Later Mr A.T. learnt from an acquaintance that his son and Isa Tovdayev had been taken to Khankala on that day and had stayed there for about two hours, and then they had been taken to an unknown place.

43.  On 10 April 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed about that decision on 26 March 2002.

44.  On 14 May 2001 the investigation was resumed, and on 14 June 2001 suspended again.

45.  On 29 July 2005 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened another criminal case no. 44074 into the disappearance of Mr Isa Tovdayev and Mr I.T. under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).

46.  On 29 September 2005 the deputy head of the Grozny district prosecutor’s office annulled the decision of 14 June 2001 and ordered the resumption of the proceedings.

47.  On 2 October 2005 criminal cases nos. 19016 and 44074 were joined under the joint number 19016.

48.  On 20 October 2005 the second applicant was questioned. He informed the investigators that Mr D.M. had died in February 2004 and confirmed the account of events submitted to the Court.

49.  On 25 October 2005 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.

50.  Between 20 and 26 October 2006 the investigators questioned several witnesses who knew about the abduction mostly from hearsay.

51.  The investigation was resumed and then suspended on a number of occasions. The suspensions took place on 29 October 2005 and 9 October 2009, with the case being resumed on 2 September 2009 and 11 February 2011 accordingly. On 13 March 2011 the investigation was suspended again.

52.  On 13 April 2009 the first applicant asked the head of the Committee for the search for persons who disappeared during the counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic for assistance in the search for Mr Isa Tovdayev. Her request was forwarded to the investigators, who on 4 May 2009 replied that operational search activities were being carried out to establish his whereabouts.

53.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

54.  On 31 January 2011 the second applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Grozny District Court. On 11 February 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that the investigators had already resumed the proceedings earlier on the same date. On 16 March 2011 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.

C.  Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11)

55.  The applicants are close relatives of brothers Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov (both also spelled as Tigirov), who were born in 1974 and 1968 respectively. The first applicant was their mother; she died in 2011. The second and the third applicants are their sisters.

1.  Abduction of Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov

56.  At the material time the applicants and their relatives lived in the settlement of Yandare in Ingushetia as temporarily displaced persons.

57.  On 4 June 2002 Mr Tapa Tagirov left his house on Shosseynaya Street in Yandare village and disappeared. A few hours later Mr Apti Tagirov left in his GAZ-3210 car (registration number К111ХТ 95Rus) to search for his brother and also disappeared.

58.  On 7 June 2002 around fifteen armed men arrived together with Mr Tapa Tagirov in two white Gazel minibuses without registration numbers at the house where he had lived. Some of them were in civilian clothes; others were wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas. The men were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. They did not identify themselves and provided no documents authorising the search. Having searched the premises, the men left together with Mr Tapa Tagirov.

59.  The applicants have not seen their relatives since their disappearance.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

60.  On an unspecified date in June 2002, as submitted by the applicants, the first applicant complained of the abduction of her sons to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office.

61.  On 17 and then on 24 August 2004 the wives of Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov complained to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office alleging that their husbands had been abducted by State agents. Both of them pointed out that the first applicant had informed the authorities in June 2002 about the abduction but no investigative steps had been taken.

62.  On 3 October 2004 the Nazran district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 045000023 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

63.  On 26 October 2004 the investigators questioned Mr D. and Ms D. who had rented Mr Tapa Tagirov a room in their house from the end of November 2001 until June 2002. He had lived there with his wife and children. Mr D. and Ms D. had learnt about his disappearance from his wife. A few days after the disappearance a group of servicemen had visited them together with Mr Tapa Tagirov. They had arrived in a white Gazel minivan; some of them had been wearing balaclavas and military uniforms. The servicemen had been of Slavic appearance and spoken unaccented Russian. One of the servicemen had told Mr and Ms D. to stay in their room. Through the window Ms D. had seen that the servicemen had searched Mr Tapa Tagirov’s room and had seized some of his belongings. Then they had left together with Mr Tapa Tagirov, having said that he would be released in two weeks.

64.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the lawenforcement authorities. Most responses contained statements that no information about Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov was available.

65.  On 30 November 2004 Mr Apti Tagirov’s wife was granted victim status and questioned. She stated, in particular, that a few days after the disappearance of her husband and his brother, the first applicant had complained thereof to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office.

66.  On 1 December 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She confirmed, in particular, that she had lodged an application with the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office about the disappearance of her sons.

67.  On 3 December 2004 the investigation was suspended. On 25 January 2005 the deputy prosecutor of Ingushetia annulled this decision and ordered the resumption of the proceedings.

68.  On 27 January 2005 the investigation was resumed.

69.  On 14 February 2005 the investigators received a reply to the information request from the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime of the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia. According to that reply, Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov had been arrested by law enforcement officers from the Chechen Republic.

70.  On 27 February 2005 the investigation was suspended.

71.  On 10 July 2009 the first applicant requested that the criminal proceedings be resumed and that she be allowed to study the case file.

72.  On 12 August 2009 the applicant’s request to access the case file was granted but the request to resume the proceedings was rejected.

73.  On 17 January 2011 the investigation was resumed and on 1 March 2011 suspended again.

74.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

75.  On 7 February 2011 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision of 27 February 2005 to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Nazran District Court. On 18 February 2011 the court dismissed the complaint, having found that the investigators had already resumed the proceedings. On 29 March 2011 the Ingushetia Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.

D.  Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12)

76.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Musa Tashayev, who was born in 1975. The third applicant is his daughter. According to the applicants, between 2000 and 2002, three other sons of theirs have either been killed or have disappeared.

1.  Abduction of Mr Musa Tashayev

77.  According to the applicants, on 20 November 2000 a sweeping operation was carried out in Urus-Martan.

78.  At about 4 a.m. on 20 November 2000 a group of armed servicemen arrived at Mr Tashayev’s house at 100 Titova Street in Urus-Martan in an APC and an URAL lorry. The servicemen wore camouflage uniforms and spoke unaccented Russian. They forced Mr Tashayev into one of the vehicles and drove off to an unknown destination.

79.  On the next morning after the abduction, an officer from the UrusMartan commander’s office told the first applicant that Mr Tashayev had been detained on their premises.

80.  The whereabouts of Mr Tashayev have remained unknown ever since.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

81.  On 9 March 2001 the wife of Mr Musa Tashayev, Ms D., informed the authorities that her husband had been arrested during the special operation.

82.  On 17 May 2001 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 25052 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

83.  On 19 May 2001 the investigators examined the crime scene.

84.  On 19 May 2001 Ms D. was granted victim status and questioned. A copy of her statement submitted to the Court was illegible.

85.  On 17 July 2001 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

86.  On 12 April 2004 the first applicant requested the head of the UrusMartan department of the interior (the police) for assistance in the search for her son. It is unclear whether any reply was given.

87.  On 21 January 2008 the first applicant informed the authorities that Ms D. had married again and had been living independently from their family. The first applicant was appointed as a guardian of her children, including the third applicant, by a judgment of 23 May 2007.

88.  On 31 January 2008 the investigation was resumed. It was subsequently suspended on 29 February 2008, then resumed on 18 March 2008, suspended again on 16 April 2008 and resumed on 29 April 2008, then suspended on 28 May 2008 and resumed on 9 December 2010.

89.  On 13 February 2008 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

90.  On 1 May 2008 the investigators questioned Mr A., who was a neighbour of Mr Tashayev and his family at the relevant time. He had learnt about the incident on the day after the abduction from neighbours, who had confirmed its circumstances as submitted by the applicants.

91.  On 21 July 2010 the first applicant submitted a request to the investigators to be granted access to the criminal case file and for the proceedings to be resumed. Her request was rejected.

92.  On 25 November 2010 the first applicant asked the investigators about progress in the proceedings.

93.  On 9 January 2011 the investigation was suspended again.

94.  On 30 May 2011 the first applicant again requested access to the case file and asked the investigators to resume the criminal proceedings. On 17 June 2011 the investigators granted her access to the file but refused to resume the proceedings.

95.  On 13 July 2011 the proceedings were resumed.

96.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

97.  On 6 December 2010 the first applicant complained to the AchkhoyMartan District Court about the lack of access to the criminal case file and the investigators’ failure to take basic steps. On 17 December 2010 the court ordered the investigators to grant her full access to the criminal case file. The remainder of her complaint was rejected.

98.  On 27 May 2011 the first applicant lodged another complaint challenging the investigators’ failure to take basic steps before the UrusMartan Town Court. On 15 July 2011 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that the investigation had been resumed on 13 July 2011. On 10 August 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the above decision on appeal.

E.  Metsoyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 40161/12)

99.  The first applicant is the wife of Mr Sayd-Eli (also spelled as SaidEli) Garbulatov, who was born in 1960. The second and the third applicants are his children.

1.  Abduction of Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov and subsequent events

100.  At about 1 p.m. on 10 August 2005 Mr Garbulatov, a former member of illegal armed groups in Chechnya, was leaving the office of the Grozny Technical Inventory Bureau (БТИ г. Грозного) at 2 Pobedy Avenue in the Zavodskoy district of Grozny, when about twenty armed servicemen in black military uniform surrounded him, forced him into an UAZ vehicle with no registration numbers and drove off to an unknown destination.

101.  On 18 August 2005 the applicants’ relative, Mr V.G., went to the Katayama department of the interior (police station) in Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny. In one of the corridors of the police station he saw Mr Garbulatov sitting on a chair under armed guard. Mr V.G. managed to approach Mr Garbulatov and to have a brief conversation with him. Mr Garbulatov told him that since his arrest on 10 August 2005 he had been detained in the basement of the police station. At that moment a serviceman in a black military uniform approached them, shouted at Mr V.G. for talking to Mr Garbulatov and walked the latter away. Mr V.G. asked police officers for the name of this serviceman; they replied that it was Mr D.E.

102.  The whereabouts of Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov have remained unknown ever since.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

103.  On 19 January 2006 the first applicant lodged an official complaint with the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny about the abduction of her husband and asked for assistance in the search for him.

104.  On 30 January 2006 the first applicant was interviewed by the investigators. Her statements were similar to the account of events submitted to the Court.

105.  On 3 February 2006 the Zavodskoy district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the abduction on the grounds of the absence of any criminal act.

106.  On 8 May 2006 the supervising prosecutor overruled the above decision and opened criminal case no. 51072 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). The first applicant was granted victim status.

107.  On the same date the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected.

108.  The investigators sent numerous requests for information to the lawenforcement authorities. Most responses contained statements that no information about Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov was available.

109.  On 9 May 2006 the Zavodskoy district department of the interior (the police station) replied to the investigators that “in August 2005 Mr Garbulatov was in Katayama police station”.

110.  On 23 May 2006 the investigators questioned Mr V.G. He confirmed his earlier statements (see paragraph 101 above).

111.  In June and July 2006 the investigators questioned several police officers from the Staropromyslovskiy district department of the interior. All of them denied that Mr Garbulatov had ever been arrested or detained by them.

112.  On 8 July 2006 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. It was subsequently resumed on numerous occasions following the supervisors’ orders and then suspended again. Thus, the investigation was resumed on 18 July 2006, 3 May, 26 July and 15 November 2007, and 20 May 2008 and suspended on 18 August 2006, 7 June, 3 September and 15 December 2007, and 29 June 2008.

113.  On 13 April 2007 the first applicant asked the investigators to resume the proceedings and to grant her access to the criminal case file. Her request for access to the case file was refused.

114.  On an unspecified date in 2007 the first applicant complained to the Head of the Government of the Chechen Republic, asking him to provide assistance in the search for her husband. According to her statements, Mr Garbulatov had spent one month in the basement of the police station and had been questioned by the head of the Staropromyslovskiy district department of the interior on several occasions. Two and a half months after the disappearance of her husband the head of the police station had asked Mr Garbulatov’s brother-in-law, Mr S.G., to bring his clothes. When the latter had arrived at the police station, a police officer had approached him and had provoked him to a quarrel. Then Mr S.G. had been taken to the premises of the separate reconnaissance battalion 2-ORB (2-ОРБ) where he had spent two days. He had been told to stop searching for Mr Garbulatov.

115.  On 28 April 2007 the first applicant’s complaint was forwarded to the deputy prosecutor of the Zavodskoy district of Grozny.

116.  On 2 June 2008 the investigators sent a request for information about certain police officers to the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic. It was stated in the request that according to the case file materials, Mr Garbulatov had been detained for one month in the Katayama division of the Staropromyslovskiy district department of the interior.

117.  On 26 June 2008 the first applicant was questioned again. She confirmed her statements provided to the Head of the Government of the Chechen Republic (see paragraph 114 above).

118.  On 19 May 2011 the first applicant again requested the investigators to resume the proceedings and to inform her about their progress. In reply she received a letter stating that operational search activities were being undertaken in order to establish her husband’s whereabouts.

119.  On 28 October 2011 the investigation was resumed.

120.  On 14 November 2011 the investigators questioned Mr S.G. He confirmed the first applicant’s statements submitted to the Head of the Government of the Chechen Republic (see paragraph 114 above).

121.  On 7 December 2011 the investigation was suspended.

122.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

123.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny regarding her lack of access to the investigation file. On 9 November 2007 the court allowed her complaint.

124.  On 18 February 2012 the first applicant lodged another complaint regarding the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps. On 27 February 2012 the court dismissed her complaint.

F.  Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12)

125.  The applicants are the parents of Mr Magomed (also spelled as Magomet) Azizov, who was born in 1981.

1.  Abduction of Mr Magomed Azizov

126.  At about 3 a.m. on 5 February 2003 a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the applicants’ family house at 13 Naberezhnaya Street in Shali in a UAZ minivan (“таблетка”) and a Gazel minivan without registration plates. The servicemen were equipped with protective shields and helmets; they spoke unaccented Russian. Having forced their way into the house, they searched the premises, checked passports, and then forced Mr Azizov outside. The first applicant asked the servicemen where they were from. One of them replied that they were from the military commander’s office. The servicemen put Mr Azizov in one of their vehicles and drove off in the direction of Shali city centre.

127.  The whereabouts of Mr Magomed Azizov have remained unknown ever since. The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicants and their family members.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

128.  Immediately after the abduction the first applicant complained about it to the authorities and asked for the necessary steps to be taken.

129.  On 8 February 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22026 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

130.  On 9 February 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. Her statements were similar to the submissions before the Court.

131.  On 10 February 2003 the investigators questioned Mr R.A., whose statement was similar to that of the first applicant.

132.  The investigators sent numerous requests for information to the medical institutions, lawenforcement and other authorities, including the Shali military commander’s office. In reply the commander’s office informed the investigators that Mr Azizov had not been arrested or detained by its officers. Other responses contained statements that no information about Mr Magomed Azizov was available.

133.  On 8 April 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof.

134.  On a number of occasions between 2003 and 2009 the applicants complained to various authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in the search for their son. Their complaints were forwarded to the investigators and the Shali district prosecutor’s office. In reply, on each occasion, the applicants received letters from those authorities stating that the law-enforcement agencies were taking measures to establish their son’s whereabouts.

135.  On 30 April 2011 the decision of 8 April 2003 to suspend the investigation was overruled following the supervisors’ criticism, and on 10 May 2011 the proceedings were resumed. They were subsequently suspended on 10 June 2011 and resumed again on 25 April 2012.

136.  On 18 May 2011 the first applicant was questioned again. She reiterated her earlier statements.

137.  On 19 May 2011 the investigators ordered a forensic DNA examination.

138.  Between 20 and 26 May 2011 the investigators questioned Mr R.A., the second applicant and the applicants’ neighbours. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the events as described above.

139.  On 26 May 2011 the investigators examined the crime scene.

140.  On 7 July 2011 the first applicant submitted a request to be granted access to the investigation file. It is unclear whether she received any reply to this request.

141.  On 30 April 2012 the proceedings were suspended. The investigators instructed the Shali district department of the interior (police station) to intensify the search for Mr Magomed Azizov and to take all necessary operational search measures.

142.  On 24 April 2014 the first applicant lodged an application with the head of the police station asking to question two of their neighbours again in order to confirm that the abductors had been State agents. On 2 May 2014 her application was rejected.

143.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

144.  On 9 April 2012 the first applicant challenged the investigators’ decision of 10 June 2011 to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic steps before the Shali Town Court. On 26 April 2012 the court terminated the proceedings, having found that the investigation had been resumed the day before. On 6 June 2012 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.

G.  Larsanova v. Russia (no. 3083/13)

145.  The applicant is the mother of Mr Khamzat Larsanov (also spelled as Lorsanov), who was born in 1983.

1.  Abduction of Mr Khamzat Larsanov

146.  At about 4 a.m. on 11 September 2002 Mr Larsanov, his father, Mr R.L., and his mother − the applicant − were at home at 97 Obukhova Street in Grozny when a group of about fifteen armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived in three UAZ vehicles and three APCs. One of the APCs had a registration number containing the digits “002”. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian; some of them were equipped with portable radio sets which they used at some point to receive a command. Having forced their way into the applicant’s house, they fired some shots and then searched the premises, asking the family members whether any members of illegal armed groups were hiding in the house. One of the servicemen took off his balaclava. He was of Slavic appearance. After the search, the servicemen forced Mr Larsanov into one of their vehicles and took him away to an unknown destination.

147.  The whereabouts of Mr Khamzat Larsanov have remained unknown ever since. His abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses, including the applicant, her relatives and neighbours.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

148.  The criminal case file concerning the abduction of the applicant’s son was lost in unknown circumstances. Following the supervisor’s order to restore it, in 2016 the investigators resumed the proceedings and took several investigative steps. In particular, they questioned the witnesses and examined the crime scene. The following account of events is based on the copies of the original case file and other documents submitted by the applicant as well as the documents from the restored case file submitted by the Government.

149.  Immediately after the abduction, the applicant informed the authorities thereof and requested that criminal proceedings be opened.

150.  On the same day the investigators examined the criminal scene.

151.  On 26 September 2002 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 48162 under Article 126 of the Criminal Code.

152.  On 16 October 2002 the case no. 48162 was joined with the case no. 48172 concerning the abduction of Mr I.Yu. under the joint number 48162.

153.  On 26 October 2002 the applicant was granted victim status.

154.  On an unspecified date between October and November 2002 the investigators interviewed the applicant, her husband, their relatives and neighbours. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above.

155.  On 26 November 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.

156.  Between 2004 and 2007 the applicant complained to various authorities and NGOs about the abduction of her son and requested assistance in the search for him. Her complaints were forwarded to the investigators, who replied that the investigation had been suspended and that operational search activities were in progress.

157.  On 15 March 2007 the investigators informed the applicant that the proceedings in the criminal case had been suspended on 26 November 2002 and that operational search activities were in progress to establish her son’s whereabouts.

158.  On 26 June 2007 a police officer from the Leninskiy district police department interviewed the applicant.

159.  On 27 October 2012 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision of 26 November 2002 to suspend the investigation and ordered its resumption. On 12 December 2012 the proceedings were suspended again.

160.  On 28 June 2016 the Chechnya Investigations Department ordered the head of the investigative committee in Grozny to restore the criminal case-file no. 48162 which had been lost.

161.  On 30 June 2016 the investigators resumed the proceedings.

162.  On 4 July 2016 the investigators questioned the applicant who reiterated her previous statements.

163.  Between 5 and 7 July 2016 the investigators questioned Ms M.E., Ms M.M., Ms Z.D. and the applicant’s husband who had witnessed the abduction of Mr Khamzat Larsanov. All of them confirmed the circumstances of the abduction as described above.

164.  On 13 July 2016 the investigators examined the crime scene.

165.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

H.  Gaydakova v. Russia (no. 6983/13)

166.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Isa Gaydakov, who was born in 1959.

1.  Abduction of Ms Isa Gaydakov

167.  Mr Isa Gaydakov was a cousin of Mr Shamil Basayev, the underground leader of the Chechen rebel separatist movement, who masterminded and led a number of guerrilla attacks on Russian security forces and civilians, including the hostage-taking in a school in Beslan in September 2004 (see Tagayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 26562/07 and 6 others, 13 April 2017).

168.  On 23 April 2004 Mr Gaydakov was at the Zhanetta petrol station on Mayakovskogo Street in Grozny, when a group of about seven men in camouflage uniforms forced him out of his Volga car and took him to an unknown destination.

169.  The whereabouts of Mr Isa Gaydakov have remained unknown since the date of his abduction.

2.  Official investigation into the abduction

170.  According to the applicant, she informed the authorities of the abduction shortly afterwards and requested that criminal proceedings be opened. Despite her requests, the authorities refused to officially register her complaints, thereby impeding the investigation.

171.  On 22 May 2005 a police officer from the Leninskiy district department of the interior (the police station) in Grozny interviewed Mr T.M. and Mr L.D. who had worked at the petrol station at the time of the events in question. Both of them denied that they had any information about the abduction of Mr Gaydakov.

172.  On 7 June 2005 the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny refused to open a criminal case into the abduction.

173.  On 1 August 2005 the supervising prosecutor overruled that decision and opened criminal case no. 40157 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 44064) under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction).

174.  On 23 August 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned.

175.  The investigators sent several requests for information to the lawenforcement authorities about Mr Gaydakov. Most responses contained statements that no information had been available.

176.  On an unspecified date in September 2005 the head of the police station informed the investigators that according to their information Mr Gaydakov had been arrested by the officers of the Security Service of the President of Chechnya (Служба безопасности при Президенте Чеченской Республики) on suspicion of his involvement in the activities of illegal armed groups.

177.  On 1 October 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. That decision was overruled by the supervising prosecutor on 15 November 2005 and the investigation was resumed. It was again suspended on 15 February 2006. The applicant was informed thereof.

178.  On 10 November 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene.

179.  On 15 November 2005 Mr V.M., the deputy head of the provisional task force of the criminal police department of the Ministry of the Interior in Khankala (КМ ВОГО и П МВД России) informed the investigators that Mr Gaydakov was listed as a participant in illegal armed groups. Their statement contained the description of the circumstances of the abduction of Mr Gaydakov.

180.  On 14 December 2005 the investigators questioned Ms Kh.Kh., who was Mr Gaydakov’s second wife. She stated that he had never been involved in the activities of illegal armed groups and had never had any relations with Shamil Basayev.

181.  On the same date Ms Kh.Kh. was also granted victim status in the criminal case.

182.  On 15 December 2005 the investigators questioned several acquaintances of Mr Gaydakov. Some of them had seen his car several days after the abduction driving in various directions.

183.  On 15 January 2006 the investigators’ supervisor approved the plan of investigative steps and operational measures to be taken in order to establish the circumstances of Mr Gaydakov’s abduction and those responsible for it. One of the hypotheses considered by the investigators was the abduction of Mr Gaydakov by the Chechen law-enforcement officers on account of his kinship with Shamil Basayev.

184.  In March 2006 the applicant informed the investigators that on 1 February 2006 a Russian TV channel had aired a story about her husband and Mr A. who had been sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment. She requested the investigators to obtain a copy of the television programme broadcast.

185.  On 23 March 2006 the investigators granted the applicant’s request. In reply they received a letter from the TV channel stating that no information about Mr Gaydakov had been given on 1 February 2006.

186.  On 27 March 2006 the investigators sent a request for information to the Federal Penitentiary Service in Sverdlovsk Region asking whether Mr Gaydakov had been detained in the colonies of that region. It is unclear whether they received any reply.

187.  On 22 June 2011 the applicant requested that the investigators resume the proceedings, inform her about progress in the investigation and grant her access to the case file. Her request was granted in part: the investigators gave her permission to consult the contents of the case file and informed her about progress in the case.

188.  On 4 April 2012 the applicant’s representative again requested that the investigators resume the proceedings but to no avail.

189.  It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.  Proceedings against the investigators

190.  On 28 May 2012 the applicant challenged the investigators’ decision to suspend the proceedings and their failure to take basic investigative steps before the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny. On 16 July 2012 the court dismissed the complaint as unfounded, having established that all the necessary investigative steps had been taken.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE AND INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS

191.  For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice and for international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012).

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

192.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.  COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIX-MONTH RULE

A.  The parties’ submissions

1.  The Government

193.  The Government submitted that the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court several years after the abduction of their relatives and more than six months after the date when they ought to have become aware of the ineffectiveness of the pending investigations. They pointed out that the applicants had remained passive and had not been interested in finding their missing relatives. The applicants had therefore failed to comply with the six-month time-limit for lodging their respective complaints with the Court.

194.  The Government further challenged the claim in the application Tagirova and Others (no. 52056/11) that the first applicant had complained about the abduction of her relatives in 2002. They submitted that the applicants had not lodged any complaints with the law-enforcement authorities before August 2004. In the Government’s view, the applicants had failed to show due diligence by promptly informing the authorities about the abduction of their relatives.

2.  The applicants

195.  The applicants in all applications submitted that they had complied with the six-month rule. They had taken all possible steps within a reasonable time to initiate the search for their missing relatives and assist the authorities in the proceedings. They alleged that there had been no excessive or unexplained delays in lodging their applications with the Court, which had been forthcoming as soon as they considered the domestic investigation to be ineffective.

196.  The applicants further submitted that they had complained to the authorities shortly after the incidents and had hoped that the criminal investigation initiated thereafter would produce results. Throughout the proceedings they had maintained regular contact with the authorities and actively cooperated with the investigation. The applicants further maintained that the armed conflict in the area had led them to believe that investigative delays were inevitable and it was only with the passage of time and the lack of information from the domestic authorities that they had begun to doubt the effectiveness of the investigation. Some applicants also referred to their legal illiteracy and their insufficient financial means to retain a lawyer (in Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11)). The applicants in Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) additionally submitted that they had found themselves in especially difficult circumstances after the abduction of Mr Musa Tashayev, because three sons of the first and the second applicants had either disappeared or had been killed within the two years that followed.

B.  The Court’s assessment

1.  General principles

197.  A summary of the principles concerning compliance with the sixmonth rule in cases involving violations of Article 2 of the Convention allegedly perpetrated by military servicemen may be found in Sultygov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 369-74, 9 October 2014, and Dudayeva v. Russia, no. 67437/09, § 71, 8 December 2015.

2.  Application of the principles to the present case

198.  Turning to the circumstances of the applications before it, the Court notes that in four of the cases at hand the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court within a period ranging from almost seven years to up to ten years after the incidents, and that the authorities became aware of the abductions without there being undue delays. In each of these cases the investigations were formally pending at the time when the applications were lodged with the Court. The criminal proceedings in all the cases were suspended and resumed on several occasions throughout the periods concerned. The applicants maintained reasonable contact with the authorities, cooperated with the investigation, and, where appropriate, took steps to keep themselves informed of the progress in the proceedings and to speed them up, in the hope of a more effective outcome (see paragraphs 18, 24, 29, 113, 118, 156, 184, 187 and 188 above). Given the overall time frame which has elapsed since the abductions and the initiation of the relevant criminal proceedings, as well as the applicants’ active stance in the proceedings and the lack of any significant periods of inaction on their part, the Court is satisfied that the applicants lodged their applications within a reasonable time (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, ECHR 2009).

199.  As to the application Tagirova and Others (no. 52056/11), lodged with the Court nine years after the abduction, the Court notes that the applicants and their relatives made consistent allegations in the domestic proceedings that the first applicant had complained to the authorities about the abduction of Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov for the first time in June 2002 (see paragraphs 61, 65 and 66 above). Should it be accepted that the authorities were informed about the abduction only in August 2004, the Court notes that the investigators had never asked the applicants about the reasons for a two-year delay in bringing their complaints, although this would have been essential for establishing the whereabouts of their relatives. Furthermore, the applicants provided the authorities with the necessary information regarding their relatives and the circumstances of their abduction, thus expecting important investigative developments in establishing their whereabouts or identifying the perpetrators. From the documents submitted it does not transpire, therefore, that the applicants failed to show the requisite diligence by delaying their complaints or remaining passive in respect of the domestic investigation (contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016).

200.  The Court further notes that the application Azizovy (no. 72821/12) was lodged with the Court less than ten years after the abduction of Mr Magomed Azizov. The applicants informed the authorities immediately after the incident and cooperated with the investigators by giving statements about the circumstances of the abduction (see paragraphs 128 and 130 above). However, there was a discernible lull in the investigation comprising eight years, when the investigation was dormant. Such a long period of inaction on the part of the authorities could have cast doubt on the effectiveness of the pending investigation. The Court notes however that during that period the applicants remained active in trying to establish the whereabouts of their son. They maintained contact with the authorities by lodging complaints with various law-enforcement agencies, complaints which were later forwarded to the investigators, and they received replies stating that operational search activities were under way (see paragraph 134 above). The Court therefore considers that it was reasonable for the applicants, who consistently received such replies from the authorities, 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). Given the overall time frame between the incident and the lodging of the application with the Court, the above lull in the proceedings, therefore, cannot be interpreted as a failure by the applicants to show due diligence and comply with the six-month requirement.

201.  Turning to the applications Tovdayevy (no. 41890/11) and Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12), the Court notes that they were lodged eleven years after the abduction of the applicants’ relatives. It observes that in Tovdayevy (no. 41890/11) the applicants immediately reported the abduction to the authorities and provided information to the investigators about their relative’s possible whereabouts (see paragraphs 37 and 41 above). The Court further notes that the applicants in Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12) informed the authorities about the abduction without there being any undue delay. Their inaction from 2001 to 2004 could be explained by the fact that they found themselves in a difficult situation during that period, following the active phase of the counterterrorist operation in Chechnya and owing to the loss of their three other sons in addition to the abduction of their son Mr Musa Tashayev (see paragraphs 76 and 196 above). The documents submitted show that the applicants informed the investigators promptly about important developments in the case and asked them to resume the investigation on several occasions (see paragraphs 87, 91, 92 and 94 above). In the Court’s view, it cannot be concluded therefore that the applicants in Tovdayevy (no. 41890/11) and Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12) failed to show the requisite diligence by unreasonably waiting for the pending investigation to yield results (contrast Utsmiyeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 31179/11, §§ 34-40, 26 August 2014).

202.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit.

III.  THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A.  The parties’ submissions

1.  The Government

203.  The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying each application, but submitted that there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged abductions of the applicants’ relatives.

2.  The applicants

204.  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 to documents from the criminal investigation files submitted by the Government. They also stated that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by military servicemen, 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 period 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

205.  A summary of the principles concerning the assessment of evidence and establishment of the facts in disappearance cases, and the lifethreatening nature of such incidents, can be found in Sultygov and Others (cited above, §§ 393-96).

2.  Application of the above principles to the present case

206.  Turning to the circumstances of the applications before it, and in view of all the material, including the documents from the criminal investigation files provided by the Government in most cases, the Court finds that the applicants have presented prima facie cases that their relatives were abducted by State agents in the circumstances described above.

207.  In the application Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11), the Court notes that Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov was abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas after they had checked his identity documents (see paragraphs 9 and 25 above). The Government did not dispute that Federal Security Service had prior information about his involvement in terrorist activities and links with leaders of illegal armed groups (see paragraph 15 above).

208.  As to the application Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), the Court notes the presence of the military vehicles at the time when Mr Isa Tovdayev and his friend had been seen near the road leading to the military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala (see paragraphs 33 and 38 above). The Court further takes note of the statements of Mr D.M. and Mr A.T., both of whom had testified that Mr Isa Tovdayev and Mr I.T. had spent two or three hours at the military base and had then been transferred to Chernokozovo (see paragraphs 35, 41 and 42 above). However, owing to the investigators’ failure to send requests for information to the competent authorities, the fact of Mr Isa Tovdayev’s detention had never been verified.

209.  The Court further notes that in application Tagirova and Others (no. 52056/11) it was established that Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov had been arrested by law-enforcement agents from the Chechen Republic (see paragraph 69 above). Moreover, a few days after the abduction Mr Tapa Tagirov returned with a group of men to the house where he had lived and those men had been of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian (see paragraphs 58 and 63 above).

210.  Turning to the application Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), the Court observes that the alleged abductors spoke unaccented Russian and arrived in a heavy military vehicle, the APC. The Government did not dispute this information, as submitted by the applicants and confirmed by the statements of their neighbour (see paragraphs 78 and 90 above).

211.  The Court further observes that in application Metsoyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 40161/12) the fact of the arrest and subsequent detention of Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov by the law-enforcement officers was confirmed by the witness statements of Mr V.G. and Mr S.G. (see paragraphs 101, 110 and 120 above). Furthermore, the letter from Zavodskoy police station stated that in August 2005 Mr Garbulatov had been in Katayama police station (see paragraph 109 above).

212.  In the application Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) it is undisputed by the parties that Mr Magomed Azizov was arrested after the identity check and then detained by servicemen from the military commander’s office (see paragraph 126 above). This fact was also confirmed by a number of witness statements (see paragraphs 131 and 138 above).

213.  In application Larsanova v. Russia (no. 3083/13) the Court notes that the abductors were equipped with portable radio sets which they used to receive a command (see paragraphs 146, 154 and 163 above). Such special means of communication were available only to the military or security personnel at the time (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 99). The Court also notes the involvement of military vehicles, such as APCs, in the abduction.

214.  As to the application Gaydakova v. Russia (no. 6983/13), the Court observes that the law-enforcement authorities had been aware of Mr Isa Gaydakov’s kinship with Mr Shamil Basayev, the leader of the Chechen separatist movement, and that they had suspected him of involvement in illegal armed groups (see paragraph 179 above). It further notes that according to information provided by the head of the Leninskiy police station to the investigators, Mr Gaydakov had been arrested by the officers of the Security Service of the President of Chechnya on account of that suspicion (see paragraph 176 above).

215.  Having regard to the numerous previous cases concerning disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia which have come before it, the Court has found that in the particular context of the conflict, when a person was detained by unidentified State agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this could be regarded as lifethreatening (see, among many other authorities, Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 101).

216.  Lastly, the Court observes that 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 (see, among many authorities, Avşar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 392, ECHR 2001VII (extracts)).

217.  In sum, the facts of all the applications provide sufficient evidence to enable the Court to find that the applicants’ relatives were taken into custody by State agents during security operations and remained under the State’s exclusive control. Given the lack of any reliable news about them since their detention and its life-threatening nature, the Court finds that Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov, Mr Isa Tovdayev, Mr Tapa Tagirov, Mr Apti Tagirov, Mr Musa Tashayev, Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov, Mr Magomed Azizov, Mr Khamzat Larsanov and Mr Isa Gaydakov may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention.

IV.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

218.  The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relatives had disappeared after being detained by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation 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.

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.  The parties’ submissions

1.  The Government

219.  In the cases of Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) and Larsanova v. Russia (no. 3083/13), the Government contended that Article 2 of the Convention was inapplicable to the applicants’ complaints of abduction, which they said had to be examined under Article 5 of the Convention. They referred to the case of Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, §§ 101-09, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998III) in that respect.

220.  The Government submitted that, in any event, the complaints should be rejected because the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations of enforced disappearance.

221.  The Government further argued that no evidence had been obtained in the domestic investigations to suggest that the applicants’ relatives had been held under State control or that they had been killed.

222.  Lastly, the Government submitted that the mere fact that the investigations had not produced any specific results, or had produced only limited ones, did not mean that they had been ineffective. All necessary steps had been taken to comply with the positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention.

2.  The applicants

223.  The applicants maintained their complaints, alleging that their relatives had been abducted and deprived of their lives in violation of Article 2 of the Convention. They further argued that the investigations into the incidents had fallen short of the standards set out in the Convention.

B.  The Court’s assessment

1.  Admissibility

224.  The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly illfounded 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

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

226.  The Court notes that it has already examined the Government’s objection in similar cases concerning alleged abductions by State agents and dismissed it (see, for example, Sultygov and Others, cited above, §§ 441-42, and Dzhabrailov and Others v. Russia, nos. 8620/09 and 8 others, §§ 31718, 27 February 2014), Accordingly, it finds that Article 2 of the Convention applies and that the Government’s objection in this respect should be rejected.

227.  Based on the above considerations and noting that it has already been found that the applicants’ relatives may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by State agents (see paragraph 217 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. It concludes that there has been a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov, Mr Isa Tovdayev, Mr Tapa Tagirov, Mr Apti Tagirov, Mr Musa Tashayev, Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov, Mr Magomed Azizov, Mr Khamzat Larsanov and Mr Isa Gaydakov.

228.  The Court considers that the alleged failure of the Government to submit certain documents from the investigation files does not preclude it from examining the effectiveness of the relevant criminal proceedings.

229.  The Court has previously found that the ineffective investigation of disappearances that occurred in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006 constituted a systemic problem and that criminal investigations were not an effective remedy in this respect (see Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 217). In the cases at hand, as in many previous similar cases examined 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.

230.  The Court observes 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). They have been subjected to several decisions to suspend the investigation, followed by periods of inaction, which have further diminished the prospects of elucidating the crimes. No meaningful steps have been taken to identify and question the servicemen who could have witnessed, made a record of, or participated in, the operations at issue.

231.  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 of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov, Mr Isa Tovdayev, Mr Tapa Tagirov, Mr Apti Tagirov, Mr Musa Tashayev, Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov, Mr Magomed Azizov, Mr Khamzat Larsanov and Mr Isa Gaydakov. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

V.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3, 5 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

232.  The applicants in all applications, except for Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11), complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the mental distress caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives.

233.  All of the applicants complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives’ detention.

234.  All of the applicants also alleged that they had no domestic remedies by which to complain of the alleged violations under Article 2 of the Convention.

235.  The applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) additionally complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. The invoked Articles read, in so far as relevant, as follows:

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

“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:

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.

“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

236.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims, arguing in particular that the applicants’ mental distress had not reached the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. They also argued that domestic legislation provided the applicants with effective remedies in respect of their complaints.

237.  The applicants reiterated their complaints.

B.  The Court’s assessment

1.  Admissibility

238.  The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly illfounded 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

239.  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 missing person. The essence of such a violation lies not so much in the fact of the “disappearance” of the family member, but rather in 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 2006XIII (extracts)). Where the news about a missing person’s death has been preceded by a sufficiently long period in which he or she has been deemed to have disappeared, there is a distinct period during which the applicants are left with sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress, these being characteristics of the specific phenomenon of disappearances (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006XIII (extracts)).

240.  The Court reiterates its findings regarding the State’s responsibility for the abductions of Mr Said-Magomed Abdulazimov, Mr Isa Tovdayev, Mr Tapa Tagirov, Mr Apti Tagirov, Mr Musa Tashayev, Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov, Mr Magomed Azizov, Mr Khamzat Larsanov and Mr Isa Gaydakov, as well as the authorities’ 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 have 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. The Court therefore finds a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on this count in respect of all applicants, except for Mr Sayd-Khasan Dzhamakhadzhiyev in application no. 31143/11.

241.  The Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly serious violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others, cited above, § 122).

242.  Since it has been established that the applicant’s relatives were detained by State agents, apparently without any legal grounds or acknowledgment of such detention (see paragraph 217 above), this constitutes a particularly serious violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention. The Court accordingly finds a violation of this provision in respect of the applicants’ relatives on account of their unlawful detention in all applications.

243.  The Court reiterates its findings regarding the general ineffectiveness of the criminal investigations in cases such as the present one. In the absence of any results of a criminal investigation, any other possible remedy becomes inaccessible in practice. The Court accordingly finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13. In addition, the applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) did not have an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

244.  The Court further notes that according to its established caselaw, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, absorb its requirements. In view of its finding of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention (see paragraph 242 above), the Court considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case (see Bantayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 20727/04, § 121, 12 February 2009, and Zhebrailova and Others v. Russia, no. 40166/07, § 84, 26 March 2015).

VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

245.  Article 41 of the Convention provides as follows:

“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

246.  The applicants in all applications, except for Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11) and Gaydakova v. Russia (no. 6983/13), claimed compensation for loss of financial support from the breadwinners.

247.  The applicants in Metsoyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 40161/12) made their calculations on the basis of the UK Ogden Actuary Tables using domestic subsistence levels and inflation rates. Other applicants based their calculations on the amount of the minimum wage in Russia and its expected growth in future.

248.  The Government left the issue to the Court’s discretion.

2.  Non-pecuniary damage

249.  The amounts claimed by the applicants under that head are indicated in the appended table.

250.  The Government left the issue to the Court’s discretion.

B.  Costs and expenses

251.  The amounts claimed by all applicants are indicated in the appended table. They asked for the awards to be transferred into the bank accounts of their representatives.

252.  The Government argued that in applications Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11), Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12), Larsanova v. Russia (no. 3083/13) and Gaydakova v. Russia (no. 6983/13) the compensation sought by the applicants was excessive. 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

253.  The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage 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 any loss of earnings applies to close relatives of the disappeared persons, including spouses, elderly parents and minor children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva, cited above, § 213).

254.  Where 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 violations, and make a financial award.

255.  As to the costs and expenses, the Court must establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants’ representatives were actually incurred and, second, 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).

256.  Having regard to its conclusions, the principles enumerated above and the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the applicants the amounts set out 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

257.  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 violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of the applicants’ relatives Mr SaidMagomed Abdulazimov, Mr Isa Tovdayev, Mr Tapa Tagirov, Mr Apti Tagirov, Mr Musa Tashayev, Mr Sayd-Eli Garbulatov, Mr Magomed Azizov, Mr Khamzat Larsanov and Mr Isa Gaydakov;

4.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicants’ relatives disappeared;

5.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants, except for the applicant in Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11), on account of their relatives’ disappearance and the authorities’ response to their distress;

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 in respect of all applicants;

8.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);

9.  Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) or Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);

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 them, 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 directly 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.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 August 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.