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 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Dmitry Dedov;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicants are NORP nationals who are close relatives of persons who disappeared after allegedly being arrested by servicemen . In each of the applications the events took place in areas under the full control of the NORP federal forces .

The applicants complained to law - enforcement bodies and official investigations were opened . The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed , and have remained pending for DATE without achieving any tangible results . The investigations consisted mainly of the authorities making requests for information and formal requests to their counterparts in various parts of GPE and PERSON and other regions of LOC to take operational search measures . The requests received negative responses or no replies at all .

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 . At the same time , they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that ORG agents had been involved in the abductions .

Below are summaries of the facts relevant to each individual application . They are based on the statements provided by the applicants , their relatives and neighbours and copies of the contents of the criminal investigation files furnished by the Government . The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives , and some other key facts , are summarized below and in the attached table ( Appendix I ) .

The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE , and

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE .

The first applicant resides in GPE , GPE . The second applicant lives in GPE , GPE . The fourth applicant resides in GPE , GPE ; prior to his death , the third applicant also lived there .

The third applicant , Mr PERSON , passed away on DATE . Mr PERSON , his grandson and the son of Mr PERSON , expressed his wish to pursue the application .

The first and second applicants are the siblings of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . The third and fourth applicants are the father and stepmother of PERSON PERSON , who was born in DATE .

In DATE the PERSON family , including the first and second applicants and their children , moved from ORG to ORG owing to armed hostilities . In DATE Mr PERSON returned to PERSON to check on the family house left behind .

On TIME Mr PERSON drove in the latter ’s NORP car to the house of the PERSON family through checkpoint no . CARDINAL on the outskirts of ORG . The checkpoint was manned by servicemen of ORG ( ORG ) from GPE . The servicemen checked Mr PERSON and Mr GPE ’s identity documents and let them through .

On the way back , after having picked up PERSON , the CARDINAL men were stopped at the checkpoint and detained . Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr D.U. were placed in a UAZ vehicle and taken to the LOC district military commander ’s office which was situated in the same building as the NORP district department of the interior ( the ROVD ) . Mr PERSON car was driven by one of the servicemen . At the office the CARDINAL men were blindfolded , their hands were bound and they were put in an ORG which took them to the main base of the federal military forces in GPE .

Upon their arrival at the base the CARDINAL men were put into a pit measuring CARDINAL metres in depth and CARDINAL metres in diameter . The bottom of the pit was covered with stones and broken glass . The CARDINAL men were not allowed to remove the blindfolds and their hands remained bound ; they were not fed , and only given water . The soldiers threw stones at them .

On DATE several servicemen took Mr PERSON out of the pit . He never returned . DATE the servicemen took away Mr PERSON . Later on the same date Mr D.U. was also taken out of the pit , driven for TIME and released on a highway . The abductors told him to keep his blindfold on for TIME and threatened to kill him if he shared any information about the detention . Then Mr D.U. walked to PERSON .

The applicants have not seen their relatives Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON since DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the third applicant was questioned about the abduction . He informed the investigators about the details of the events , as related by Mr GPE , including the arrest at the checkpoint and subsequent detention in a pit in GPE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the wife of Mr PERSON , PERSON , whose statement was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the ORG . In addition , she stated that along with her husband the servicemen had also arrested Mr PERSON and kept him in the pit and that the first and second applicants were searching for him .

On DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON sister , PERSON , who stated that on DATE an employee of the NORP district military commander ’s office , PERSON . Ya . , had told her that Mr PERSON had been brought over to their office and then taken to the military base in GPE .

On DATE , DATE , the investigators also questioned PERSON mother , PERSON , whose statement was similar to that of PERSON In addition , she stated that on DATE the district military commander had personally confirmed to her that her son had been brought to their office and detained there until TIME and then taken to GPE .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE the investigators also questioned the third applicant , whose detailed statement was similar to the ones given by PERSON and PERSON In addition , he stated that at the military base his son , Mr PERSON and Mr D.U. had been kept for DATE in a pit and that he had learnt about the details of their detention from Mr GPE

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON . Ya . , who stated that in DATE she had worked at the NORP district military commander ’s office and that on an unspecified date in DATE she had seen , on the LOC , PERSON , who had been standing in the hallway with his hands above his head against the wall . At the time the district military commander was officer PERSON .

On DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON mother , PERSON , whose statement was similar to the one given by the third applicant . In addition , she stated that she had learnt the details of the arrest and the subsequent detention from Mr GPE

On DATE Mr D.U. wrote to the investigators providing details of his arrest at the checkpoint and the subsequent detention in GPE with the applicants’ relatives Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . This information was included in the case file ; he was not questioned by the investigators .

On DATE the third applicant was informed by Mr GPE of the abduction of PERSON . From the documents submitted it follows that on an unspecified date prior to CARDINAL DATE he complained about the abduction in writing to the NORP district prosecutor ’s office and the Leninskiy ROVD stating that his son had been detained at the checkpoint and then taken to the ROVD and the military commander ’s office .

At DATE Mr PERSON mother , PERSON , received a note from ORG stating that her son had been arrested . She immediately went to speak with him ; having learnt the details of the arrest and subsequent detention in the pit , she complained thereof to the PERSON military commander ’s office .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE to investigate the abduction of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON .

On DATE Mr PERSON wife , PERSON , was granted victim status in the criminal case .

On DATE the investigation was suspended and on DATE it was resumed . The applicants were not informed thereof .

On DATE the investigators examined the detainee registration log of PERSON . According to entry no . CARDINAL , on DATE PERSON had been taken to the ROVD and then handed over to colonel ORG .

On DATE Mr PERSON mother , PERSON , wrote to the investigators describing the circumstances of her son ’s arrest at the checkpoint , his transfer from the ROVD by colonel PERSON to the military base in GPE and his subsequent detention with Mr GPE

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as DATE ) PERSON was granted victim status in the criminal case .

On DATE the third applicant wrote to the investigators asking them to resume the proceedings . He also stated that Mr GPE , who had previously refused to give statements to the authorities out of fear for his life , had agreed to be questioned .

DATE the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions . It was last suspended on DATE . The applicants were not informed thereof .

From the documents submitted it follows that on various dates DATE the applicants and their relatives sent numerous requests to various authorities asking for assistance and information on the search for their relatives .

On DATE the third applicant requested an update on the progress of the investigation . No reply was received .

On DATE the investigation was resumed . It is still pending .

NORP The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , Ingushetia .

The applicant is the mother of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .

At the material time the applicant and her son , Mr PERSON resided in a block of flats at CARDINAL FAC in GPE , ORG . A block of flats was under construction nearby .

On TIME the applicant left for work . At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON went to the construction site and met PERSON , an acquaintance who worked there . After a while they were joined by PERSON . , another worker from the site , who had arrived in his “ NORP ” vehicle . The CARDINAL men went to the workers’ trailer situated at the site .

Shortly afterwards CARDINAL vehicles arrived at the construction site : a silver VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle with a registration number containing the digits “ CARDINAL ” and a red VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle with the registration number “ CARDINAL mr CARDINAL ” . A group of armed men in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles and broke into the trailer . Most of the armed men were of NORP appearance and spoke unaccented NORP . Some others wore civilian clothing and spoke PERSON .

Having broken into the trailer , the armed men immediately started beating Mr I.Kh . and dragged him outside . When Mr M .- A.B. and Mr PERSON tried to intervene the armed men took them outside and forced them into their vehicles . They then put Mr I.Kh . , unconscious and bleeding , into the boot of one of the vehicles and drove away with the CARDINAL men . The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses .

The applicant has not had any news from her son , Mr PERSON since DATE .

On DATE , DATE , the applicant arrived at the construction site and learnt about the abduction . She immediately complained thereof to various law - enforcement authorities , including ORG , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and the GPE town prosecutor .

On DATE a convoy of CARDINAL white PERSON minivans , a ORG minivan ( “ таблетка ” ) and some other vehicles , arrived at the construction site . A large group of representatives of law - enforcement agencies searched the site looking for hidden explosives and ammunition . Mr GPE and ORG , who had been present at the site on DATE , recognised some of the officers as the latter had participated in the abduction of Mr PERSON .

The Government submitted that on DATE a large group of law - enforcement officers had searched the construction site looking for explosives and that on DATE no special operations had been conducted to detain Mr PERSON .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant , whose statement was similar to the one submitted to the ORG . In particular , she stated that she had learnt from workers at the construction site that on DATE a group of armed men speaking unaccented NORP had arrived at the site in CARDINAL vehicles , had beaten Mr I.Kh . , Mr M .- A.B. and her son up and taken them away .

On DATE the applicant informed the investigators that she had information concerning the possible identities of the police officers from the special forces unit who on DATE had taken away her son and CARDINAL other men from the construction site and on DATE had returned to the site . She requested that those officers be questioned .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one furnished by the applicant to the ORG . In addition , she stated that on DATE a large group of policemen had searched the construction site and that among them had been several officers who had participated in the arrest of the applicant ’s son on DATE and whom she would be able to identify . On DATE another group of policemen had searched the site with metal detectors .

On DATE the investigators questioned the senior investigator of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , PERSON , who submitted that in DATE he had received information concerning explosives hidden at the construction site . He had gone and inspected the site and the trailers with a number of other officers , including officer NORP They had found nothing of interest . On DATE the ORG officers had used a UAZ-CARDINAL minivan ( “ таблетка ” ) , an armoured PERSON minivan and a VAZ-CARDINAL car .

On DATE the investigators questioned the deputy head of the ORG , officer ORG , whose statement was similar to that of the senior investigator PERSON In addition , he stated that upon receiving information concerning hidden ammunition or explosives at the construction site , he had informed his superiors and the regional department of ORG about it . Then he had gone to the site with Mr Ib . T. , the senior investigator Mr PERSON , an expert and officers from the special forces unit of the LOC . At the site they had been joined by officers from the regional department of ORG and ORG . Nothing of interest had been found during the search and the law - enforcement officers had left the site . DATE he had again searched the trailer and the site with a group of officers from the service and the police but had found nothing of interest . According to the witness , he had learnt of Mr PERSON abduction at some point later .

On DATE the investigators again questioned PERSON , who confirmed her previous statement and specified that she would be able to identify the abductors .

On an unspecified date in DATE the investigators questioned officer PERSON , the head of the ORG special forces unit , who stated that in DATE his unit had received an order to search the construction site . He had gone there with his group of officers , TIME in total . They had inspected the trailers at the site and the adjacent area . The witness stated that he had no information concerning the abduction . At some point later he had heard that the officers had subsequently returned to the construction site .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who reiterated her previous statements and pointed out that CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON and PERSON , had seen the perpetrators at the construction site during the abduction and then during the search on DATE and that both of them could identify the culprits .

On DATE the investigators again questioned officer PERSON , who reiterated his previous statement .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON A copy of her complete statement was not furnished to the ORG ; its partial contents did not contain information pertinent to Mr PERSON .

On DATE the investigators again questioned officer GPE , who reiterated his previous statement .

On DATE the investigators again questioned PERSON , who reiterated her previous statements , gave a detailed description of CARDINAL of the abductors who spoke PERSON and stressed that she would definitely be able to identify them .

On DATE the investigators held an identification parade by showing photographs of the potential suspects to PERSON She identified CARDINAL of them as CARDINAL of the officers who had been in charge of the search and the abduction of the applicant ’s son on DATE and who had subsequently returned to the construction site on DATE .

On DATE the investigators arranged a confrontation between Ms F.A. and officer PERSON , whom the former had identified as one of the perpetrators . PERSON reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that this officer had participated in the abduction . The latter stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in DATE but denied any involvement in the abduction .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant , who stated that CARDINAL men had arrived at her home and threatened to blow her house up if she insisted on further investigation into her son ’s abduction . The applicant stated that CARDINAL officers , that is , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON . and the investigator Mr GPE were suspected of her son ’s abduction and that they could have been behind those threats .

On DATE the investigators questioned a relative of the applicant , PERSON , who stated that his nephew Mr PERSON and CARDINAL other men had been abducted by law - enforcement officers and that officer GPE had been in charge of the operation .

On DATE the investigators held another identification parade by showing photographs of the potential suspects to PERSON She identified CARDINAL of them as CARDINAL of the officers who had been in charge of the search at the construction site and the abduction of the applicant ’s son on CARDINAL DATE and who had subsequently returned to the site on DATE .

On DATE the investigators arranged a confrontation between Ms F.A. and officer GPE , whom the former had identified as CARDINAL of the perpetrators . PERSON reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that he had participated in the abduction . The latter stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in DATE and DATE but denied any involvement in the abduction .

DATE . On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who stated that he had witnessed the abduction and provided a detailed description of the events similar to the one submitted by the applicant to the ORG . In addition , he stressed that the abduction had been perpetrated by lawenforcement officers GPE and GPE

On DATE the investigators arranged a confrontation between PERSON and officer PERSON , whom the former had identified as one of the perpetrators . PERSON reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that he had also participated in the abduction along with officers PERSON and NORP Officer PERSON stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in DATE but denied any involvement in the abduction .

On DATE the GPE town prosecutor ’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and PERSON . The case file was given the number CARDINAL .

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

On DATE the investigators decided to follow up on the applicant ’s information of CARDINAL DATE concerning the ORG identities .

On DATE the investigators informed the applicant that the steps taken had not led to the identification of the perpetrators .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office , the supervisor of the investigators , informed the applicant that all possible steps to solve the crime had been taken . In particular , from the statements of the ORG officers questioned by investigators it followed that on DATE the officers had indeed inspected the trailer and the site but had not arrested the applicant ’s son .

On an unspecified date DATE the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on DATE

DATE . On DATE the applicant was allowed to access the case file . CARDINAL . The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions DATE and DATE the applicant complained to various lawenforcement agencies about her son ’s abduction by officers of ORG , stating that a number of witnesses could identify the abductors , requesting that the investigators take a number of urgent steps to solve the crime and asking to be kept abreast of the progress of the investigation .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to the head of ORG of the Interior that the TIME before CARDINAL unidentified persons had threatened to blow her house up if she continued to persist with the investigation into her son ’s abduction .

On DATE the ORG informed the investigators that their internal inquiry had not confirmed that the CARDINAL officers who , according to witness PERSON , had participated in the abduction on DATE had actually been present at the construction site on that date .

NORP The investigation into the abduction was suspended and resumed on numerous occasions . It was last suspended on DATE . The investigation is still pending .

The applicants , PERSON Isayeva and PERSON GPE , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in the village of GPE , GPE .

The first applicant is the mother and the second applicant is the sister of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . According to the information submitted by the applicants , Mr PERSON suffered from mental problems which had arisen as a result of a head wound sustained during the first military campaign in GPE in DATE .

On TIME NORP security forces started a special operation in GPE aimed at identifying members of illegal armed groups . As part of the operation the servicemen blocked the perimeter of the village .

On TIME armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in CARDINAL APCs with obscured registration numbers . The servicemen checked the applicants’ identity documents and opened gunfire . On hearing the shots , Mr PERSON ran away and the servicemen started shooting at him . The first applicant ran to the servicemen , asking them not to shoot at her son as he was mentally ill . However , the servicemen did not stop firing and the first applicant saw him fall to the ground . She fainted and was taken by her relatives to a neighbour ’s house .

On TIME , after the servicemen had left the village , the applicants returned home . Their house and their car had been burnt . They did not find Mr PERSON at home and did not know what had happened to him .

DATE the first applicant searched for Mr PERSON , but only in GPE , as the village was blocked for the largescale special operation being carried out by the federal forces in the district , including the nearby village of ORG ( for the details of the operation see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE , and Abuyeva and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

On DATE the first applicant found several items of Mr PERSON clothing with traces of blood on them and first - aid materials next to them in a field adjacent to the village . The first applicant inferred that her son had been given medical aid . She collected all those objects and subsequently submitted them to the investigators .

On an unspecified date in DATE a neighbour of the applicants’ who had been detained in GPE remand prison , PERSON , returned home . According to a statement by PERSON produced by the applicants , while in detention in GPE she had seen CARDINAL inscriptions made with a sharp object on the cell wall reading “ PERSON , village of GPE ” and “ DATE ” .

The applicants have not seen Mr PERSON since DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose detailed description of the circumstances of her son ’s abduction was similar to the one submitted to the ORG . In addition , she stated that her neighbour , Mr GPE . , had also been taken away with her son in the same ORG and that the special sweeping - up operation had been conducted by servicemen from LAW ORG and ORG regions .

On DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL of the first applicant ’s daughters , PERSON , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one given by the first applicant .

On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ neighbours , whose statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to that of the first applicant .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant , who reiterated her previous statement .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Mr U.Kh . , who confirmed that he had been abducted by military servicemen along with Mr PERSON and taken away in an ORG . According to the witness , in the ORG he had seen that Mr PERSON was in a serious condition as he had sustained gunshot wounds to the head and chest . Mr NORP . had been detained for DATE and then released .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant , who reiterated her previous statements .

On various dates in DATE the first applicant complained in person about her son ’s disappearance to various ORG authorities . She described the details of the events and requested assistance in the search for him . Her complaints remained unanswered .

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

On DATE the investigation was suspended .

On DATE the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on DATE .

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

The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions DATE the applicants complained of their relative ’s abduction to various authorities and requested assistance in the search for him . They received either no replies or replies to the effect that the investigation was in progress .

NORP The investigation was further suspended and resumed on several occasions in DATE and DATE and for the last time on an unspecified date in DATE .

The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE , and lived in the village of GPE , Urus - Martan district , GPE . On DATE the applicant passed away ; his daughter , PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , expressed her wish to pursue the application on his behalf .

The applicant is the father of Mr Anzor Idigov , who was born in DATE . PERSON is his sister .

On TIME DATE Mr Anzor Indigov , his parents and wife were sleeping in the applicant ’s house on FAC in GPE ( also spelt as GPE and PERSON ) .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks who spoke unaccented NORP broke into the house . The applicant and his relatives thought that the intruders were federal servicemen . Holding the applicant at gunpoint , the servicemen grabbed Mr Anzor PERSON , who was undressed and barefoot , bound his hands , sealed his mouth with adhesive tape and took him away to an unknown destination . Immediately after that CARDINAL perpetrators returned and ordered the applicant to hand over Mr Anzor Indigov ’s identity documents , saying that they were in a pocket of his jacket .

NORP The applicant has not seen his son since DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant and the wife of Mr Anzor Idigov , PERSON . PERSON , both of whom provided detailed descriptions of the abduction and stated that the abductors had been military servicemen .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the investigators also questioned the applicant ’s other son , PERSON , whose statement concerning the circumstances of the abduction was similar to those given by the applicant and PERSON . E.

On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , Mr B.I. and PERSON . PERSON , all of whom reiterated their previous statements .

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

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicant was not informed thereof .

On DATE the investigation was resumed . The applicant was informed thereof .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the investigation was ineffective and requested that the investigators take a number of necessary steps .

On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s complaint , finding that the investigators had taken all the relevant steps .

From the documents submitted it follows that on several occasions DATE the applicant complained about the abduction to various authorities . In reply he was either informed that the proceedings were in progress or that his request had been forwarded to another authority .

The investigation is still pending .

NORP The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE , and

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE .

The applicants live in GPE , GPE .

The first applicant is the wife and the third to fifth applicants are the children of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . The second applicant is his mother .

At the material time the applicants resided at CARDINAL FAC in GPE . Their property consisted of CARDINAL houses with a shared courtyard .

On TIME DATE the second applicant and her son Mr PERSON were in CARDINAL house , whilst the second applicant ’s husband , PERSON S. , was in the other one .

At TIME the second applicant woke up and saw a group of CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms . All of them but one , who was in charge of the group , were masked and wearing bulletproof jackets and spherical helmets . They were armed with submachine guns with silencers and pistols secured at the thighs by special rifle belts . The applicants thought they were federal servicemen .

Without any explanation the servicemen requested in unaccented NORP that Mr PERSON produce his identity papers and mobile telephone . They also asked the second applicant about her other son , PERSON A.S. Shortly thereafter they took Mr PERSON outside without letting him put on any clothing . When the second applicant and her husband got outside , she saw the ORG UAZ minivan driving away .

At TIME the second applicant , her husband PERSON . S. and a relative went to the LOC department of the interior in PERSON ( “ the ROVD ” ) to complain about the abduction of PERSON PERSON . A police officer told them that Mr PERSON had been detained by the security forces and that he would return home if he cooperated with them and if the applicants did not lodge any official complaints . The second applicant then decided not to lodge a formal complaint , as suggested by the police officer .

In DATE that followed the applicants applied in person to various ORG authorities seeking assistance in the search for their relative ; none of the law - enforcement agencies admitted arresting or detaining Mr PERSON .

DATE the police officer from the ROVD told the applicants that Mr PERSON had been transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL ( “ ORB-CARDINAL ” ) in PERSON . On DATE the applicants requested information at the bureau but were told that their servicemen had not arrested Mr PERSON .

On an unspecified date a certain Mr PERSON told the applicants that PERSON PERSON had been abducted by officers of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . Subsequently , the applicants provided PERSON PERSON ’s phone number to the investigators ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicants have not seen Mr PERSON since DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant , whose statement was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the ORG . She pointed out that the perpetrators had been NORP servicemen and that she had tried to find her son without recourse to an official investigation but to no avail . She stated that the abductors had called her ORG phone , asked to speak to her , and told her that they would discuss the details of her son ’s release with her . When at DATE she had arrived at the place of the meeting suggested by them , she had seen a vehicle with servicemen in it who had filmed her and left without demanding anything . Having realised that her efforts to find her son were unproductive , DATE after the abduction she decided to lodge an official complaint about it .

On DATE , DATE , the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours PERSON , Mr R.Zh . , Mr A.M. , Ms A.D. and PERSON , all of whom stated that they had not witnessed the abduction but had learnt about it from the applicants .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the same neighbours , who reiterated their previous statements .

On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement was similar to the CARDINAL given by the second applicant .

On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected . The applicants provided the investigators with Mr PERSON photo .

On DATE the LOC prosecutor ’s office ( “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) opened criminal case no . CARDINAL .

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

On DATE the investigation was suspended .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

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

On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was again suspended .

On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG ( “ the district court ” ) stating that the investigation had been unlawfully suspended and requested that the court order the investigators to take effective steps to solve the crime .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the district court dismissed the first applicant ’s complaint , stating that the investigation had been resumed on DATE .

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

On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigation was suspended and resumed ; it was last suspended on DATE .

NORP The proceedings are still pending .

The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

The applicant is the mother of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant and Mr PERSON , who suffered from a brain tumour , resided in the village of GPE ( also spelt PERSON ) , in the ORG district . At the material time the settlement was under the full control of the federal forces ; a number of military units and lawenforcement agencies were stationed therein .

At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON left to visit PERSON , a friend who lived nearby , and did not return .

On TIME the applicant found out that her son had not visited his friend ’s house and that on TIME QUANTITY DATE he had been detained by servicemen from the CARDINALth unit of ORG ( ORG ) of ORG of ORG of the Interior .

On DATE the applicant lodged an abduction complaint with ORG district prosecutor ’s office . On DATE the interim district prosecutor , Mr D.Z. , obtained confirmation from the ORG district department of the interior ( ROVD ) that Mr PERSON had been brought by servicemen to the ROVD at TIME on DATE for an identity check and released TIME .

On DATE the applicant , with CARDINAL of her relatives and the interim district prosecutor , spoke to the officer in charge of the military unit who had detained the applicant ’s son . At first the officer stated that PERSON PERSON had been released shortly after the arrest , but then admitted that he had been taken to the ROVD .

On TIME ( in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as CARDINAL and DATE ) the interim district prosecutor Mr PERSON confirmed to the applicant that her son was detained on the premises of the ROVD and that he would be released shortly . The applicant was told to wait for her son outside the ROVD .

Later on DATE , at TIME the applicant , who had waited since the TIME , spoke to the interim district prosecutor Mr PERSON , who told her that her son was not in fact in the ROVD and that his whereabouts were unknown . DATE Mr D.Z. , who had been on a service mission in GPE , left the Republic to return to the place of his permanent employment . Prior to his departure he told the applicant that the deputy head of the ROVD , Mr GPE , had questioned Mr PERSON after the arrest .

On an unspecified date the applicant contacted Mr GPE and he confirmed to her that he had interviewed her son , that it had been established that the latter had not participated in illegal armed groups and that therefore her son had been released .

The applicant has not seen Mr PERSON since DATE .

In their submission on the facts the Government submitted that Mr PERSON had been detained by the CARDINALth military unit on TIME DATE and at TIME on DATE he had been taken to ORG ( ORG ) , which was staffed by servicemen from the GPE region of GPE and was stationed on the LOC of the former fruit canning factory . Mr PERSON was handed over to the head of the ORG unit , officer ORG

At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON was taken to see the deputy head of ORG , officer PERSON , who signed a statement to that effect . At the ROVD the identity of the applicant ’s son was verified and he was interviewed . Shortly thereafter , as his involvement in illegal armed groups had not been confirmed , on DATE , DATE , Mr PERSON was released . His whereabouts have been unknown since .

On DATE the investigators questioned officer PERSON , who confirmed that his unit had detained Mr PERSON at QUANTITY on DATE . The officer personally interviewed him and concluded that he was not involved in illegal activities . At TIME on DATE he received an order from the deputy head of the UrusMartan ROVD to hand Mr PERSON over to the police . At CARDINAL on TIME the witness brought Mr PERSON to the deputy head of the ROVD , officer PERSON The witness explained that he had initially told the applicant that her son had not been arrested by his unit as he had been concerned that “ it would lead to disturbances among the local residents ” .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant , whose statement was similar to the one submitted to the ORG .

On DATE the investigators questioned the deputy head of the ROVD , officer PERSON , who stated that TIME on DATE he had interviewed Mr PERSON and then released him . Operational search officer ORG had taken Mr PERSON to the entrance and the latter had left .

On DATE the investigators questioned the operational search officer Mr GPE , who stated that on TIME CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON had been brought to the ROVD and taken to the office of officer PERSON , who had interviewed him . After the interview officer PERSON had asked the witness to take Mr PERSON to the gates and release him . The witness had taken the applicant ’s son to the gates and the latter had left .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant , who reiterated her previous statement . In addition , she stated that the deputy head of the ROVD officer PERSON had “ blatantly lied ” to the investigators that he had released her son on DATE as she and CARDINAL of her relatives , PERSON and PERSON . A. , and a friend had spent DATE at the entrance to the building to no avail .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s sister , PERSON , who confirmed the statement the applicant had given on the same date .

NORP On DATE the head of the GPE administration , PERSON , submitted a written statement to the investigators which was similar to the one the applicant had given on DATE . He stressed that for DATE officer PERSON had deliberately lied to him and the applicant , denying Mr PERSON arrest , and that this officer must have been responsible for the disappearance of the applicant ’s son .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant ’s sister PERSON , who reiterated her previous statement . In addition , she stated that DATE after the disappearance of Mr PERSON officer PERSON had told her husband , Mr N.A. , that Mr PERSON had been transferred to another law - enforcement agency .

On DATE the investigators again questioned officer PERSON , who reiterated his statement of DATE and added that on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had spoken to the applicant and confirmed that Mr PERSON had been apprehended by his unit .

On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL under LAW ( murder ) ( in the documents submitted also stated as under LAW ( abduction ) ) .

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

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

On DATE the investigation was resumed and then again suspended on DATE . The applicant was not informed thereof .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the investigators examined CARDINAL registration logs for the period DATE : the first log contained the names of persons taken to ORG and the second log contained the names of those detained on its premises . No entries concerning Mr PERSON were found .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicant was not informed thereof .

On DATE the investigators questioned several of the applicant ’s neighbours , all of whom stated that they had learnt of PERSON Amerkhanov ’s disappearance from others .

The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions DATE the applicant wrote to various law - enforcement agencies and military authorities , describing the circumstances of her son ’s disappearance and the acknowledgement of his arrest by the military and police officers and asking for assistance in establishing his whereabouts .

On DATE the head of ORG informed the investigators that the registration log of detainees in the ROVD for DATE could not be examined as it had been lost .

The investigation of the criminal case is still pending .

The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) Mr Bislan Magomadov , born in DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) Ms PERSON , born in DATE , and

( CARDINAL ) Mr Riyyadus - Solikhiyn PERSON , born in DATE .

The applicants live in the village of ORG , GPE .

The first and second applicants are the parents of PERSON , who was born in DATE . The third and fourth applicants are her children .

At the material time the village of ORG ( in the documents submitted also referred to as LOC ) was under curfew .

At TIME on DATE a group of servicemen from a ORG agency arrived at the applicants’ house in GPE - Yurt looking for PERSON . The servicemen had a copy of PERSON identity card with them and asked about her whereabouts . The first applicant explained that her daughter and her husband were living on FAC in the village of GPE , ORG . Then the servicemen left .

On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG of the ORG ( “ the ROVD ” ) about the servicemen ’s visit . The deputy head of the ROVD assured her that it had been a mistake .

On an unspecified date at DATE PERSON returned to her GPE house in GPE - Yurt .

On DATE the first applicant learnt that while she had been at work with her daughter PERSON at the ORG administration , the servicemen had again visited her house looking for her daughter . Then they had gone to the administration and questioned PERSON on its LOC for TIME . The first applicant learnt from CARDINAL of the police officers , PERSON , that her daughter PERSON was suspected of planning to become a suicide bomber .

On TIME DATE the applicants , Ms PERSON and a relative , Mr A.M. , were at home at DATE FAC , ORG .

At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks broke into the applicants’ house . The intruders arrived in several vehicles which they parked nearby ; some of them carried portable radios . All the intruders spoke unaccented NORP . The applicants inferred that they were federal servicemen . Having searched the house without giving explanations , the servicemen ordered PERSON to leave with them . One of the servicemen told the first applicant that her daughter would return later in the morning .

The first applicant and Mr TIME followed the servicemen outside and tried to follow the abductors but they had to return to the house due to the curfew .

The applicants have had no news of PERSON since DATE .

Shortly after PERSON had been taken away , early in the morning on DATE the first and second applicants complained to the head of the local administration about their daughter ’s abduction .

Later that morning the first applicant and a relative , PERSON , went to the ROVD , where police officers told them that nobody had been brought to the police station that night . The first applicant lodged a written complaint about the abduction with the on - duty officer and then with ORG district prosecutor ’s office .

On TIME DATE the applicants learnt that the servicemen who had taken PERSON away had also raided the house of another resident of the village , PERSON , but the latter had not been at home . They also learnt that their daughter ’s abductors had arrived in a military NORP lorry , which they had parked in the centre of ORG before proceeding to the house on foot .

On DATE the first applicant saw CARDINAL of the servicemen who had visited her house on DATE , PERSON , at the offices of the local administration . He told her that the theory that PERSON was a suicide bomber had not been confirmed .

On DATE the investigators questioned the first and second applicants , whose description of the abduction was similar to the one submitted to the ORG .

On DATE the investigators also questioned the applicants’ relative Mr A.M. , whose statement concerning the circumstances surrounding the abduction was similar to that of the first and second applicants .

On DATE , DATE , the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours PERSON , Mr MONEY , and Mr A .- Ya . PERSON , all of whom stated that they had learnt of the abduction from the applicants .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant , who reiterated her previous statement and stressed that among the servicemen who had visited the house in DATE looking for Ms PERSON had been a police officer from the ROVD , PERSON , who had told her that PERSON late husband had been an active member of illegal armed groups and that PERSON herself had decided to become a suicide bomber .

On DATE and DATE the investigators again questioned the applicants’ relative Mr DATE , whose statement was similar to that of the first applicant given on DATE .

DATE and DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours PERSON , PERSON and PERSON as well as previously questioned Mr PERSON M. , all of whom stated that they had learnt of the abduction from the applicants .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , who reiterated his previous statement .

On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL operational - search officers from ORG , Mr V.Ch . , PERSON and PERSON , all of whom stated that on DATE officers from a special security service had arrived at their police station and asked the deputy head of the ORG , officer PERSON . PERSON , to assign local police officers to go with them to ORG to speak with PERSON . Following the orders of the head of the ROVD , the police officers had accompanied the officers from the security service to the applicants’ house , where the latter had questioned PERSON about her life in PERSON , her late husband and whether she had been pressurised to become a suicide bomber .

NORP On an unspecified date in DATE the investigators questioned the deputy head of the ROVD , officer PERSON . PERSON , whose statement was similar to those given by police officers Mr V.Ch . , Mr PERSON and PERSON D.I. In addition , he stated that the theory of the involvement of ORG in PERSON abduction had not been confirmed .

On DATE investigators from ORG district prosecutor ’s office examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .

On DATE the investigators opened criminal case no . DATE .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG granted the first applicant ’s claim and declared PERSON a missing person . On DATE it declared her dead .

The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions DATE the applicants contacted various law - enforcement agencies , military authorities and local courts , asking for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of PERSON and trying to obtain information about the progress of the investigation . For instance , on DATE the first applicant complained to ORG about the ORG refusal to provide her with full access to the case file . On DATE ORG partially allowed the complaint .

NORP The investigation in the criminal case was suspended and resumed on several occasions . The last suspension of the proceedings took place on DATE .

On DATE the investigation was resumed . The proceedings are still pending .

NORP The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , and

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE .

The first and second applicants live in LOC ( also referred to as ORG ) , PERSON district , GPE ; the third and fourth applicants live in PERSON .

The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Ezir - PERSON , who was born in DATE , Mr PERSON ( also spelt Abza ) ORG , who was born in DATE and Mr ORG , who was born in DATE . The third applicant is the son of Mr Ezir - PERSON and the fourth applicant is his wife .

At the material time the applicants resided in a family house together with Mr Ezir - PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG . Mr PERSON was also staying in their house as he had been hired by the first and second applicants to work in his excavator on their property .

NORP Early in the TIME on DATE NORP servicemen launched a “ sweeping - up ” operation in the settlement of ORG . The settlement was surrounded by servicemen riding in LOC lorries and military ORG cars . Helicopters were flying over the area .

At TIME an ORG and several UAZ cars and ORG lorries arrived at the applicants’ house . A group of CARDINAL masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke in . They blindfolded Mr Ezir - PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr PERSON with torn sheets and took them outside . The servicemen put Mr Ezir - PERSON in his own VAZCARDINAL car and the other CARDINAL men in a LOC lorry and drove away .

It appears that CARDINAL other men were arrested in LOC that TIME , including the second applicant ’s brother , Mr FAC ( also referred to as PERSON ) . A NORP lorry had driven him to the centre of the settlement .

DATE the applicants learnt from anonymous sources that the CARDINAL ORG brothers and Mr PERSON had been taken to ORG in GPE , GPE .

On DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON and CARDINAL other ORG residents were released at a crossroads on GPE in the vicinity of ORG , where they had been brought in an ORG . A man from a neighbouring village drove them home .

According to Mr Khizir Agamerzayev , after the arrest he , Mr EzirAli Shakhbiyev , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr PERSON were put in separate cells in a basement . Mr ORG was beaten up and questioned about a certain Mr PERSON from ORG , the PERSON and the LOC , allegedly members of illegal armed groups . On DATE in the morning Mr Khizir Agamerzayev had seen the servicemen take the CARDINAL ORG brothers outside and put them in military vehicles .

The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since their abduction on DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement concerning her sons’ abduction was similar to the one submitted to the ORG . She pointed out that in her opinion the abduction had been perpetrated by military servicemen .

On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant , whose statement was similar to the CARDINAL given by the first applicant .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , who reiterated his previous statement and added that Mr FAC had been arrested together with his sons but released DATE . At some point later Mr Khizir Agamerzayev had moved to GPE , Ingushetia .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators again questioned the first and second applicants , who reiterated their previous statements .

On DATE the investigators questioned the son of the first and second applicants , Mr GPE . , whose statement concerning his ORG abduction was similar to the ones given by his parents , the first and second applicants .

On various dates DATE the investigators questioned a number of witnesses , including the first and second applicants’ relatives and neighbours , the fourth applicant , Mr FAC and Mr PERSON . All of them gave statements corraborating those given by the first and second applicants . In addition , Mr PERSON and Mr Khizir Agamerzayev provided a detailed description of their detention on the premises of the military base in GPE after the abduction . Both of them stated that they had been beaten and questioned about their alleged involvement in illegal armed groups and that the ORG brothers had remained in detention while they had been released .

On DATE the NORP PERSON refused to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with the abduction of the CARDINAL ORG brothers as their arrest had taken place during a “ sweeping - up ” operation .

On DATE the first applicant again complained about her sons’ abduction . On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the investigation was suspended and then resumed on DATE upon the supervising prosecutor ’s orders .

On DATE the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on DATE upon the supervising prosecutor ’s orders .

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also given as DATE ) the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .

On DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicants were not informed thereof .

On DATE the first applicant requested information on the progresss of the investigation and permission to access the investigation file .

On DATE the investigators resumed the proceedings but refused to grant the first applicant permission to access the case file as she did not have victim status in the criminal case .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status upon her request to that end .

On DATE the investigation was suspended .

On DATE the investigators granted the first applicant ’s request for access to the case file by letting her consult a few documents .

The criminal proceedings are currently pending .

The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE and

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .

The applicants live in GPE , GPE .

The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Sharpudi ( also spelled as “ GPE ” ) PERSON , who was born in DATE . The third and fourth applicants are his children and the fifth applicant is his brother .

On DATE Mr PERSON and CARDINAL other men , including Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , were driving in a VAZ-CARDINAL car with the registration number PERSON when , CARDINAL kilometres from the village of ORG , they were stopped by a group of CARDINAL masked military servicemen in camouflage uniforms driving in CARDINAL APCs . The servicemen belonged to the CARDINALth brigade of the military forces which at the material time guarded the oil pipeline which ran adjacent to the settlement .

The servicemen asked the car passengers for their identity documents ; then they dragged the men out of the vehicle , forced them into the APCs and took them to the military base where the CARDINALth brigade was stationed .

NORP The applicants’ relative , Mr PERSON , was detained at an unidentified location in the same cell as PERSON According to the latter , both of them were tortured and questioned .

On DATE all of the detained men , save for the applicants’ relative , were blindfolded , taken to an unidentified location and released , whereas Mr PERSON has been missing ever since .

On DATE the investigators questioned the first and second applicant and Mr PERSON Their statements concerning the circumstances surrounding the abduction were similar to those submitted to the ORG .

On DATE the second applicant was questioned again ; she reiterated her previous statement .

On DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON Their statements concerning the abduction were similar to the ones submitted to the ORG .

On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant and QUANTITY police officers , whose statements did not provide new information .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor ’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the abduction under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given the number DATE .

In DATE the investigators sent information requests to various authorities . On DATE the ORG district department of ORG ( ORG ) informed the investigators that Mr PERSON was a member of illegal armed groups who had undergone specialized explosives training in a terrorist camp .

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

On DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were granted victim status .

On DATE the investigator examined the crime scene next to the military base .

On DATE the investigator examined the cells of the military base where Mr PERSON and the CARDINAL other men had been detained in DATE .

On various dates DATE and DATE the applicants lodged numerous requests with various ORG offices and other authorities asking for information on the progress of the criminal investigation and assistance in the search for Mr PERSON . The replies to their requests were either to the effect that the proceedings were in progress or that the request had been forwarded to another authority .

The investigation was suspended on several occasions . It was last suspended on DATE . The investigation is still pending .

The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in LOC , LOC , GPE .

The applicant is the mother of Mr ORG , who was born in DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE Mr ORG Tekhiyev was staying at Mr PERSON house in ORG .

On DATE at TIME a large group of armed and masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at Mr PERSON ’s house in CARDINAL APCs with obscured registration numbers and broke in . Pointing their guns at Mr ORG Tekhiyev and Mr PERSON , the intruders asked them for their passports . Since Mr ORG had no passport on him , the servicemen tied his hands behind his back , put him in their ORG and drove away in the direction of ORG .

On DATE the servicemen took away Mr PERSON ’s neighbour , Mr PERSON .

The applicant learnt about the abduction of her son on DATE . She immediately went to the LOC district military commander ’s office . Officer PERSON , the deputy military commander , acknowledged his arrest . He told the applicant that her son and Mr PERSON were being detained in ORG and would be released in DATE ; however , DATE he said that both men had been taken to ORG in GPE and would be released in DATE . DATE officer ORG informed the applicant that her son and PERSON had absconded on the way to the military base .

NORP The applicant has not seen Mr ORG since DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the mother of Mr PERSON , PERSON . PERSON . , who stated that her son and his friend Mr ORG had been abducted TIME on CARDINAL May CARDINAL by military servicemen who had arrived in CARDINAL APCs .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the investigators questioned the applicant , who stated that she had learnt from her relatives and neighbours of the abduction of her son and PERSON by military servicemen in APCs .

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as DATE ) the investigators questioned PERSON sister , PERSON , who provided a detailed description of the abduction which was similar to the applicant ’s account submitted to the Court . In addition , she stated that in the afternoon of CARDINAL DATE the abductors had returned to the house with her brother PERSON , whom they had subjected to beatings in front of their mother , PERSON . PERSON . They had then searched the garden and left with him again .

On DATE the investigators again questioned Ms Ya . PERSON . and the applicant , both of whom reiterated their previous statements . PERSON . PERSON . added that the abductors had returned with her son later the same day and had searched their vegetable garden .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s daughter , PERSON , and neighbours , PERSON and PERSON . , both of whom gave statements similar to those of the applicant and PERSON . PERSON .

On DATE the investigators questioned the Shali district deputy military commander , officer ORG , who stated that around DATE the applicant and PERSON . PERSON . had arrived at his office and requested assistance in the search for their sons . He had promised to assist them in the search but had not made any other promises .

On DATE the investigators questioned the head of the PERSON - Yurt town administration , PERSON . PERSON . , who stated that after the abduction of Mr ORG Tekhiyev and Mr PERSON he and representatives of the prosecutor ’s office had tried to gain access to the military unit stationed on the outskirts of ORG as the CARDINAL abducted men could have been being detained there . However , they had not been allowed to enter the LOC . For the description of the military unit see also PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , DATE , DATE and DATE , § CARDINAL , DATE , ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . GPE , CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who reiterated her previous statements .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s son , Mr I.T. , whose statement was similar to those of the applicant . In addition , he stated that on the date of the abduction a fellow resident , PERSON . , had also been abducted and taken to the military unit in ORG , where he had been detained for DATE together with Mr ORG Tekhiyev and Mr PERSON . The head of the military unit had been called PERSON and his code name was “ Terek - FSB ” . According to the witness , at some point later PERSON . had left GPE and moved abroad .

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

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

On DATE the investigation was suspended and then resumed on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on DATE .

On DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicant was informed thereof .

The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions DATE and DATE the applicant requested the authorities to assist her in the search for her son , expedite the investigation and provide her with information on the progress of the proceedings . In reply she was either informed that measures were being taken to solve the crime or that her complaints had been forwarded to another authority .

On DATE the investigators resumed the proceedings .

On DATE , upon a request lodged by the applicant on DATE , the investigators granted her victim status in the criminal case .

On DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicant was not informed thereof .

On DATE the applicant requested the investigators to provide her with information on the progress of the proceedings .

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as DATE ) the investigation was resumed and then suspended on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the investigation was resumed . The criminal proceedings are currently pending .

The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , and

( CARDINAL ) Ms PERSON , who was born in DATE .

The applicants live in GPE , GPE .

The first applicant is the mother of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . The second applicant is his brother and the third applicant is his wife .

At TIME on DATE a group of masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms , armed with machineguns , arrived at the applicants’ house in LOC in CARDINAL APCs without registration numbers and broke in . They woke up Mr PERSON , handcuffed him , forced him into one of the APCs and departed to an unknown destination .

On DATE an officer of the LOC military commander ’s office acknowledged to the applicants that Mr PERSON had been arrested by their servicemen and taken to ORG in GPE .

The applicants have not seen Mr PERSON since DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour , PERSON . I. , who stated that on DATE a group of military servicemen in APCs had arrived at the applicants’ house and abducted PERSON PERSON .

On DATE the investigators also questioned the applicants’ relatives Mr R.Ch . and PERSON , both of whom stated that their nephew Mr PERSON had been abducted by military servicemen .

On DATE the investigators questioned the third applicant , whose statement about the circumstances of the abduction was similar to one submitted to the ORG . In addition , she stated that she and her relatives had followed the abductors and had seen that after having taken her husband they had driven to the NORP military commander ’s office .

On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement was similar to the one submitted to the ORG . In addition , she stated that the abductors had told her that they were taking her son in for questioning and would release him afterwards .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the third applicant and PERSON . I. , both of whom reiterated their previous statements .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the first and third applicants , who reiterated their previous statements . In addition , they stated that after the abduction the perpetrators had driven to the LOC of special military task force brigade no . CARDINAL of the internal troops ( CARDINAL ORG ) .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicants’ relatives Mr GPE . , PERSON and PERSON . I. , all of whom reiterated their previous statements . PERSON added that to his knowledge , from the military commander ’s office Mr PERSON had been taken to the main military base in GPE .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant , who reiterated her previous statements .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant , who reiterated her previous statements . In addition , she stated that the abductors had been a group of CARDINAL servicemen who had spoken unaccented NORP .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicants’ relative Mr GPE . , who reiterated his previous statements .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative PERSON . , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the Court .

On DATE the investigators also questioned the applicants’ neighbours PERSON . I. and PERSON . , whose statements were similar to that of the first and third applicants .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour PERSON , whose statement did not provide any new information .

The documents submitted show that on various dates in DATE the police also questioned CARDINAL of the local residents , including the head of the local council of the elders , Mr GPE None of the statements provided new information .

On DATE and DATE the investigators again questioned the first and third applicants , both of whom reiterated their previous statements .

DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant , the applicants’ neighbours PERSON and PERSON . I. and the applicants’ relative PERSON . , whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to that of the first and third applicants .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a written complaint about her son ’s abduction with the NORP district prosecutor ’s office ( in the documents submitted also referred to as the NORP prosecutor ’s office ) .

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

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the military commander ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the investigators that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction had not been established .

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

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

On DATE the investigation was suspended and on DATE it was resumed . The applicants were informed thereof .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . From the documents submitted it follows that on an unspecified date in DATE it was resumed and then again suspended .

On DATE the investigators allowed the first applicant ’s request to access the investigation file .

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as DATE ) the investigation was resumed .

From the documents submitted it follows that on numerous occasions DATE the applicants contacted the authorities asking for assistance in the search for Mr PERSON and asking for an effective investigation to be conducted into his disappearance .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the ORG alleging that the investigation into her son ’s abduction was ineffective . On DATE the ORG rejected the complaint on the grounds that the proceedings had been resumed .

The criminal proceedings are currently pending .

The applicants are :

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) Ms Medina Akhamdova , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) GPE , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) Ms Khadizhat PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE and

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE .

The first , second and third applicants live in the settlement of GPE in the ORG district ; the sixth applicant lives in PERSON and the fourth , fifth , seventh , DATE , tenth , eleventh and twelfth applicants live in ORG , LOC , GPE .

The applicants are close relatives of Mr Apti Medzhidov , who was born in DATE , Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , and Mr Alu ( in the documents submitted also referred to as ORG ) PERSON , who was born in DATE . The first applicant is the mother of FAC , the second applicant is his daughter and the third applicant is his sister . The fourth applicant is the mother of Mr PERSON and the fifth applicant is his brother . The sixth and seventh applicants are the siblings of PERSON PERSON and the twelfth applicant is his daughter . The eighth applicant is the wife of Mr PERSON and DATE applicants are his daughters .

At the material time Mr GPE , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were policemen of ORG ( патрульно-постовая служба ) of ORG of the Interior ( the Chechnya MVD ) . They resided with their families in ORG , in the ORG district .

NORP In DATE the CARDINAL men were in PERSON . The town was under curfew and only NORP military vehicles could move around freely . Mr GPE , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were staying at PERSON Tatsuyeva ’s flat and Mr PERSON was staying in another flat in the same block of flats .

Early in the morning on DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as DATE ) CARDINAL or CARDINAL APCs and several ORG minivans arrived at the block of flats . A group of CARDINAL servicemen in camouflage uniforms and helmets stormed into the flat where Mr PERSON was staying , blindfolded and handcuffed him and put him in one of their APCs . The servicemen also arrested PERSON , his neighbour , and put her in the same ORG .

After that the servicemen broke into PERSON Tatsuyeva ’s flat to arrest her , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . The servicemen put the CARDINAL of them in the same ORG with Mr PERSON and PERSON . They then drove the ORG to GPE . PERSON heard the sounds of helicopters and military vehicles throughout the onehour drive .

In GPE the CARDINAL arrestees were placed in a detention centre . According to the applicants , the CARDINAL men were detained there until DATE without any official record of their detention . PERSON and PERSON Tatsuyeva were officially registered as detainees . All of the detainees were kept in pits . PERSON shared her pit with Mr PERSON . Once they managed to see Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON Tatsuyeva .

On DATE PERSON was transferred to another detention centre in GPE and DATE to a remand prison ( GPE ) in PERSON . On DATE by a decision of the PERSON - on - Don Investigations Unit of ORG ( the ORG ) she was released from detention . According to the decision , PERSON had been arrested on suspicion of terrorist activities , in particular , blowing up a block of flats in GPE , in GPE , in DATE . PERSON Tatsuyeva was released from detention on DATE .

Sometime later the applicants were informed by anonymous sources that after DATE their CARDINAL relatives had allegedly been detained in remand prions in GPE - on - Don , GPE , GPE and GPE .

The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the sixth applicant , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the ORG .

On DATE the investigators questioned the brother of Mr PERSON , PERSON , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the ORG .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the sixth applicant , who reiterated her previous statement and added that Ms Tatsegova had told her that she had been detained in a pit in GPE and then in a lorry for DATE and had then been taken to the remand prison in GPE - on - Don . According to the witness , she had learnt that her brother Mr PERSON had been abducted by servicemen from the ORG staffed by policemen from GPE of GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the CARDINAL furnished to the ORG . In addition , she stated that immediately after the abduction she had spoken to her son ’s supervisor , officer TIME , who had told her that her son , along with CARDINAL colleagues Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , had been arrested by servicemen from ORG ( the GRU ) and that the CARDINAL men had been taken along with several women , including PERSON , to the LOC of the main military base in GPE and detained in pits .

On DATE the investigators questioned the eighth applicant , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted to the ORG . In addition , she stated that as soon as they had been released from detention , PERSON and PERSON Tatsegova had gone to the NORP houses and informed them of their detention , together with their relatives , in pits in GPE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the fourth applicant , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted to the ORG .

On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned several of the ORG fellow villagers . No new information was obtained .

On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ relatives . No new information was obtained .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who provided a detailed description of the abduction and her subsequent detention in a pit in GPE , where she had seen Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Ms LOC .

On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ neighbours and the residents of the block of flats where the abduction had taken place . No new information was obtained .

On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned several people living in the area where FAC had lived in DATE . No new information was obtained .

On DATE the ORG town prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE on account of Mr PERSON abduction .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE on account of the abduction of Mr PERSON . On DATE applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .

On DATE the investigation of both criminal cases was joined under no . DATE .

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

The documents submitted by the ORG show that at some point DATE the investigation of the criminal case was extended to include the abduction of Mr PERSON and Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev . The investigation files were referred to under numbers CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the investigators granted the eighth applicant victim status in the criminal case .

On DATE the investigators granted the fourth applicant victim status in the criminal case .

DATE the investigation into the abductions was suspended on several occasions . For instance , the investigation was suspended on DATE , resumed on DATE and suspended again on DATE .

On DATE the investigators stated in a procedural decision that it was established that the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives had been “ abducted by unidentified servicemen belonging to power structures and then taken to [ the main military base in ] GPE . The investigators stated that PERSON and PERSON Tatsuyeva had been arrested together with the QUANTITY men , detained in GPE and then transferred to the premises of the PERSON - on - Don FSB and that on DATE both women had been released .

NORP On DATE the investigation was resumed .

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

On DATE the investigation into the abduction of the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives was joined to the investigation into the abduction of PERSON . The joint investigation file was given the number DATE .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed on DATE .

On DATE the investigation was suspended and then resumed on DATE , CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the investigation was suspended and then resumed on DATE .

On DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicants were informed thereof .

On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant wrote to a local human rights organisation asking for assistance in the search for her son Mr Apti Medzhidov . On DATE that request was forwarded to the investigators .

On an unspecified date in DATE the eighth applicant wrote to a local human rights organisation asking for assistance in the search for her husband , Mr PERSON . On DATE the request was forwarded to the investigators .

On DATE the investigation was resumed . It is still pending .

NORP The parties’ submissions

The Government

The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying each application . However , they noted that some of the applicants had not been consistent in their descriptions of the abductors and that the abductions had taken place on various dates and in different districts . The Government pointed out that the abductions could have been perpetrated by members of illegal armed groups in the guise of ORG servicemen , using uniforms and documents similar to those used by the latter . They further claimed that none of the investigations had obtained evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that ORG agents had been involved in the abductions and alleged deaths of the ORG relatives .

The applicants

The applicants submitted that it had been established “ beyond reasonable doubt ” that the men who had taken their relatives away had been ORG agents . In support of that assertion they referred to the ample evidence contained in their submissions and the criminal investigation files . 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 the region at the relevant time , they asked the ORG to consider their relatives dead .

B. The ORG ’s assessment

General principles

The Court shall examine the applications at hand 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 , ECHRCARDINAL ) .

The ORG has addressed a whole series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances in GPE and PERSON . Applying the abovementioned principles , it has concluded that if applicants make a prima facie case of abduction by servicemen , this is sufficient for them to show that their relatives fell within the control of the authorities , and it is then 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 , ORG , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . If the Government fail to rebut that presumption , this will entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where applicants fail to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof can not be reversed ( see , for example , ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ; ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

The ORG has also found in many cases concerning disappearances that a missing person may be presumed dead . Having regard to the numerous cases of disappearances in GPE and PERSON which have come before it , the ORG has found that in the particular context of the conflict in the region , when a person has been detained by unidentified ORG agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention , this could be regarded as lifethreatening ( see , among many others , GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , DATE , and ORG and Others v. GPE , cited above ) .

The ORG has made findings of presumptions of deaths 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 .

A number of witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants’ relatives , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen at the checkpoint on the outskirts of 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 .

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

A number of witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicant ’s son , Mr PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen during a special operation 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 .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on CARDINAL DATE in GPE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr 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 , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants’ relative , Mr PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen during a special operation 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 Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .

A number of 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 , Mr Anzor Idigov , 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 his son was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by him .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr Anzor Idigov was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in GPE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr Anzor Idigov 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 , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants’ relative , Mr 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 .

A number of 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 applicants’ son , Mr 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 .

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

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in GPE . In view of the absence of any news of her since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following her 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 , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants’ relatives , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen during a special operation in LOC . 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 Mr Ezir - PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG Shakhbiyev were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr Ezir - PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON - Magomed Shakhbiyev 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 , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants’ relative , Mr PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed military servicemen on the outskirts of 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 Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . 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 Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .

A number of witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicant ’s son , Mr ORG , 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 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 .

Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr ORG Tekhiyev was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr ORG 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 , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants’ relative , Mr PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed military servicemen in LOC . 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 Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in LOC . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr 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 , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants’ CARDINAL relatives , Mr GPE , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen during a special operation 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 Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . 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 Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .

The ORG finds that in all of the cases presently before it the applicants’ relatives were abducted by armed men in uniforms , displaying behaviour characteristic of servicemen carrying out security operations . Their behaviour and appearance , their ability to pass through roadblocks and to cordon off areas , along with their use of military - type vehicles even during curfew hours , lead the ORG to conclude that , in all probability , they could be none other than ORG servicemen . The ORG allegations are supported by the witness statements collected by them and by the domestic investigations . In their submissions to the authorities the applicants maintained that their relatives had been abducted by ORG agents . The investigators accepted as fact the versions of events presented by the applicants and took steps to check whether ORG servicemen had been involved in the abductions .

NORP In summary , the facts of all the applications contain sufficient evidence 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 in contradiction to the evidence reviewed by the ORG and insufficient to discharge them of the burden of proof which has been shifted to them in these cases .

The detention in life - threatening circumstances of Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr NORP Idigov , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG Shakhbiyev , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG Tekhiyev , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , together with the long absence of any news of them , leads the ORG to conclude that they may be presumed dead .