5.  The applicants were born in 1980 and 1971 respectively and live in Zubutli-Miatli, Kizilyurt district, Dagestan, Russia. They are the wife and the sister of Mr Kamil Mutayev who was born in 1976. 6.  Between 2010 and 2012 the applicants’ relative Mr Kamil Mutayev had been detained on at least three occasions by representatives of law‑enforcement agencies on suspicion of illegal activities and subsequently released. In particular, in 2010 he had been detained pending trial for about six months on suspicion of illegal possession of firearms and assault of a representative of the State and had then been subsequently sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. The sentence was suspended.
(b)  The abduction of the applicants’ relative 7.  At about 1 p.m. on 2 May 2012 Mr Kamil Mutayev and his twelve‑year old son Muradis were driving in their VAZ-21099 car in Shamil Street in the centre of the town of Kizilyurt, Dagestan, when they were blocked by two silver-coloured VAZ Priora cars with heavily tinted windows, one of which had an official registration number containing the digits “78”. Eight masked men in black uniforms and armed with pistols and machine guns got out of the Priora cars, knocked Mr Kamil Mutayev off his feet and forced him into one of their vehicles. They threatened his son with firearms and ordered him to stay in the car. The abduction took place approximately two hundred metres from the district police station (the department of the interior) and the public prosecutor’s office. After the abduction the perpetrators drove away through the local traffic police checkpoint. 8.  The applicants submitted to the Court the witness statements of Ms Ya.R. dated 7 February 2013 and of Ms As.I. dated 25 February 2013. According to both women, they did not see the abduction but both saw two Priora cars speeding away from the vicinity of where the incident took place around the time of the abduction. It does not appear that either of the witnesses provided a statement to the investigation. 9.  The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicants. At the same time they denied any involvement of State agents in the abduction. 10.  In reply to the Court’s first request for a copy of the contents of the investigation file, the Government provided documents from the file, amounting to 43 pages, which showed the steps taken by the investigators from 14 May to 27 June 2012. 11.  In reply to the Court’s second and third requests for a copy of the contents of the investigation file, the Government submitted copies of its contents, some 688 pages long, which showed the steps taken by the investigators from the beginning of the proceedings to 15 August 2015. From the documents submitted, the investigation can be summarised as follows. 12.  Immediately after the abduction, on 2 May 2012 the applicants complained to the Kizilyurt police station (Отдел внутренних дел по г .Кизилюрт) (hereinafter “the OVD”). 13.  On 2 May 2012 the police questioned the second applicant who provided a detailed account of the events similar to the one submitted to the Court and stated that she had learnt of Mr Kamil Mutayev’s abduction from her nephew Muradis. 14.  On 2 May 2012 the police examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 15.  On 2 and then on 10 May 2012 the police questioned Mr Kamil Mutayev’s son Muradis, whose account of the events was similar to that submitted by the applicants to the Court. In addition, the witness stated that the abductors had scared him by threatening to shoot him if he disobeyed their orders not to move. 16.  On 2 or 3 May 2012 the police examined Mr Kamil Mutayev’s VAZ‑21099 car. Fingerprints taken from the vehicle on that date were submitted for expert examination on 18 May 2012. 17.  On 14 May 2012 the applicants lodged an abduction complaint with the Kizilyurt town prosecutor’s office. 18.  On 14 May 2012 the investigations department of the Kizilyurt town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 207127. The applicants were informed thereof on 24 May 2012. 19.  On 19 May 2012 the investigators questioned Mr Kamil Mutayev’s son Muradis who reiterated his previous statements and added that he would not be able to identify any of the abductors as he had been scared. 20.  On 19 May 2012 the investigators questioned the first applicant whose statement was similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. In particular, the applicant pointed out that when driving away the abductors’ vehicle had gone through the traffic police checkpoint. 21.  On 21 May 2012 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned again. She reiterated her previous statements. 22.  On 23 May 2012 the Dagestan Forensic Expert Examinations Bureau informed the investigators that they did not have matches in their database for the fingerprints found on Mr Kamil Mutayev’s car. 23.  On 24 May 2012 the investigators again questioned the second applicant whose statement was similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. 24.  On 6 June 2012 the investigators again examined the crime scene. 25.  On 7 June 2012 the investigators again questioned the first applicant who stated that her husband Mr Kamil Mutayev did not have financial debts or enemies. At the same time she stated that on several occasions he had received threats from unidentified persons on account of his religious beliefs. Those persons had visited their house and had thrown hand-written threats inside. The applicant did not specify whether she had had any suspisions or theories concerning the identities of those persons. 26.  On 15 June 2012 the local police informed the investigators that Mr Kamil Mutayev was a member of an illegal armed group, belonged to an extremist religious movement and had, therefore, most probably, staged his own abduction. 27.  On 29 June 2012 the investigators questioned five local residents, all of whom stated that they had not witnessed the abduction and found out about it from others. 28.  On 6 August 2012 the investigators examined the registration log of detainees of the OVD. No records concerning Mr Kamil Mutayev were found therein. 29.  On 6, 7 and 12 August 2012 the investigators questioned police officers from the OVD: Mr M.M., Mr Z.S., Mr R.A., Mr A.M. and Mr D.D. All of them stated that on the date of the abduction they had been on duty at the police station and neither Mr Kamil Mutayev nor his car had been brought in. 30.  On various dates between June and November 2012 the investigators received the list of calls made from and to Mr Kamil Mutayev’s mobile telephone as well as replies to their numerous information requests concerning Mr Kamil Mutayev from hospitals, morgues, retirement homes, mosques and detention centres in various regions of Russia. No information pertatining to his whereabouts or the perpetrators’ identities was obtained. 31.  On 14 September 2012 the investigation was suspended. It is unclear whether the applicants were informed thereof. 32.  On 9 November 2012 the investigation was resumed in order to take further steps. 33.  On 30 November 2012 the investigators questioned the head of the OVD officer R.S. who stated that according to their information Mr Kamil Mutayev was an avid follower of the extremist religious movement Wahhabi and that he had staged his abduction to join an illegal armed group. 34.  On an unspecified date in 2013 the investigation was resumed. 35.  Between March 2013 and February 2014 the investigators questioned a number of Mr Kamil Mutayev’s relatives and neighbours, whose statements did not provide new information. They also questioned again his son Muradis and the first applicant who reiterated their earlier statements. 36.  From the documents submitted it follows that between November 2012 and August 2015 the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions. The last resumption of the investigation took place on 10 September 2015. The proceedings are still pending.