Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Six month period);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The applicants in the present cases are NORP nationals . CARDINAL of the applicants in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reside in GPE , the applicant in NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) resides in GPE , and the remaining applicants live in various districts of GPE , as specified in the attached table ( Appendix I ) .

The applicants are close relatives of persons who disappeared in GPE DATE allegedly after being abducted from their homes by groups of unidentified men . The applicants believed that the abductors were NORP federal servicemen since they were wearing camouflage uniforms , had NORP features and spoke unaccented NORP . Armed with machine guns , the culprits broke into the applicants’ homes , searched the LOC , checked the identity documents of the applicants’ relatives and took the latter away in military vehicles , such as armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) , ORG minivans or ORG lorries . Only a few of the vehicles had official registration plates . In a number of cases the registration numbers were obscured with mud . None of the applicants have had news of their missing relatives since .

NORP The abductions took place in various districts of GPE and were primarily carried out during curfew hours late at TIME and TIME . In some cases the applicants reported that a special operation had been conducted by NORP troops in the area . Indeed , in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . PERSON ) , PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , the investigative authorities officially acknowledged that a special operation had been carried out in the area at the time of the events .

The applicants reported the incidents to the law - enforcement authorities , and official investigations were opened . The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed . From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant ORG authorities were unable to identify the ORG servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions .

In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants . However , they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that ORG agents had been involved in the abductions .

The facts relevant to each individual case are summarised below . The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives are summarised in the attached table ( Appendix I ) .

At the material time the first , second , third and fourth applicants and Mr PERSON lived in ORG , LOC , GPE . PERSON was working as deputy head of the ORG village administration .

On DATE a special operation was carried out in ORG . The village was placed under curfew and CARDINAL roadblocks were set up in the vicinity . A military commander ’s office was located in the village .

According to the applicants , at TIME on DATE CARDINAL or CARDINAL men armed with sub - machine guns broke into their house . The intruders , who were wearing camouflage uniforms and masks , arrived in APCs ( armoured personnel carriers ) and ORG vehicles . CARDINAL of them , who was unmasked , was of NORP appearance . The men , who spoke unaccented NORP , bound and gagged the first , second , third and fourth applicants , then beat PERSON unconscious and took him away in one of their vehicles .

There has been no news of PERSON since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the contents of criminal case file no . DATE ( comprising CARDINAL volumes ) on the abduction of PERSON . They noted that in accordance with LAW , the documents containing personal information on the servicemen who had taken part in counterterrorist operations were not furnished to the ORG . The information submitted can be summarised as follows .

On DATE the first applicant reported her husband ’s abduction to ORG district prosecutor ’s office , stating that at TIME on DATE unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house , gagged and bound the family members with duct tape , then had beaten her husband up and taken him away .

On DATE ORG prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( abduction ) .

On DATE the first applicant was questioned by the investigator . She provided a detailed account of the events , stating that she and her minor children had been bound and gagged by the abductors , who had been armed with sub - machine guns .

On DATE Mr N. Sh . , the applicants’ neighbour , made a statement to the investigation . He said that at TIME on DATE , CARDINAL of ORG sons had come over and told him that armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house , tied them up and taken his father away .

On DATE an investigator examined the crime scene . Samples of duct tape with fingerprints were collected as evidence .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .

On DATE the investigator ordered an expert examination of the fingerprints on the duct tape collected from the crime scene .

On DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .

According to the expert ’s report submitted on DATE , the fingerprints found on the duct tape were not of good quality and could not , therefore , be used for identification purposes .

On DATE , in response to an inquiry by the first applicant , the investigator informed her that the investigation had been suspended but the search for her husband was in progress .

On DATE the deputy prosecutor of ORG issued a progress report on the investigation . Having summarised the main steps taken by the investigators , the deputy prosecutor noted , inter alia , that there had been a “ lack of cooperation between the authorities responsible for the operative search measures ” .

On DATE the investigation was resumed and the applicants were informed thereof .

On DATE the investigation was suspended .

On DATE ORG district prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature , and ordered the investigators to carry out additional investigative measures .

In DATE an investigator again questioned the applicants and other witnesses .

On DATE the investigation was resumed and the investigators were ordered to take basic steps . The investigation is still pending .

It appears from the case file that throughout the relevant period the applicants wrote to various ORG authorities complaining about the abduction , asking for assistance in the search , inquiring about the progress of the investigation and complaining of the delays . Their complaints included the following : a letter of DATE to ORG district prosecutor ’s office ; a letter of DATE to ORG ; a letter of DATE to ORG ; and a letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG investigations department .

At the material time the first CARDINAL applicants were living with Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ( the PERSON brothers ) in PERSON village , GPE , GPE . Their family house consisted of CARDINAL separate dwellings sharing a common courtyard . CARDINAL of the dwellings was occupied by the first applicant , while the other , which had CARDINAL different entrances , was occupied by the other applicants .

At TIME on DATE CARDINAL men of NORP appearance driving CARDINAL military ORG vehicles broke into the applicants’ courtyard . They were armed , using portable radios and wearing green camouflage uniforms . They spoke unaccented NORP . CARDINAL masked men entered into the house . They bound the hands of the first , second and eighth applicants and ordered them to lie down on the floor . After searching the house , the intruders beat up PERSON and PERSON , seized their passports and those of their spouses and took the CARDINAL brothers away . Their vehicles passed freely through a checkpoint on the outskirts of the village .

Later that night , the same group of men broke into the house of Mr PERSON , a neighbour . They were looking for his son , PERSON Dalambek PERSON , who allegedly belonged to an illegal armed group and who had left DATE prior to the events . The applicants heard the men asking someone over the radio “ We did not find the guilty one , CARDINAL innocent men . What should we do ? ” and the reply , “ Never mind , take them . ”

Isa and PERSON have been missing ever since .

The Government submitted copies of part of the contents of criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of PERSON and PERSON ( comprising CARDINAL volumes ) . They noted that in accordance with LAW of LAW , the documents containing personal information on the servicemen who had taken part in counterterrorist operations were not furnished to the ORG . The information submitted can be summarised as follows .

According to the ORG , the first applicant reported the abduction of her sons by ORG servicemen to PERSON on DATE . According to the documents submitted by the applicants , they reported the abduction to PERSON on DATE . The applicants pointed out that the brothers had been abducted from their home at TIME by law - enforcement officers wearing camouflage uniforms and driving CARDINAL ORG vehicles . The applicants stressed that the abductors had threatened to kill them and had passed unhindered through the checkpoint .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( kidnapping ) .

On DATE investigators questioned the first applicant , who stated that at TIME on DATE armed men in camouflage uniforms had burst into the courtyard of their family house . She had thought that they had come , as they had previously done , to search for a certain Mr PERSON , a member of illegal armed groups , and the applicants’ neighbour and relative . However , the armed men had taken away PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE the second applicant informed the investigators that at TIME on DATE she had heard some noise and thought that ORG servicemen were again searching for PERSON . He was wanted for his involvement in illegal armed groups ; therefore , servicemen had often checked his house . This time , however , they broke into the second applicant ’s house . They bound her hands , ordered her to lie down on the floor and then took her husband away . She managed to unbind her hands and went outside where she learnt that the servicemen had also taken away PERSON . The second applicant told the investigators that PERSON and PERSON might have been abducted because of their kinship with PERSON .

On DATE a local police officer , Mr ORG , was questioned . He stated that he had learnt about the PERSON ORG abduction DATE . He had asked their relatives to immediately lodge an official complaint , but they had refused to do so out of fear that an official inquiry would only worsen the situation . They had believed that an official complaint would make the ORG return impossible and had hoped that both brothers would be released once questioned and checked . He also stated that he had gone to the checkpoint and asked for information concerning the passage of the ORG vehicles . The police officers from LOC who had been manning the checkpoint at the time had explained to him that the abductors had not gone through the checkpoint but refused to confirm that in writing .

Investigators examined the crime scene on DATE . No evidence was collected .

On DATE the second and fifth applicants were granted victim status . The first applicant was granted victim status in DATE .

On DATE the investigators asked the ORG district department of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) to inform them whether the PERSON brothers had been detained by their officers . A negative reply was given .

The investigation was suspended on DATE and resumed on DATE .

The investigation was suspended again on DATE and then resumed on DATE .

DATE . On DATE a police officer of the PERSON informed the investigators that in DATE the police officers from LOC who had been manning the roadblock on the PERSON - to - Baku motorway had been transferred back to their region .

On DATE the investigation was suspended again ; it was resumed on DATE and suspended again on DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s Office of the Amur Region informed the investigators that it was impossible to identify and question the police officers who had been manning the checkpoint in ORG , as all of the relevant documents had been destroyed .

It appears that at some point at DATE the investigation was resumed , but was suspended again on DATE . Subsequently , the investigation was suspended and resumed CARDINAL more times .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor criticised the progress of the investigation and ordered that the proceedings be resumed and additional steps be taken .

The investigation is still pending .

NORP Throughout the relevant period the applicants wrote to various authorities complaining of the abduction , asking for assistance , and inquiring about the investigation and its progress . They furnished the following letters to the Court : a letter dated CARDINAL DATE to ORG ; a letter dated DATE to the ORG district prosecutor ’s office ; a letter dated DATE to PERSON ; a letter dated DATE to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL ; and a letter dated DATE to the ORG district prosecutor ’s office .

At the material time the applicant and her husband , Mr GPE , lived in flat no . CARDINAL of a block located in FAC in GPE . At TIME on DATE CARDINAL servicemen broke into the flat to carry out an identity check . They had previously searched the adjacent flats and exploded a grenade near the entrance to the block . Some of the men spoke unaccented NORP , while others spoke NORP . The servicemen were wearing military uniforms , caps and helmets with torches . They were carrying machine guns and shields . After a quick search of the flat , the men pulled Mr GPE ’s jacket over his head , dragged him outside , put him in one of their CARDINAL white PERSON minivans and drove away .

The applicant has not seen Mr GPE since .

The Government submitted copies of part of the contents of criminal case file no . DATE on the abduction of GPE . They noted that in accordance with LAW , the documents containing personal information on the servicemen who had taken part in counterterrorist operations were not furnished to the ORG . The information submitted can be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant reported the abduction to ORG in PERSON . She stated that her husband had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms and helmets , who had broken into their flat having arrived in CARDINAL white PERSON minivans without registration plates .

On DATE the Leninskiy ROVD forwarded the applicant ’s allegations to the NORP district prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the applicant reported the abduction of her husband to the NORP district prosecutor ’s office and provided a detailed description of the events .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( abduction ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s neighbours , PERSON , PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON . , informed the investigators that at TIME on DATE between CARDINAL and QUANTITY armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at their block and searched several flats . They had detonated a grenade and forced open the door to one of the flats . After having found GPE in the applicant ’s flat , they had taken him away in CARDINAL white PERSON vehicles .

On DATE the applicant related the details of the events to the investigation and added that she had learnt from a neighbour that one of the ORG vehicles had had on the front an official registration plate containing the digits PERSON .

On DATE investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .

On DATE an investigator sent requests for information to various law - enforcement agencies .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .

DATE . On DATE the investigator asked ORG of the Interior to provide information about vehicles with registration numbers containing the digits PERSON .

On DATE the NORP FSB informed the investigator that DATE , PERSON had been an active member of illegal armed groups . They also stated that they had not detained him and had no information about his whereabouts .

On DATE the President of ORG wrote to the military prosecutor of ORG ( “ the UGA ” ) and the head of ORG . The relevant parts of the letter read as follows :

“ [ We ] have been receiving new complaints from residents of GPE concerning the unlawful actions of officers of law - enforcement agencies ... during the conduct of special and targeted operations in populated areas of GPE .

Thus , on DATE [ GPE ] ... was beaten up and taken away to an unknown destination by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms .

According to eyewitnesses , the arrest [ of the applicant ’s husband ] was carried out in a very offensive manner , without the necessary procedural norms or an arrest warrant . It was carried out by men who had arrived in CARDINAL PERSON vehicles . The neighbours had memorised part of CARDINAL of the registration numbers – CARDINAL ORG .

In addition , during the arrest special weapons were used , namely , stun grenades . CARDINAL of them failed to go off and was later handed over to officers of FAC as material evidence .

During CARDINAL - on - CARDINAL meetings , the eyewitnesses affirmed that the arrest had been carried out by ORG officers .

Having regard to the above , I ask you to assist in establishing the whereabouts of ORG and identifying the persons who carried out the arrest . ”

The investigation was suspended on DATE . It was resumed on DATE , when the investigators sent new information requests and questioned the witnesses again .

On DATE the NORP Ministry of the Interior informed the investigators that no PERSON vehicles with CARDINAL registration numbers were listed in their database .

On DATE at the Leninskiy ROVD the investigators seized the CARDINAL grenades which the perpetrators had left at the crime scene and which witnesses had then found and handed over to the police .

On DATE the investigator ordered a ballistic expert examination of the grenades .

The copies of documents from the criminal case file submitted by the Government did not contain any further information on the progress of the investigation .

DATE . The applicant complained to the domestic courts , under LAW of LAW , of procrastination of the investigation ( the complaint was allowed on DATE ) . She also applied for access to the investigation file ( the request was rejected on DATE ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint concerning the authorities’ failure to inform the applicant ’s lawyer of the progress of the investigation . On DATE this decision was upheld on appeal .

In DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of her husband ’s abduction and the lack of an effective investigation into the incident .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim as unsubstantiated . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the NORP federal forces conducted a special operation in the settlement of PERSON . They set up military checkpoints around the settlement and blocked the passage of vehicles through the area .

TIME , the applicants were in their homes located on the outskirts of the settlement when they heard the arrival military vehicles . Groups of CARDINAL men in camouflage uniforms with machine guns broke into their houses . Some of them were wearing masks and/or helmets . Most of the unmasked men were of NORP appearance and spoke unaccented NORP . According to the applicants , they would be able to identify some of the intruders .

The men subjected the applicants and their relatives to insults and beatings and searched the houses . Then they beat the applicants’ CARDINAL male relatives , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , bound their hands and put them in APCs . CARDINAL APCs were seen that day in the settlement ; CARDINAL of them were used for the abduction . PERSON was taken in an ORG with registration number CARDINAL . The men opened fire and drove away in the direction of the town centre and FAC . They passed freely through the checkpoints , whereas the applicants were not allowed to do so .

The applicants subsequently found out that PERSON had been held at the ORG district department of the interior ( “ the ROVD ” ) and PERSON at LOC , but this information has not been officially confirmed .

According to the applicants , the servicemen belonged to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and the special unit of ORG of ORG ( Оперативная бригада ORG ) and they arrested the ORG relatives on suspicion of active membership of illegal armed groups .

The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE on the abduction of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicants complained to the GPE prosecutor ’s office of the abduction of their relatives by NORP servicemen .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office opened joined criminal case no . CARDINAL into the abduction of the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives under LAW ( abduction ) .

On DATE the first , fifth , ninth and thirteenth applicants stated that on DATE armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived in APCs , broken into their houses and taken their relatives away . They also stated that CARDINAL of the APCs had had registration number CARDINAL .

On DATE the eleventh applicant made a similar statement .

DATE the first , fifth and ninth applicants were granted victim status and questioned .

NORP The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE .

In DATE and DATE the investigator examined the crime scenes . No evidence was collected .

On DATE the eleventh applicant was granted victim status and questioned .

The investigation was suspended again DATE and then resumed on DATE .

In DATE and DATE the investigators again questioned the applicants and renewed their information requests to various law - enforcement agencies , asking whether they had detained or arrested the applicants’ relatives .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed and suspended several more times , and is still pending .

Throughout the proceedings the applicants complained to various authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in their search . They wrote in particular to the Special Envoy of the NORP President in GPE for rights and freedoms in DATE ; to ORG and the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE ; to the LOC district prosecutor ’s office in DATE and DATE ; to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE in DATE ; to the NORP district prosecutor ’s office in DATE ; to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE and to ORG in DATE ; and to ORG in DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON ( in the documents submitted also referred to as Mr PERSON ) , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and their respective families had gathered at PERSON house in PERSON . At TIME several vehicles pulled over at the gate and a group of men in camouflage uniforms with pistols , machine guns and shields got out . All but CARDINAL were wearing masks . The men opened fire at PERSON and shot him in the leg . Then they dragged him into one of the vehicles .

The men then broke into the house and ordered everyone in unaccented NORP to lie on the floor . They hit those who did not obey . Meanwhile , the sixth applicant walked outside to the backyard and saw PERSON facing the wall with his hands above his head and CARDINAL of the intruders kicking him in the leg . Shortly thereafter , the men put PERSON and PERSON in the same vehicle and drove them down FAC towards the town centre . This vehicle was followed by a convoy of CARDINAL vehicles , including an ORG , a ORG , a white ORG car , a white NORP car and an armoured infantry carrier . The applicants tried to follow the convoy but were unsuccessful .

NORP On DATE an officer of ORG told the sixth applicant in a private conversation that the intruders belonged to the CARDINALth special military unit based in LOC .

The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of documents from criminal case file no . DATE on the abduction of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( comprising CARDINAL volumes ) . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicants reported the abduction of their CARDINAL relatives by armed men in camouflage uniforms to the head of the LOC administration . The ORG complaint was forwarded to the NORP district prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL into the abduction of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , under LAW ( abduction ) .

On DATE the investigator corrected the decision of DATE because the name of CARDINAL of the applicants’ abducted relatives was wrongly mentioned as “ Ibragim PERSON ” . It was changed to “ PERSON ” .

NORP The majority of the witness statements submitted by the Government were incomplete as there were pages missing . From the documents submitted it appears that on CARDINAL DATE the thirteenth and fourteenth applicants informed the investigator that in TIME DATE a group of armed men had broken into their house , shot PERSON in the leg and beaten up PERSON and PERSON . They had then put all CARDINAL men in a grey UAZ vehicle , and driven away accompanied by CARDINAL ORG cars . On DATE the first and sixth applicants made similar submissions .

On DATE the fourteenth applicant was questioned and granted victim status .

The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE .

On DATE the investigator sent information requests to various law - enforcement agencies concerning the whereabouts of the abducted men . Negative replies were given .

On CARDINAL May CARDINAL the first and sixth applicants were granted victim status .

NORP The investigation was suspended on CARDINAL DATE and then resumed on DATE .

NORP In DATE the investigator forwarded the same information requests and again questioned the same witnesses .

The investigation was suspended and resumed several more times . The criminal proceedings are still pending .

NORP Throughout the investigation the applicants wrote to various authorities requesting assistance in the search for their relatives and inquiring about the progress of the investigation . They complained to the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL in DATE ; to ORG of GPE and the military commander of FAC in DATE ; to ORG in DATE ; to various departments of ORG in DATE ; and to the LOC district investigations department in DATE .

NORP In reply to those inquiries the applicants were informed that investigative measures were being taken to establish the whereabouts of their relatives and that they would be kept abreast of the results of the investigation .

On DATE Mr PERSON and other relatives were sleeping in the applicant ’s house in ORG , LOC . At TIME CARDINAL APCs and a PERSON minivan arrived at the house . A group of CARDINAL masked armed men in camouflage uniforms and bullet - proof vests jumped out of the vehicles and entered the house . Speaking unaccented NORP , they checked PERSON ’s and his father ’s identity documents . They told the father that they were taking PERSON away for an identity check . The applicant asked them whether they had come from PERSON and whether they had been checking other villagers . The servicemen nodded in the affirmative . Then they put PERSON in the minivan and departed .

The applicant ’s brother , PERSON , immediately reported the abduction to the head of the local administration . Together they found out that the servicemen had driven to PERSON . According to the servicemen manning the checkpoint on the outskirts of ORG , a convoy of CARDINAL APCs and a minivan had passed through and driven in the direction of PERSON .

On DATE the applicant went with her relatives to the LOC military commander ’s office . An on - duty serviceman told her that an arrested man had been brought in and handed over to the district ORG . DATE the head of the district ORG told the applicant that PERSON would be questioned and then released in DATE . However , subsequently the officer denied having any knowledge of the events .

On DATE the relatives learnt that PERSON had been taken to GPE , where the main base of the NORP military in GPE was situated .

The applicant has not seen PERSON since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE on the abduction of PERSON . The documents mainly cover the period after DATE because documents concerning the preceding period have been lost ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL on the abduction of PERSON under LAW ( abduction ) .

In DATE the investigation questioned several witnesses . The applicant and PERSON brother , Mr GPE , stated that on DATE a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms had arrived in CARDINAL APCs and a PERSON and burst into their house . They had searched their father and PERSON , and then put the latter in one of the APCs and driven away . A neighbour , PERSON , who lived opposite the applicant and had witnessed the abduction through the window , made a similar submission .

On DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .

It is not clear whether any measures were taken DATE given that the contents of the case file furnished by the Government do not cover the relevant period .

On DATE the head of the LOC investigations department found that criminal case file no . CARDINAL had been lost . He ordered that the case be restored under the same number and resumed . On DATE he instructed the investigators to take investigative measures .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .

In DATE and DATE the investigator sent requests for information concerning PERSON to different law - enforcement authorities in the region . The requests did not yield any relevant information .

The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE . It was suspended and resumed several more times . The proceedings are still pending .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , which was forwarded to ORG . On DATE the latter requested that the NORP district prosecutor ’s office speed up the investigation and keep the applicant informed of the outcome . The applicant was informed thereof .

On DATE the applicant asked the PERSON investigation department to inform her about the progress of the investigation .

On DATE the applicant complained to the PERSON investigation department of the procrastination of the investigation and sought access to the criminal case file . Her request was granted on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained of the inadequacy of the investigation to the investigative authorities and requested that the proceedings be resumed .

At TIME on DATE a white VAZ-CARDINAL car with tinted windows arrived at the applicant ’s house in GPE , in the Zavodskoy district of ORG . CARDINAL more cars , a silver VAZ-CARDINAL , a NORP and a UAZ , parked in a neighbouring street . The cars had no registration numbers . CARDINAL to CARDINAL masked men in camouflage uniforms , armed with short - barreled machine guns , broke into the applicant ’s house . They spoke NORP . The applicant thought that the intruders were policemen conducting a sweeping operation . The men grabbed the applicant ’s son , Mr PERSON , dragged him into their VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle and quickly drove away .

During her ensuing search for her son , the applicant met PERSON PERSON , the commander of the CARDINALth division of the “ oil squadron ” ( нефтеполк ) of ORG of the Interior . The officer admitted that he had participated in the abduction and acknowledged that PERSON was being detained by his acquaintances from ORG . PERSON father informed the investigators about PERSON , but they refused to question him . PERSON and his ORG acquaintances were killed at DATE .

The applicant submitted that prior to his abduction PERSON had been arrested in a sweeping operation but subsequently released , as his participation in illegal armed groups had not been confirmed .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .

On DATE Said PERSON ’s father reported the abduction to the GPE prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the Zavodskoy district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL on PERSON abduction under LAW of LAW ( abduction ) .

On DATE the investigator questioned several witnesses . The applicant , as well as PERSON father and wife , stated that at TIME a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house , grabbed PERSON and dragged him into a VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle , which had no registration numbers , and had driven away . The applicant ’s neighbours who had witnessed the abduction made similar submissions .

On DATE the investigator examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE victim status was granted to PERSON father and the applicant respectively .

The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE .

In DATE and DATE the investigators questioned several witnesses again . Their statements were similar to those previously given . The authorities also renewed their information requests , but received no relevant information .

The investigation was suspended on DATE and resumed on CARDINAL DATE . It was suspended and resumed several more times . The investigation is still pending .

NORP In DATE the applicant lodged numerous complaints with the PERSON district prosecutor ’s office , ORG and ORG . She was informed that investigative measures were being taken in order to establish the whereabouts of her son .

On DATE the applicant complained to the Zavodskoy district investigations department of the procrastination of the investigation and requested access to the investigation file . However , her request was refused and at DATE she challenged the refusal before ORG .

On DATE the applicant was granted access to the criminal case file . Consequently , on DATE the ORG discontinued the examination of her complaint as it considered that the matter had been resolved .

In TIME of DATE Mr Aydrus Saraliyev , Mr PERSON and PERSON ( also spelt as PERSON ) PERSON were staying at the house of their friends , brothers PERSON and PERSON ( also spelt PERSON ) , in ORG . A checkpoint had been set up nearby and a military commander ’s office was operating in the town centre . The town was under curfew .

At TIME a large group of men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the house in CARDINAL APCs and CARDINAL LOC lorries . The men were of NORP appearance and spoke unaccented NORP . They fired their machine guns , wounded PERSON , who was then taken outside , and ordered the CARDINAL guests to go outside . The intruders put plastic bags over the heads of the QUANTITY men and the PERSON brothers . Thereafter , they quickly searched the house , put the CARDINAL blindfolded men in a LOC lorry and took them to the town centre . The servicemen dropped off the PERSON brothers at the ORG temporary department of the interior ( “ the VOVD ” ) and then drove away to an unknown destination with the ORG relatives . On DATE PERSON was released and his brother PERSON was taken by the NORP officers to the district hospital for treatment .

NORP In DATE , PERSON and PERSON from the Urus - Martan district prosecutor ’s office returned the passports of the CARDINAL disappeared men to the applicants . They explained that the passports had been handed over to them at ORG , where the applicants’ relatives had been taken after their arrest . The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of Aydrus ORG , PERSON and PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicants complained to the NORP of their relatives’ abduction .

On DATE a police officer from the VOVD reported to his superiors :

“ PERSON ... was delivered to [ the district hospital ] with the following diagnosis :

a penetrating gunshot wound in the lower third of the left thigh ... [ and ] a penetrating gunshot wound in the left shoulder ... ”

On DATE the head of the ORG sent several pieces of evidence to the Urus - Martan district prosecutor ’s office , stating :

“ [ these are ] preliminary inquiry materials concerning the gunshot wounds of PERSON , [ and ] the abduction of PERSON , PERSON , and Saraliyev A.M. from the house at no . CARDINAL FAC , GPE district .

Enclosed : ...

Material evidence : CARDINAL bullets and shells from an AK ( PERSON machine gun ) calibre PERSON , a ‘ Baykal’ pistol without a cartridge , a grenade ORG , and passports in the names of Saraliyev A.M. , PERSON , and PERSON "

On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL on the abduction of Aydrus ORG , PERSON and PERSON and the infliction of bodily injuries on PERSON .

On DATE the investigator questioned a number of witnesses . PERSON informed the investigator that in TIME of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON had had CARDINAL guests who had stayed that night in their family house . TIME at TIME he had been woken up by the sound of gunfire . TIME , armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into the house and ordered him to go outside and lie down in the courtyard . ORG and his CARDINAL guests had already been lying on the ground ; an ORG had been parked in the courtyard . A LOC lorry had then arrived and the armed men had forced them into it and driven away . TIME , the servicemen had pulled the lorry over , ordered him and his brother out of the vehicle and forced them into a UAZ vehicle , which had taken them to the premises of the UrusMartan VOVD . His brother ’s guests had been taken on to an unknown destination .

Islam PERSON stated that in the evening of CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL acquaintances of his had visited him and asked to spend TIME at the house because of the curfew . He had been woken up TIME at TIME by gunfire and had then been wounded in the arm and leg . Afterwards , a group of armed men had burst into the house and taken him , his guests and brother to the military commander ’s office . He and his brother had then been taken to the VOVD . Subsequently , ORG officers had transferred him to the district hospital .

The spouses of PERSON and PERSON , PERSON and Ms R.V. , stated that in the evening of QUANTITY DATE CARDINAL men had visited PERSON and spent TIME at their family house . At TIME DATE , a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had opened fire outside the house and had wounded ORG . They had then searched the house , forced the CARDINAL men into a LOC lorry and driven away .

Several neighbours also stated that at TIME on DATE they had seen a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrive at the GPE ORG house and open fire with machine guns .

In DATE the investigators questioned several police officers from ORG . CARDINAL of them , PERSON . , Mr PERSON and PERSON , stated that while on duty at TIME on DATE , they had been instructed by their superiors to take from a UAZ vehicle parked near the military commander ’s office CARDINAL arrested men , CARDINAL of whom had been wounded . They had taken both men to the ORG where the wounded man had been given first aid and then transferred to the district hospital .

Mr PERSON . , another officer from the PERSON , stated the following :

“ At TIME on DATE ... I was told that a wounded man had been brought in ... who was lying in the corridor ... His surname was PERSON ... In the corridor I was approached by the head of the PERSON staff , PERSON . , [ who ] handed me a grenade and a pistol without a cartridge . [ Mr PERSON . ] told me that this pistol and grenade were material evidence related to the wounded man , Mr PERSON . He said that [ someone ] had handed him the pistol and grenade . I do not know who gave those objects to PERSON . There were no accompanying documents for either the pistol or the grenade ...

TIME , TIME , the head of [ the traffic police office ] [ St. ] approached and said that he had come from somewhere [ where ] he had been given CARDINAL passports and had been asked to hand them over to me . He said that [ the passports ] also concerned the wounded man , PERSON . I do not know who gave those passports to the officer . Upon my instructions , the passports were examined and handed over to the investigation . According to the examination record , the passports belonged to PERSON , PERSON , and Mr PERSON . I did not see PERSON , PERSON , or ORG themselves , they were not brought to the VOVD ” .

The relevant part of PERSON . ’s statement to the investigators reads as follows :

“ I do not remember the exact date but , possibly , in TIME of DATE ... a special operation was planned for PERSON in the Urus - Martan district , and I went with a group of others to the military commander ’s office for a briefing . There was a LOC lorry parked nearby with masked men in camouflage uniforms . CARDINAL of them gave me a grenade and a pistol without a cartridge and told me that the grenade and pistol had been seized at the house of the persons who had been brought to the PERSON ... I took the pistol and grenade and gave them [ to Mr PERSON . ] ...

[ The man ] who gave me the pistol and grenade did not introduce himself and I did not ask [ his name ] either . ”

The relevant part of Mr St. ’s statement to the investigators reads as follows :

“ In DATE other offices from the [ VOVD ] and I were preparing to carry out a sweeping operation in the area near the military commander ’s office ... when [ an officer from the PERSON , PERSON . ] walked out of the office and gave me CARDINAL passports ... I handed the passports over [ to Mr PERSON . ] at the NORP ” .

On DATE the investigator examined the crime scene . Traces of blood and bullet holes were found and CARDINAL shells were collected .

On DATE the investigator suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the applicants were granted victim status .

NORP The investigation was resumed on DATE and then suspended again on DATE .

On DATE the investigator requested that the ORG carry out operative search measures . On DATE the head of the police replied to the investigator ’s request as follows :

“ Following your request ... we inform you that operative search measures have been carried out to identify and arrest the perpetrators and establish the abducted men ’s whereabouts . In view of the fact that the abduction was carried out by military servicemen and they , as you know , do not report to the police , it has been impossible to identify them ” .

The investigation was resumed on CARDINAL DATE and then suspended on DATE .

On DATE the investigation ordered a forensic medical examination of PERSON wounds , questioned the witnesses again and sent information requests to various law - enforcement agencies .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed and suspended several more times and is still pending .

DATE and DATE the applicants complained to various law - enforcement agencies and requested assistance in the search for their relatives . They received no substantive information from the authorities , nor were they allowed access to the investigation file .

In DATE the second applicant brought proceedings against the investigators , complaining about the incomplete and protracted investigation , and requested access to the investigation file . On DATE the Urus - Martan District Court allowed the applicant ’s complaint in part ; it ordered the prosecutor ’s office to conduct a comprehensive and thorough investigation and stated that the applicants would be allowed access to the investigation file only after the completion of the criminal proceedings .

At TIME on DATE a blue PERSON minivan arrived at the first applicant ’s house in ORG . A group of CARDINAL men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns broke into the house . All but CARDINAL of them were masked ; the unmasked men were of NORP appearance . After searching the house , the men took PERSON to the vehicle and drove him away . On DATE the applicants’ neighbours saw a white VAZ-CARDINAL car , a UAZ car and a LOC lorry driving around with the PERSON minivan . None of the vehicles had registration plates . CARDINAL of the neighbours managed to follow the vehicles to the LOC sugar factory .

The applicants have not seen Apti PERSON since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of PERSON . The documents cover mainly the period DATE and DATE . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .

On DATE PERSON , PERSON mother , complained that her son had been abducted by servicemen in camouflage uniforms who had been driving vehicles without registration numbers .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE .

It appears from the criminal case file submitted by the Government that CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON and a neighbour , PERSON . Kh , were questioned by the investigation . PERSON stated that at TIME on DATE unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house , searched it and then taken PERSON away . PERSON Kh . stated that at TIME on the same date she had heard Ms K.D crying . She had gone out and learnt from GPE that servicemen had abducted her son .

On DATE the investigators granted victim status to GPE GPE

On DATE the investigator sent requests to various lawenforcement agencies asking for information about the detention of PERSON and special operations conducted in ORG on DATE . Negative replies were given .

The investigation was suspended on DATE . It was later resumed and then suspended again on DATE . It was resumed and suspended several times , and the proceedings are still pending .

It appears from the case file that DATE the applicants and their relatives complained to different authorities , asking for assistance in their search for PERSON . Following their complaints they were informed that the investigation was in progress and all the necessary measures were being taken to establish ORG whereabouts and identify the perpetrators . In particular , on DATE the LOC department of the interior ( “ the ROVD ” ) informed the applicants that the investigation had been checking the theory that members of the special forces stationed in LOC , military servicemen and members of illegal armed groups detained on the ROVD premises may have been involved in the abduction .

NORP In DATE the applicant , her sisters and her brother , Mr PERSON , were staying at their mother ’s house in GPE . A local military commander ’s office was situated nearby . The settlement , surrounded by military checkpoints , was under curfew .

At TIME on DATE CARDINAL APCs , CARDINAL ORG cars and several LOC lorries arrived at the house . A group of CARDINAL to QUANTITY men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns broke into the house . Those who were unmasked had NORP features and spoke unaccented NORP . The servicemen took PERSON away . The applicant saw CARDINAL APCs drive away in the direction of PERSON and CARDINAL ORG cars in the direction of ORG .

TIME , ORG , the military commander of GPE , informed the applicant that NORP servicemen had carried out a special operation during TIME and confirmed that PERSON had been detained by them .

On DATE CARDINAL officers of ORG district military commander ’s office told the applicant that their servicemen had arrested CARDINAL men in a village situated TIME by road from FAC . The applicant concluded that one of the arrested men must have been her brother .

The applicant further learnt that on TIME the servicemen had detained another resident of GPE , Mr PERSON

The applicant has not seen PERSON since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant reported to ORG that DATE , at TIME , armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house and abducted her brother .

On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant and PERSON wife , PERSON , stated that on DATE a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house , locked them in CARDINAL of the rooms , and taken PERSON away .

On an unspecified date in DATE NORP PERSON ’s brother , PERSON PERSON . A. , stated that on TIME of the events he had been asleep in the same room as his brother . He had been woken up by a serviceman in camouflage uniform pointing a sub - machine gun at his forehead . There had been several servicemen in the room . They had ordered him and PERSON to get up and then taken the latter away . After the men had gone out , he had followed them and seen several APCs and LOC lorries drive off in CARDINAL different directions .

On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected . The investigators then took statements from the applicant and her relatives .

On DATE the investigators ordered the police to carry out operative search measures , such as identifying eyewitnesses and the perpetrators of the crime . They also sent information requests concerning PERSON possible arrest and detention to various law - enforcement agencies in the region .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed and suspended several more times ( in DATE , DATE and DATE ) ; each time , the investigators renewed their information requests and questioned the same witnesses again .

It appears from the case file that from DATE to DATE the applicant and her relatives complained to various law - enforcement agencies about the investigation and sought information about its progress . In reply they were informed that the investigation was pending and that all the necessary measures were being taken to establish ORG whereabouts .

On DATE the applicant requested that the investigators resume the investigation suspended on DATE and allow her access to the investigation file .

On DATE her request was refused . The applicant challenged the refusal in court .

NORP On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) dismissed the applicant ’s complaint in full .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision and remitted the complaint for fresh examination for the following reasons :

“ According to the case file , the missing person [ PERSON ] was taken away by officers of the security agencies in CARDINAL APCs and ORG vehicles .

The prosecution does not dispute the above allegations [ of the applicant ] .

The only reason for refusing a victim access to the investigation file is to ensure secrecy of an investigation during the examination of a theory that close relatives may have been involved in the disappearance of the missing man .

In the present case there were no such reasons to refuse the victim access to the investigation file ... ”

On DATE ORG found the investigator ’s refusal unlawful in part and granted the applicant ’s request for access to the investigation file .

TIME on DATE , CARDINAL or CARDINAL UAZ cars and a grey ORG minivan ( PERSON ) arrived at the applicants’ block of flats in ORG and cordoned off the neighbourhood . A group of CARDINAL masked men in camouflage uniforms with portable radios and machine guns , some of which were equipped with silencers , broke into the applicants’ flat . Some of the intruders spoke unaccented NORP . They ordered Mr PERSON to lie face down on the floor and checked his passport . Then they dragged him outside , put him in CARDINAL of their cars and drove away .

At the material time the applicants’ neighbourhood was surrounded by a number of military checkpoints through which the abductors had been able to pass freely .

The applicants have not seen PERSON since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the seventh applicant reported to ORG that at DATE armed men in camouflage uniforms had abducted her brother , PERSON .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office in PERSON opened criminal case no . DATE .

The first applicant stated that following military operations in GPE in DATE , she had moved to GPE , GPE , with her husband . In DATE they had returned to ORG and rented a flat there . On DATE a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms had arrived in ORG vehicles , broken into their flat and taken her husband away .

PERSON and PERSON , the first applicant ’s neighbours , stated that at TIME on DATE they had seen a group of armed men arrive at their block of flats in a grey UAZ vehicle . CARDINAL of the men had ordered the residents to go inside and not to look through the window . The men walked up to the second floor and then went away . Afterwards , the neighbours learnt that those men had abducted PERSON .

NORP On DATE the investigator examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .

On DATE and DATE the seventh and first applicants respectively were granted victim status .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed and suspended several more times . It is still pending .

It appears from the case file that since DATE the seventh applicant has been complaining to various authorities about the abduction of her brother , delays in the investigation and the lack of access to the investigation file .

On DATE the seventh applicant was allowed access to the investigation file .

At the relevant time the applicants lived in the village of ORG in the ORG district , GPE . On DATE the settlement was under curfew . At around TIME groups of CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into the applicants’ houses located in the same neighbourhood . Some of the intruders were masked , whereas others were wearing metal helmets . The men spoke NORP , some with an accent , and NORP . They threatened to kill the applicants and their relatives , and beat up some of them . They checked the documents of the QUANTITY men and took them barefoot outside . Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON were put in CARDINAL ORG and PERSON PERSON in another . There were around QUANTITY men in total and a convoy of QUANTITY vehicles , including CARDINAL APCs and CARDINAL ORG minivans ( GPE ) . The convoy passed unobstructed through checkpoint no . CARDINAL and drove away in the direction of PERSON or PERSON .

According to the applicants , the ORG vehicles belonged to the ORG district military commander ’s office and their relatives had been detained in a temporary detention facility on the premises of the ORG department of the interior ( the ROVD ) .

NORP The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of GPE , PERSON and PERSON and PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .

On DATE PERSON father , PERSON GPE , complained to ORG that servicemen had abducted his son and the other CARDINAL men .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE .

On DATE the investigation questioned the first , second and third applicants and Mr GPE , who had witnessed the abduction of their relatives . They stated that at TIME on DATE groups of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms had broken into their houses and taken PERSON , PERSON and PERSON and PERSON to an unknown destination .

On DATE the first , second and third applicants were granted victim status .

On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . They requested that the commanders of the federal forces stationed in ORG provide them with information about the APCs and ORG cars which had passed through the military checkpoint on TIME of the abduction and about the servicemen who had manned the checkpoint on TIME . The investigators also sent queries to the military commander ’s office of the ORG district but did not receive any relevant information .

The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE .

In DATE and DATE the investigators questioned a number of witnesses again . The investigation was suspended and resumed several more times and is still pending .

It appears from the case file that DATE and DATE the applicants complained to various authorities about the abduction of their relatives and the delays in the investigation .

In DATE the applicants’ lawyer was allowed access to the investigation file .

NORP In DATE NORP military checkpoints were set up around the settlement of PERSON ; a military commander ’s office and a police station were situated in the village , which was under curfew .

At TIME on DATE CARDINAL men in masks , helmets and camouflage uniforms broke into the applicant ’s home . They spoke unaccented NORP and were carrying torches . The men ordered the family members to lie down on the floor and searched the house . They took the applicant ’s son , Mr Anzor PERSON , outside and put him in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL UAZ minivans ( GPE ) parked next to an ORG near the house . The vehicles drove away in the direction of the military checkpoint situated at the bridge over LOC , QUANTITY from the applicant ’s house . The applicant ’s husband followed the vehicles and spoke to the servicemen manning the checkpoint . They told him that the vehicles , with ORG servicemen on board , had passed freely through the checkpoint .

DATE , the applicant went to the Urus - Martan military commander ’s office , where she met Mr PERSON , a NORP resident . His brother , Mr PERSON ( see application no . ORG , ORG v. GPE below ) , had been abducted on TIME . CARDINAL or DATE the local military commander ’s office denied that Anzor PERSON had ever been taken to their office .

NORP The applicant has not seen Anzor PERSON since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of Anzor PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant reported her son ’s abduction by servicemen to the Urus - Martan district prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE .

On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant and her husband . They stated that at TIME on DATE a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house and taken their son away .

On DATE the investigator requested that the ORG provide information concerning Anzor PERSON ’s possible involvement in illegal armed groups . The investigator also sent information requests to various law - enforcement agencies concerning PERSON PERSON ’s possible detention on their LOC , but these did not yield any relevant information .

On DATE the applicant and her husband were granted victim status .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was further resumed and suspended several times .

The investigation is still pending .

It appears from the case file that DATE and DATE the applicant complained to various authorities of the abduction of her son and the delays in the investigation .

On DATE the applicant requested access to the investigation file . On DATE the ORG investigation department refused her request , stating that she would be entitled access to the file only upon completion of the investigation .

At the material time the applicant , her husband and their children were living in a ORG refugee camp situated in the building of a former boarding school in GPE , the NORP district .

On DATE a large group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the camp in military vehicles , broke in and abducted the applicant ’s husband , Mr PERSON , and CARDINAL other men .

Sometime later the LOC district military commander , Officer PERSON , told the applicant that her husband had been taken away either by servicemen from special division no . CARDINAL ( GPE особого назначения № CARDINAL , ДОН-CARDINAL ) or by special regiment no . CARDINAL of GPE ( CARDINAL спецназ Новосибирска ) , headed by Colonel NORP , who lived in GPE , GPE .

The applicant has not seen PERSON since his abduction on DATE .

The Government submitted copies of a few documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of PERSON and CARDINAL others ( PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON ) . Some of the documents submitted by the Government were completely illegible , whereas others were partially legible . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL under LAW ( abduction ) .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status and questioned along with other eyewitnesses to the events . All of the witnesses gave similar statements to the effect that on DATE a group of CARDINAL servicemen had arrived in several APCs and ORG cars and broken into the building where they had been living . They had taken PERSON and CARDINAL other men to the courtyard , beaten them up and taken them away in ORG cars .

The investigation was suspended and resumed several times . On DATE the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed , having noted , inter alia , that it had failed to question servicemen involved in a special operation conducted in GPE on DATE of PERSON abduction . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :

“ At TIME on DATE unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms , having arrived in CARDINAL APCs and CARDINAL ORG cars at the premises of a secondary school in GPE , LOC , detained [ PERSON and CARDINAL others ] who were living there and took them away to an unknown destination . There is no information concerning the whereabouts of [ the abducted men ] ...

... The preliminary investigation has been resumed and suspended repeatedly ...

... It has been established that the investigation is not being conducted thoroughly ...

For instance , in the course of the investigation information has been obtained from [ illegible ] that at TIME on DATE during a special operation , officers from ORG together with servicemen from [ special regiment ] no . CARDINAL of military unit no . CARDINAL detained CARDINAL men in the settlement of NORP on suspicion of involvement in illegal armed groups . [ Different types of firearms ] were found and seized from [ the detained men ] . All the detained men and seized firearms were transferred to LOC . However , the identity of the men detained during the operation and the place of their detention have not been identified so far . The [ documents ] of military unit no . DATE for the relevant period have not been inspected . The circumstances of the special operation and the identification of the officers of ORG who participated in the operation have not been established . Servicemen from military unit no . DATE have not been questioned about the circumstances of the special operation , the arrest of [ those persons ] or [ the latter ’s ] whereabouts ” .

At some point the investigator examined the special operations register of military unit no . DATE . It indicated that in DATE a special operation had been conducted in NORP involving CARDINAL servicemen and CARDINAL APCs . As a result of the operation CARDINAL men ( their names were not indicated ) were detained on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups . A number of firearms and ammunition were found on them and seized .

On an unspecified date the investigator questioned CARDINAL servicemen from military unit no . DATE . They stated that on DATE they and officers of ORG had taken part in a special operation in NORP . During the operation the ORG officers had detained CARDINAL men on suspicion of their involvement in illegal armed groups . The commander of the military unit was also questioned and stated that although he had not taken part in the special operation in NORP , he had learnt afterwards that during that operation the ORG officers had arrested CARDINAL men who had been involved in killing soldiers of a special unit from the PERSON region ( “ the PERSON ” ) . The names of the detained men had not been given by the ORG department .

On a number of occasions DATE the applicant requested , orally and in writing , information and assistance in the search for her husband ; no useful information was provided to her by the authorities .

On DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation into her husband ’s abduction had been suspended on the same date , but that the search for him was still in progress .

On DATE the investigators informed the applicant that the investigation had been resumed .

On DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation had been suspended again .

On DATE the investigators again informed the applicant that the investigation had been resumed .

Following the applicant ’s requests , on DATE the district courts declared PERSON missing , and on DATE they declared him dead .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation had been suspended again .

NORP In DATE Mr NORP Mirza Murdalov visited the PERSON family in the settlement of GPE , where DATE applicants lived .

At TIME on DATE a large group of masked men in camouflage uniforms arrived in an ORG , CARDINAL LOC lorries and CARDINAL ORG cars at the backyard of the applicants’ house in GPE . CARDINAL men with torches broke into the GPE house and searched it . Speaking unaccented NORP , the servicemen ordered everybody to lie face down on the floor . They taped the hands and mouths of ORG , PERSON and PERSON , took their passports and drove them away . The sixth , eighth and ninth applicants were at home and witnessed the abduction .

NORP Immediately afterwards , the ninth applicant ran to the local police station and the military commander ’s office . Officers on duty told her that they had neither arrested anyone nor detained anyone on their LOC .

The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .

The Government did not furnish any documents from the criminal case file concerning the abduction of the applicants’ relatives . From the documents submitted by the applicants , the investigation may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the Shelkovskiy district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE on the abduction of the applicants’ relatives under LAW ( abduction ) .

On DATE the first applicant was informed thereof .

On DATE ORG informed the first applicant that the investigation had questioned the police officers who had been manning the checkpoints surrounding GPE at the material time , but that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction had not been confirmed . It was also noted that given that the investigation had failed to identify the perpetrators and establish the abducted men ’s whereabouts , it had been suspended on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .

The investigation is currently pending .

The applicants submitted copies of the complaints they had lodged from DATE to DATE and in DATE with various authorities concerning the abduction of their relatives and the delays in the investigation . Following those complaints the applicants were informed that investigative measures were being carried out in order to identify the perpetrators and establish their relatives’ whereabouts .

In DATE the applicants asked for access to the criminal case file . It is unclear whether their request was granted .

At TIME on DATE an ORG without a registration plate arrived at the applicants’ house in PERSON . A group of CARDINAL armed men in helmets and camouflage uniforms broke into the house . Those of the intruders who were not wearing masks had NORP features . Speaking unaccented NORP , the servicemen pointed their machine guns at the applicants and took Mr PERSON outside . They took his passport , forced him into the ORG and told his relatives that he would return after an identity check .

TIME several APCs and a white VAZ-CARDINAL car joined the vehicle . The convoy drove away , passed freely through the NORP military checkpoint situated next to LOC PERSON , and arrived at the premises of the Urus - Martan district military commander ’s office .

On DATE the servicemen also visited several neighbouring houses and took away Mr PERSON . along with his CARDINAL car .

Immediately after his son ’s abduction , the first applicant went to the Urus - Martan military commander ’s office . A woman at the gate confirmed that servicemen had arrived there in CARDINAL APCs and a ORG with CARDINAL young men on board . The servicemen took the young men out of the ORG and dragged them , with sacks over their heads , into the LOC of the military commander ’s office .

On DATE the head of the Martan - Chu administration informed the applicants that PERSON and PERSON . had been detained at the district military commander ’s office and that they would be released in TIME . However , the CARDINAL men were not released .

DATE , the head of the ORG administration informed the applicants that CARDINAL bodies had been found in an abandoned garden on the road between Urus - Martan and PERSON . The first applicant immediately went to the scene but did not identify PERSON among the bodies discovered . At the same time the relatives of PERSON . identified CARDINAL of the bodies as that of PERSON .

NORP The applicants have not seen PERSON since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of PERSON . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the head of the local administration and the head of the Urus - Martan military commander ’s office that his son had been abducted by servicemen .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the same authorities stating that his complaint of CARDINAL DATE had remained unexamined .

On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( abduction ) .

On DATE the first applicant was questioned . A copy of the first page of his statement was not furnished to the ORG . From the part of the statement provided to the ORG , it appears that his son , PERSON , had been put in an ORG and taken away . On the same date servicemen had also abducted a local resident , PERSON . The applicant had gone to the ORG military commander ’s office where he had learnt that CARDINAL young men with sacks over their heads had been led from the APCs to the LOC of the military commander ’s office . The applicant also informed the investigator that on the date of his son ’s abduction , servicemen had also searched the house of their neighbours , the PERSON family . Their son , PERSON I.G. , had been a member of illegal armed groups and had been on the run .

On DATE the applicants’ relatives , PERSON . and Ms Ya . S. , stated that on the date of the abduction , they had been at home when armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house . The men had checked PERSON ’s passport and then had gone to search the house of their neighbours , the PERSON family . However , TIME they had come back and had called PERSON from outside . When he had gone out , the servicemen had put him in the ORG and driven away .

On DATE the second applicant was questioned and gave a similar submission .

On DATE , the applicants’ neighbour , PERSON , stated that at CARDINAL TIME on the date of PERSON ’s abduction he had been working in the yard when CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived and asked him about Mr I.G. When he had told them that he had no information , the men had kicked him and hit him several times on the head and arms with the butts of their rifles . Afterwards , the men had left and TIME later he had seen the second applicant , PERSON . and Ms Ya . S weeping and saying that servicemen had taken PERSON away .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants , their relatives and neighbours .

On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene .

On DATE the investigation was suspended .

The investigation was resumed on DATE and suspended again on DATE . Some witnesses were questioned again .

The investigation is still pending .

On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG about the delays in the investigation and sought access to the investigation file . Her request for access was refused .

On DATE the Urus - Martan District Court granted the first applicant ’s complaint of the unlawful suspension of the investigation and ordered that it be resumed .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigator again refused the first applicant ’s request for access to the investigation file . The applicant challenged the refusal in court .

On DATE ORG allowed the first applicant access to the contents of the investigation file and authorised him to make copies of it . According to the applicant , he managed to make the copies only in DATE .

In DATE the settlement of PERSON was under curfew and surrounded by NORP military checkpoints . The military commander ’s office and a police station were operating in the settlement .

At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL or CARDINAL armed masked men in camouflage uniforms broke into the applicant ’s house and ordered everyone to lie face down on the floor . CARDINAL of them handcuffed the applicant . The men quickly searched the house and took Mr PERSON outside . Shortly afterwards the applicant saw an ORG and CARDINAL grey ORG cars , including one minivan ( GPE ) driving away .

NORP Immediately after the abduction , the applicant went to the military commander ’s offices in GPE and ORG . The officers on duty denied any knowledge of PERSON detention .

DATE the applicant found out that another NORP resident , PERSON Anzor PERSON ( see application PERSON v. GPE ( no . ORG ) above ) , had been taken away on TIME .

The applicant has not seen PERSON since CARDINAL DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of PERSON . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant reported his brother ’s abduction by servicemen to ORG .

On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL under LAW ( abduction ) .

On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant and his mother . They stated that at TIME on DATE a group of armed masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house and taken PERSON away in CARDINAL grey ORG cars and CARDINAL “ tabletka ” minivan .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother was granted victim status .

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL reported that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction had not been confirmed .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .

The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE .

On DATE the investigator examined the crime scene and questioned the applicant , his wife and CARDINAL neighbours .

The investigation was suspended and resumed several more times without producing any tangible results . It is still pending .

The applicant submitted copies of the complaints that he had made to various authorities DATE .

On DATE a special regiment of the federal forces conducted a military operation in LOC . At TIME a group of armed , masked men in camouflage uniforms broke into Mr PERSON house and took him away in an ORG without registration numbers .

The applicant has not seen her brother PERSON since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of PERSON . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .

Following the abduction of her son , the applicant ’s mother complained to various authorities of the abduction , but to no avail .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother asked the GPE military prosecutor ’s office for assistance in searching for her son . The applicant ’s complaint was forwarded to the LOC district ’s prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( abduction ) .

On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant ’s mother , PERSON , who stated that on DATE armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house and taken her son , PERSON , away .

The applicant was questioned on DATE and gave a similar statement . She pointed out that the abductors had arrived in CARDINAL APCs .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant ’s mother , PERSON , who reiterated her previous statement concerning the abduction .

Following the opening of the investigation , the investigator established that the abduction had taken place during a special operation . He drew up an action plan , the relevant parts of which read as follows :

“ At TIME on CARDINAL DATE during a special operation [ PERSON ] was arrested at his home ... by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms and then taken away in an ORG without registration plates to an unknown destination ...

It is necessary to take the following measures :

To question the relatives of [ PERSON ] ...

To identify eyewitnesses ...

To establish which military unit took part in this special operation ” .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .

In DATE the investigators wrote to various lawenforcement agencies requesting information about the carrying out of a special operation on DATE and the detention of PERSON . No relevant information was received .

The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE . The applicant was informed only of the latter decision .

On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene .

In DATE the investigators questioned several of the applicant ’s neighbours , all of whom stated that PERSON had been abducted by men in APCs .

On DATE the investigators questioned police officer GPE from LOC , who stated that the search for PERSON was still in progress .

NORP The investigation was suspended and resumed several more times ; it is still pending .

On DATE the applicant was informed by the investigators that the investigation into her brother ’s abduction had been resumed and that operational search measures were being carried out .

On DATE following a request by the applicant , the PERSON investigation department provided her with copies of certain documents from the investigation file .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against the investigators , alleging that the investigation had been ineffective owing to the authorities’ failure to take basic steps . She asked the court to order the investigation department to resume the investigation and rectify its shortcomings .

On DATE ORG left the complaint unexamined as the investigation had been resumed on DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the decision .

In DATE Mr PERSON ( also referred to as PERSON ) GPE was staying in the house of his friend , PERSON , in ORG . At the time , PERSON was surrounded by a number of NORP military checkpoints . The nearest checkpoint was located QUANTITY from the house , at the crossroads of GPE and FAC .

At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the FAC house in an ORG , CARDINAL white QUANTITY cars and a white NORP car . Another CARDINAL APCs were waiting at the crossroads . The servicemen , who were of NORP and NORP appearance , broke into the houses of the GPE and their neighbours and searched them .

In a neighbouring house the servicemen beat up male family members and questioned them about illegal armed groups . CARDINAL of them , PERSON , showed his service identity card stating that he worked at ORG ( Emercom ) . The neighbours heard the servicemen saying over their portable radios : “ We have found him . We are leaving . ” Meanwhile , the other group of men led PERSON out of the FAC house , put him in CARDINAL of their FAC cars and drove him away in the direction of FAC .

The applicant submitted that on DATE , following the murder of a fellow military officer , the servicemen had conducted a largescale sweeping operation in PERSON during which they had detained PERSON .

The applicant has not seen PERSON since DATE .

The Government did not furnish any documents from the criminal case file concerning the abduction of the applicant ’s relative . Based on the documents submitted by the applicant and the ORG ’s submissions , the investigation may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office in PERSON opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( abduction ) and granted victim status to the applicant .

On DATE the investigation was suspended .

ORG In DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . DATE informed the investigators that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction had not been confirmed and that no special operations had been carried out in the area at the relevant time .

The investigation is still pending .

On DATE the applicant stated that her son had fought against the NORP federal forces during the first NORP war and had left GPE at the end of the war . In DATE he had returned and on DATE he had gone to PERSON to visit his friend , PERSON . On DATE she had learnt that servicemen had abducted her son and she had gone to ORG . The PERSON and their neighbours had confirmed that PERSON had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms . She had been told that the servicemen had been looking for someone and when they had arrested her son , they had left the house saying over the radio that they had found him . The first applicant also noted that after that incident , her son ’s friend , PERSON had moved to LOC .

On DATE the GPE and their neighbours were questioned . PERSON stated that PERSON had been their neighbour and had participated in the first NORP war against the NORP federal forces . Since DATE he had been staying in their house . In TIME of DATE , after her husband and brotherinlaw had gone out , armed masked men wearing camouflage uniforms had broken into their house . They had taken PERSON outside , put him in a GPE car and driven away . The men had spoken NORP without an accent and had a list of the names of persons they were searching for .

Several of the NORP neighbours made similar submissions about the events to the effect that on DATE a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their houses and had beaten up the male family members . The servicemen had questioned them about members of illegal armed groups and about their neighbours . Shortly afterwards , one of the intruders had informed the others that they had found the man they had been looking for and , therefore , they could leave . Afterwards , they had learnt that the servicemen had abducted PERSON from their ORG house .

In DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant requested information and assistance in the search for her son ; no meaningful information was provided to her by the authorities .

On DATE the applicant complained about the delays in the investigation and asked for access to the investigation file , but to no avail .

On DATE in response to her complaint , the district prosecutor ’s office informed her that a number of shortcomings in the investigation had been identified and the relevant authorities had been requested to rectify them . The prosecutor ’s office also noted that on DATE the special investigation unit of ORG had taken over the criminal case .

The ORG and the Alisultanovs were neighbours . Mr Mausyr PERSON lived with his family , including the first to fifth applicants . Mr PERSON lived with his family , including the sixth to eighth applicants , and his son , PERSON . His brother , Mr PERSON , was staying at his house in DATE . NORP The Basnukayevs’ house was situated QUANTITY from the Alisultanovs’ house in the settlement of NORP - Aul .

NORP In DATE NORP - PERSON was under curfew and surrounded by NORP military checkpoints .

At TIME on DATE approximately CARDINAL men in camouflage uniforms armed with short - barrelled machine guns cordoned off the applicants’ houses . They divided into CARDINAL groups and broke in . They had parked their ORG , LOC lorry and CARDINAL ORG cars in the vicinity . Those of the intruders who were unmasked were of NORP appearance .

The servicemen searched the dwellings , beat up the male members of the families and checked their identity documents . They took PERSON and PERSON , and PERSON and PERSON outside . The servicemen then ordered PERSON to run back to the house without looking back . They placed ORG and PERSON in the NORP lorry and PERSON in one of the ORG vehicles , and drove away towards the outskirts .

The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .

The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of Mausyr PERSON , and PERSON and Shamsudi Alisultanov . The documents cover only the period DATE . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .

Following the abduction of their relatives , the applicants complained to various authorities . Their complaints were forwarded from CARDINAL authority to another .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE in connection with the abduction of the CARDINAL men .

NORP In DATE the investigators questioned the first and the sixth applicants , who provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction .

In DATE the ninth applicant stated that an PERSON friend of PERSON had told her that in DATE , lawenforcement officers from GPE had visited him and asked questions about NORP .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status .

The investigation was suspended on DATE and resumed on CARDINAL DATE . It was suspended and resumed several more times in DATE and DATE .

In DATE the investigator examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .

On DATE applicants were granted victim status .

On DATE the investigators suspended the investigation and informed the applicants thereof . It ’s unclear whether the investigation has been resumed since . The proceedings are still pending .

On a number of occasions DATE the applicants wrote to various authorities asking for assistance in the search for their missing relatives ; no meaningful information was given to them .

On DATE the first and sixth applicants requested access to the investigation file ; the ORG granted access to the file on CARDINAL DATE .

Following the ORG complaint of DATE that the investigators had failed to take adequate investigative steps , the ORG investigations department informed them on DATE that operational search measures were under way and that they would be kept abreast of the results of the investigative steps .

The Government did not contest the essential facts of each case as presented by the applicants . At the same time , they claimed that none of the investigations had obtained information proving that the applicants’ relatives had been apprehended and detained by ORG agents . According to them , there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that ORG agents had been involved in the abductions and deaths . Referring , in particular , to PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( no . PERCENT ) , the Government stated that the mere fact that the abductors had been armed and/or had driven a certain type of vehicle or had worn a particular type of uniform was not enough to presume the contrary . They pointed out that DATE mercenaries of NORP origin , including those from GPE , and other criminals had impersonated military servicemen and police officers to commit crimes . At the same time , the Government submitted , referring to the same CARDINAL applications , that “ the applicants furnished the proof that their relatives could have been detained by ORG representatives ” . Lastly , in respect of all the cases the ORG submitted that the bodies of the abducted men had never been found and there was no proof that they were dead .

The applicants asserted that it had been established “ beyond reasonable doubt ” that the men who had taken away their relatives had been ORG agents . In support of that assertion they referred to the ample evidence contained in their submissions and the criminal investigation files , in so far as they had been disclosed by the Government . They also submitted that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by ORG agents and that the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government . In view of the absence of any news of their relatives for a long time and the life - threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in GPE at the relevant time , they asked the ORG to consider their relatives dead .

The ORG will examine each of the applications in the light of the general principles applicable in cases where the factual circumstances are in dispute between the parties ( see PERSON v. “ the former GPE ” [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) .

The ORG has addressed a whole series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances in GPE . Applying the abovementioned principles , it has concluded that it would be sufficient for the applicants to make a prima facie case of abduction by servicemen , thus falling within the control of the authorities , and it would then be for the Government to discharge their burden of proof either by disclosing the documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , among many examples , PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE , and ORG , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . If the Government failed to rebut that presumption , this would entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where the applicants failed to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof could not be reversed ( see , for example , ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , and LOC v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .

The ORG has also found in many cases concerning disappearances in GPE that a missing person could be presumed dead . Having regard to the numerous cases of disappearances in the region which have come before it , the ORG has found that in the particular context of the conflict , when a person was detained by unidentified ORG agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention , this could be regarded as lifethreatening ( see , among many others , PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , DATE ; GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON CARDINAL ( extracts ) ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . MONEY , ORG CARDINALVIII ( extracts ) ; GPE v. GPE , no . MONEY , DATE ; Akhmadova and PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON GPE , no . GPE , DATE ; and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and GPE , DATE ) .

The ORG has made findings of presumptions of death in the absence of any reliable news about the disappeared persons for periods ranging from DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) to DATE .

NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ relative , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .

The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .

Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , DATE above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ relatives , PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .

Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) demonstrate that the applicant ’s husband , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that GPE PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that GPE may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .

Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , CARDINAL and DATE above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ relatives , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in GPE . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .

Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ relatives , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON , PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .

NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant ’s brother , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her brother was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .

Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant ’s son , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in GPE . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her son was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .

Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ relatives , Aydrus ORG , PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Aydrus ORG , PERSON and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Aydrus ORG , PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .

Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ relative , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that he may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .

Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant ’s brother , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in GPE . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her brother was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .

The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .

NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives , GPE , PERSON and PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that GPE , PERSON and PERSON and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .

Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant ’s son , Anzor PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her son was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Anzor PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Anzor PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .

Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant ’s husband , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .

NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives , ORG , and GPE and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in GPE . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that ORG , and GPE and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that ORG , PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .

Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by ORG ( see , for example , CARDINAL and FAC above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ relative , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .

Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ relative , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .

Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant ’s brother , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in LOC . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on CARDINAL DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .

Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant ’s son , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her son was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .

The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .

NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives , ORG , and PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in NORP - Aul . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that ORG , and PERSON and Shamsudi Alisultanov were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that ORG , PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .

The ORG finds that in all the cases the applicants’ relatives were abducted by armed men in uniforms , displaying behaviour characteristic of security operations . Their behaviour and appearance , their ability to pass through roadblocks and to cordon off areas , along with their use of vehicles , lead the ORG to conclude that in all probability , they were none other than ORG servicemen . The ORG allegations are supported by the witness statements collected by them and by the investigations . In their submissions to the authorities the applicants consistently maintained that their relatives had been abducted by ORG agents . The domestic investigations accepted as fact the version of events as presented by the applicants and took steps to check whether ORG servicemen had been involved in the abductions . As it appears from the documents submitted to the ORG , the investigations regarded the possibility of abduction by servicemen as the only , or at least the main , plausible explanation of the events .

NORP In summary , the facts of each case contain sufficient elements to enable the Court to make findings about the carrying out of security operations and thus about the ORG ’s exclusive control over the detainees ( see , among many others , ORG and Others , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . The ORG ’s arguments are limited to references to the unfinished criminal investigations , or are of a speculative nature and stand in contradiction to the evidence reviewed by ORG . In any case , they are insufficient to discharge them of the burden of proof which has been shifted to them in such cases .

NORP The detention in life - threatening circumstances of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Aydrus ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Anzor PERSON , PERSON , ORG , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and the long periods of absence of any news of them lead the ORG to conclude that they may be presumed dead .