The ECHR case of Abdulkadyrova and Others v. Russia (application no. 27180\/03).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
..<\/span><\/p>\n \n \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>\n EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n CASE OF ABDULKADYROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n (Application no. 27180\/03)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n JUDGMENT<\/span><\/p>\n STRASBOURG<\/span><\/p>\n 8 January 2009<\/span><\/p>\n This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article\u00a044 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In the case of Abdulkadyrova and Others v. Russia,<\/span><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/span><\/p>\n Christos Rozakis, President, Having deliberated in private on 4 December 2008,<\/span><\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:<\/span><\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 27180\/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by the four Russian nationals listed below (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 20 July 2003.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by lawyers of the NGO EHRAC\/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mr\u00a0P.\u00a0Laptev and Ms V.\u00a0Milinchuk, former Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.<\/span><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants alleged that their relative had disappeared after being detained by servicemen in Chechnya on 8\u00a0September 2002 and that on the same day their house had been searched and their property damaged.<\/span><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 October 2005 the President of the First Section decided to grant priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.<\/span><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0By a decision of 24 January 2008, the Court declared the application partly admissible.<\/span><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 \u00a7 3 in fine<\/span>), the parties replied in writing to each other’s observations.<\/span><\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/span><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/span><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are:<\/span><\/p>\n (1) Mrs Nurzhan Supyanovna Abdulkadyrova, born in 1973;<\/span><\/p>\n (2) Mr Shamkhan Ayndayevich Dzhabayev, born in 1995;<\/span><\/p>\n (3) Mr Zumrat Ayndayevich Dzhabayev, born in 1993;<\/span><\/p>\n (4) Ms Kheda Ayndayevna Dzhabayeva, born in 1991.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants live in Urus-Martan, Chechnya.<\/span><\/p>\n A. Arrest and detention of Ayndi Dzhabayev<\/span><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant is the wife of Ayndi Aliyevich Dzhabayev, born in 1967. The second, third and fourth applicants are their children. The first applicant is a librarian by profession, but is currently unemployed. The sole breadwinner of the family was her husband Ayndi Dzhabayev, who worked as a bricklayer in a construction company.<\/span><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants live in their own house at 26 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street in the town of Urus-Martan. At this address there are three houses, sharing a common courtyard. Two other houses are occupied by their relatives. One house is occupied by Said-Magomed D., his wife Fatima (also called Petimat) A. and their two daughters, who were six and three years old in September 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0There is a direct passage between their courtyard and the house of their neighbours who live at 28 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street.<\/span><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 September 2002 the first applicant had been at the market since early morning. Her three children \u2013 the second, third and fourth applicants \u2013 were at home with their father, Ayndi Dzhabayev, who was ill. The applicants’ presentation of the events related to Ayndi Dzhabayev’s detention is based on statements by the third and fourth applicants, Fatima A. and two neighbours, Roza P. and Kheda A., who were eyewitnesses to these events.<\/span><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0According to these statements, on 8 September 2002 at about midday, a group of military servicemen in several armoured personnel carriers (APCs) surrounded the house at 28 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, next door to the applicants’ house. The second, third and fourth applicants were playing in the street outside their house. When the military arrived, they went into their house, together with their friend Kh.<\/span><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0At house no. 28 there was an exchange of automatic gunfire. The first applicant’s sister-in-law Fatima A. and her two children ran into the first applicant’s house. The shooting in the neighbouring house lasted for about five to ten minutes. When it stopped, Fatima A. went over to her house with her younger daughter.<\/span><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Then a serviceman broke down the door which separated the applicants’ courtyard from that of their neighbours at no. 28 and entered their courtyard. The serviceman was wearing a balaclava mask and was armed with an automatic weapon. He shouted in Russian: \u201cEverybody out in the street, bitches!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Fatima A. ran into the street with her daughter. She was scared to return for the other children and called them from the street to come out. The second and fourth applicants heard the shouting and immediately went outside. Their father Ayndi Dzhabayev told them to go outside, while he was dressing and looking for his passport. The third applicant was late coming out of the house. While in the courtyard he heard the serviceman ordering someone \u201cHands on the wall, animal!\u201d He turned back and saw the soldier aiming a gun at his father, who quickly walked to the wall and put his hands up. He had not had time to put on his shoes. The serviceman walked up to Ayndi Dzhabayev. The third applicant was scared to remain and went out into the street.<\/span><\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0At that point Fatima A. realised that her elder daughter had remained inside the house and asked the fourth applicant to go and get her. When the fourth applicant entered the courtyard it was empty and her father and the serviceman had gone. She picked up her cousin from the house and they went to join the rest of the family at the house of their neighbour Kheda A. There they were joined by a neighbour from 29 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, Roza P., who had also been ordered to leave her house by the servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0From there the applicants heard shooting at no. 28 and then at their own house. They submitted that it had not been an exchange of fire, because there had been only one machine-gun firing and the soldiers standing in the street had not reacted to it and had remained calm.<\/span><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0At around 3 p.m. the servicemen gathered in the street in front of house no. 28 where the initial shooting had broken out. The soldiers laughed and said that they had killed one fighter (\u201cboyevik<\/span>\u201d) and another one had run away. At about 3.30 p.m. the head of the town administration and the head of the Urus-Martan district administration arrived. Both men talked to the senior officers among the military. Then the local residents started to come out of their houses and approach the military.<\/span><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0Witnesses Roza P. and Kheda A. submitted that they had seen a lot of military vehicles in the streets, including APCs and Ural trucks. Some of the servicemen had gone to the office of the district military commander, located about 300 metres from the applicants’ house.<\/span><\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0Fatima A. with her children and the second, third and fourth applicants returned to their house. Ayndi Dzhabayev was not there. Inside the house everything had been turned upside down, and things had been thrown out of wardrobes. The furniture and clothes were covered with bullet holes and there were a lot of cartridges from automatic weapons scattered on the floor. In the vegetable patch behind the house were the tracks of an APC.<\/span><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Roza P. walked up to the heads of the town and district administrations and asked them where Ayndi Dzhabayev was. The men replied that no one had been detained.<\/span><\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0Roza P. and Kheda A. were among the local residents in front of no.\u00a028 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street. They testified that the gates of the house had been opened and they could see that inside there had been a minibus and an Ural military truck. Under the fence-roof they had seen the body of a man (presumably the \u201cfighter\u201d) who had been killed there during the shooting. Several servicemen put the body on a blanket and carried it to the minibus. In the crowd there was the wife of Magomed A., the owner of house no.\u00a028, who had apparently been sought by the military. She identified the man killed as a friend of Magomed’s, while Magomed himself had escaped.<\/span><\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant returned home at about 4 p.m. By that time the military had left. Her eldest daughter, the fourth applicant, told her that they had been forced out of the house by the military, and when they returned their father had no longer been there. The first applicant found the walls and furniture covered with bullet holes. She went into the vegetable patch behind the house and noted APC tracks which led towards the buildings of the Urus-Martan district administration, the district military commander’s office and the premises of a former clothes factory, which at the time was being used to house a military unit. In the passage between their house and no.\u00a028 the applicant found a pack of \u201cKarsil\u201d medicine, used by her husband, who had a liver problem. In the courtyard she found his cigarettes and cigarette holder. She also found his shoes on the porch of the house and concluded that her husband had been taken away barefoot.<\/span><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day the first applicant went to the town administration, but found it already closed and returned home.<\/span><\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day at about 6 p.m. a group of about 30 servicemen again arrived at 28 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street in three APCs and one UAZ vehicle. Seven or eight men were wearing masks, the rest were without masks. A large group of servicemen entered no.\u00a028 and probably conducted a search there. Then the military searched the vegetable patches. When the first applicant asked what they were looking for, they said that they were looking for weapons.<\/span><\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0Then the military wanted to search the third house off the applicants’ courtyard which belonged to their relatives. The first applicant asked them not to break the door down and they waited for her to fetch the key. She explained that the house belonged to their relatives who lived in another region and the military searched it, without showing any papers.<\/span><\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant talked to one of the servicemen and said that earlier on the same day her husband had been driven away by the military. One serviceman who was not wearing a mask told her that if her husband was not guilty of anything, he would be released. Another serviceman told her that they had not detained anyone. When the applicant insisted, he told her that the operation earlier that day had been carried out by other servicemen and that they had come only to carry out the search. They refused to answer any more questions and left after about half an hour.<\/span><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant submitted that later that day officers from the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office had questioned her neighbours at no. 28. No one came to the applicants’ house to question them or their relatives.<\/span><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants have had no news of their husband and father Ayndi Dzhabayev since that day.<\/span><\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The Government in their observations did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants. In their earlier observations they stated that it had been established that on 8 September 2002 at about 12.30 p.m. unidentified armed men wearing camouflage uniforms had entered the applicants’ house, destroyed some property and taken Ayndi Dzhabayev away to an unknown destination. His whereabouts could not be established. In their latest observations, submitted in March 2008, the Government referred to the absence of eyewitness accounts of Ayndi Dzhabayev being taken away by the armed men.<\/span><\/p>\n B. Search and investigation into the \u201cdisappearance\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant began searching for her husband on 9 September 2002. She applied to various official bodies, both in person and in writing, trying to find out the whereabouts and the fate of Ayndi Dzhabayev. The first applicant also travelled around Chechnya when she heard of unidentified bodies being found, hoping to find him. At the same time she complained about the damage caused to their property by gunfire.<\/span><\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0In the morning of 9 September 2002 the first applicant visited the local military commander’s office, the Department of the Interior and the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office (\u201cthe district prosecutor’s office\u201d). Everywhere she was told that they did not know who had detained her husband or where he was.<\/span><\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants received hardly any substantive information about the fate of their husband and father or about the investigation. On several occasions they were sent copies of letters by which their requests had been forwarded to different prosecutors’ services. They submitted these documents to the Court, and they can be summarised as follows.<\/span><\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 September 2002 the first applicant submitted a written application to the district prosecutor’s office. Her application was registered under no.\u00a01755 and the applicant was informed that it had been assigned to investigator L. The applicant stressed that at that time, in their house, cartridges from the automatic weapons were still lying around and the tracks of the APC were still visible behind the house.<\/span><\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 September 2002 the applicant submitted an application to the local military commander, to the head of the district administration, and to the Office of the Special Envoy of the Russian President for rights and freedoms in Chechnya. She also wrote to the NGO Memorial Human Rights Centre.<\/span><\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0For several days afterwards the first applicant visited all the law-enforcement and military offices in the district. Everywhere the officers denied that her husband had been detained and that they had been responsible for the operation on 8 September 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 September 2002 the first applicant managed for the first time to meet investigator L. He showed her a plan of her neighbours’ house at 28\u00a0Krasnoarmeyskaya Street and asked in which room her husband had been detained. The first applicant realised that the investigator had information that Ayndi Dzhabayev had been detained at their neighbours’ house, and not at theirs. The first applicant tried to persuade him otherwise, but the investigator insisted that at the moment of detention her husband had been in no. 28. Then the investigator asked her about the neighbours. He promised to call her if there was a need for further clarification. He did not take any other action, such as examining the applicant’s house or questioning the neighbours and relatives.<\/span><\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 September 2002 the district newspaper Marsho<\/span> published an article entitled \u201cPolice should work\u201d, in which the Urus-Martan district military commander was quoted as saying that there had been \u201ccombat action\u201d in Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, as a result of which one man who had mounted active resistance had been killed and his body had been transferred to the district administration.<\/span><\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 October 2002 the first applicant again visited the district prosecutor’s office and found out that her application of 9 September 2002 had been lost, though the registration number existed. The investigator who was responsible for her case had been dismissed, and he had failed to take any action on her complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 October 2002 the applicant again submitted an application to the district prosecutor. She stated that her husband had been detained by military servicemen on 8 September 2002 during a special operation, which had been reported in a local newspaper. She also referred to the killing of an unknown young man during the operation and the involvement of a large group of servicemen and military vehicles. The applicant asked the prosecutor to inform her of the progress made in the investigation and to grant her victim status in the proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 October 2002 the applicant was told at the district prosecutor’s office that her complaint had been forwarded by that office to the district department of the interior (ROVD). The applicant submitted that she had managed to see the officer at the ROVD who was responsible for her case only one month later. That officer questioned her and the fourth applicant, and then returned the case to the district prosecutor’s office.<\/span><\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 November 2002 the first applicant addressed the district prosecutor, asking for help in finding her husband and complaining of inactivity in the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 November 2002 an investigator of the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that on 20 November 2002 they had opened criminal investigation file no.\u00a061152 into the kidnapping of Ayndi Dzhabayev, which had occurred on 8 September 2002 in Urus-Martan.<\/span><\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 March 2003 the first applicant applied to the Urus-Martan District Court (\u201cthe district court\u201d), complaining about the actions of the district military commander. She stated that the special operation on 8\u00a0September 2002 had been carried out by the military who reported to the local military commander. She requested the court to order the military commander to disclose information concerning her husband’s whereabouts and reasons for his detention, to grant her access to a lawyer and to allow her to challenge the lawfulness of the detention. The applicant submitted that her complaint had not been adjudicated. The Government in their submissions stated, without providing any documents, that on 18 April 2003 the claim had been left without consideration owing to the repeated failure of both parties to appear.<\/span><\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 April 2003 the first applicant again applied to the district court, complaining about the actions of the district prosecutor’s office. She requested the court to oblige the prosecutor’s office to carry out an investigation into her complaint concerning the detention and disappearance of her husband and to take a number of actions, such as to grant her victim status, to question her children, sister-in-law and neighbours, to collect the bullets and cartridges from her house and to identify and question those responsible for the operation. The applicant also requested the court to evaluate the damage caused to her property and identify those responsible. The applicant received no answer to this complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 May 2003 the district prosecutor’s office replied to the first applicant and stated that the investigator responsible for the case at the initial stage had been dismissed for negligence. In the context of criminal case no.\u00a061152 the first applicant, her children and other witnesses had been questioned. The question of damage to her property was to be resolved by a court. The question of the examination of the site and collection of evidence could be resolved only if there was agreement among all residents of the household and if the evidence of the crime, such as bullets and cartridges, was still present.<\/span><\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 May 2003 the applicant, during one of her visits to the district prosecutor’s office, received from an investigator a copy of the document in the case file which, as he told her, proved that her husband had been detained by the military. The \u201cadministrative report\u201d was drawn up by the Urus-Martan military commander Colonel G. on 8 September 2002. The document stated:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cI, the military commander of the Urus-Martan district Colonel G., on 8 September 2002 carried out an administrative investigation concerning the wounding of a serviceman of the military commander’s office, senior assistant to the head of the intelligence unit Captain I. The investigation established the following.<\/span><\/p>\n On 8 September 2002 an operation was carried out under the command of Colonel G. in order to check the operative information in Urus-Martan, at the crossroads of Krasnoarmeyskaya and Budyennogo Streets. At 10.10 a.m., at 28 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, during the inspection of the premises, bandits who were staying there mounted armed resistance. During the battle engagement a serviceman of the special forces of the Interior Troops was wounded. Upon the order of Colonel G. the district was cordoned off by the servicemen of the commander’s company, the district FSB [Federal Security Service] and the Ministry of the Interior.<\/span><\/p>\n During the continuation of the special operation at 11.55 a.m., as a result of an exchange of fire, Captain I. received a firearm wound to the head. … During the special operation two members of the ILG [illegal armed groups] were killed, and arms and ammunition were seized. …The wounding of Captain I. was brought to the attention of the Urus-Martan district prosecutor.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 June 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office ordered the district prosecutor’s office to check the first applicant’s submissions that her husband had been detained by the officers of the FSB during a special operation aimed at detention of their neighbour, A. The letter referred to her statements that during the special operation A. had wounded two officers of the FSB and then escaped. The FSB officers had then carried out unlawful searches in the neighbouring houses and detained Ayndi Dzhabayev at his house, after which he had disappeared. The prosecutor issued an order to investigate the applicant’s statements about the involvement of the FSB, to find her husband’s whereabouts, to decide if the case should be forwarded to the military prosecutor for further investigation and to inform the applicant and the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office of the progress of the case.<\/span><\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 August 2003 the first applicant wrote to the Chechnya Prosecutor and complained about inactivity in the investigation. She referred to the publication of 23 September 2002 and to the administrative report of 8\u00a0September 2002, copies of which she attached to the letter. The applicant suggested that only one \u201cfighter\u201d had been killed on 8 September 2002 and that the military had taken away her husband and later killed him in order to \u201cboost\u201d the figures. She stressed that the military had only released one body for burial, and that the name of the second person killed had not been disclosed. The applicant requested the prosecutor to question Colonel G., who had been in command of the operation on 8 September 2002, to identify the second person who had been killed on that day, to find out his place of burial, to transfer the case to the military prosecutor’s office, and to inform her of the results of the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 August 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no.\u00a061152. The order stated that the investigation had established that \u201con 8 September 2002 at about 12.30 p.m. unknown persons armed with automatic weapons and wearing masks entered a private household at 26 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, Urus-Martan, kidnapped Ayndi Dzhabayev, born in 1967, destroyed his property and left in the direction of the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office\u201d. The decision also stated that the first applicant had suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.<\/span><\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0It appears that some time in the summer of 2003 an investigator visited the applicants’ home and collected bullets from the bullet holes in the walls of their house. The applicants were not aware whether a ballistic study had been carried out on them and if so, what results it had produced.<\/span><\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 September 2003 the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that on 20 January 2003 the investigation of the criminal case into the kidnapping of her husband had been adjourned owing to failure to identify the culprits. After an additional review by the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office, on 21 August 2003 that decision had been quashed and the case was forwarded for additional investigation to the district prosecutor’s office.<\/span><\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 September 2003 the first applicant again complained to the Chechnya Prosecutor that the local prosecutor had failed to act. She asked him to identify and question the servicemen who had participated in the special operation of 8 September 2002, to question Colonel G., to identify the place of burial of the second \u201cfighter\u201d killed on that day, to collect bullets and cartridges from her home and to examine the site and to question her neighbours. The applicant received no response, and on 8\u00a0December 2003 again wrote to the Chechnya Prosecutor and asked him to oblige the local prosecutor to carry out the investigative actions as listed in her letters.<\/span><\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 October 2003 the District Court, upon the first applicant’s request, declared her husband Ayndi Dzhabayev a missing person, with effect from 8 September 2002. The court took into account statements by two eyewitnesses about Dzhabayev’s detention by unknown persons dressed in camouflage and the first applicant’s statement that she had had no news of her husband ever since.<\/span><\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 December 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation into the kidnapping of Mr Dzhabayev had been resumed on 19 November 2003. On 19\u00a0December 2003 it had again been adjourned for failure to identify the culprits. The applicant was informed of the possibility of appeal to a prosecutor or to a court.<\/span><\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 January 2004 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation had resumed on that day.<\/span><\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 April 2004 the first applicant asked the district prosecutor’s office to inform her, as a victim, of the progress and results of the investigation and to tell her if the actions requested by her had been taken.<\/span><\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 May 2004 the Urus-Martan ROVD issued a note, based on the neighbours’ statements, which described Ayndi Dzhabayev as a respectable member of the community who had had no trouble with the law.<\/span><\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 December 2005 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to grant her, as a victim, access to case file no.\u00a061152.<\/span><\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 March 2006 an investigator of the district prosecutor’s office replied to her that she had no right to review the file while the proceedings were pending. Under Article 42 of the Criminal Procedural Code she could only review the documents relating to the investigative steps carried out with her participation.<\/span><\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0On several occasions higher-ranking prosecutor’s offices forwarded the applicant’s complaints to the district prosecutor’s office and requested them to inform them and the applicant of the progress of the proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 May 2006 the District Court, upon the first applicant’s application, declared her husband dead as of that day. A death certificate was issued by the district civil registration office on 15 May 2006. The place of death had not been established.<\/span><\/p>\n 64.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant furthermore submitted that on 7 December 2007 she had been summoned to the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office. There she was for the first time informed that the investigation into her husband’s kidnapping had been transferred to that office. The investigator in charge of the case questioned the first applicant who informed him of the document entitled \u201cadministrative report\u201d (see paragraph 48 above). The investigator went through the investigation file comprising one thick folder, but did not find that document. On the following day the first applicant gave a copy of that document to the investigator.<\/span><\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Information from the Government<\/span><\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations the Government did not dispute the information concerning the investigation into the abduction of Ayndi Dzhabayev as presented by the applicants. Relying on information obtained from the General Prosecutor’s Office, they referred to a number of other procedural steps taken in the investigation which had not been mentioned by the applicants. However, despite specific requests from the Court, the Government did not submit copies of most of the documents to which they referred (see below).<\/span><\/p>\n 66.\u00a0\u00a0With reference to the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Government submitted that the investigation into the abduction of Ayndi Dzhabayev by \u201cunidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms with machine guns\u201d had commenced on 20 November 2002. The file was assigned no.\u00a061152.<\/span><\/p>\n 67.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 November 2002 the investigators questioned the third and fourth applicants, who stated that on 8 September 2002 they had heard shooting in the street, and that soon afterwards their father had been taken away by armed persons.<\/span><\/p>\n 68.\u00a0\u00a0Similar statements had been given by the relatives and neighbours, including the first applicant and Fatima A., both questioned on 25\u00a0November 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n 69.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 January 2003 the investigation was adjourned owing to a failure to identify the culprits.<\/span><\/p>\n 70.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 August 2003 the investigation was resumed. On 22 August 2003 the first applicant was questioned and granted victim status in the proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n 71.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 September 2003 the investigation was adjourned.<\/span><\/p>\n 72.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 November 2003 the investigation was resumed upon the order of the deputy to the Chechnya Prosecutor. On 20 November 2003 the investigators examined the Dzhabayevs’ house and collected two bullets and one cartridge. On 21 November 2003 the first applicant was again questioned. On the same day a ballistic study was ordered and carried out. The Government did not specify what the results were. From 5 to 10\u00a0December 2003 the investigators questioned witnesses Kheda A., Fatima A. and another neighbour.<\/span><\/p>\n 73.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 December 2003 the investigation was adjourned.<\/span><\/p>\n 74.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 January 2004 the investigation was resumed. On 5 January 2004 the investigators forwarded requests to the pre-trial detention centres in the Northern Caucasus and to all district prosecutors’ offices in Chechnya.<\/span><\/p>\n 75.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 February 2004 the investigation was adjourned.<\/span><\/p>\n 76.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 May 2004 the investigation was resumed. On 1 June 2004 the first applicant was granted the status of civil claimant in the case.<\/span><\/p>\n 77.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 – 19 June 2004 the investigators questioned Roza P. and Kheda A., as well as the first applicant and some other persons (presumably neighbours).<\/span><\/p>\n 78.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 June 2004 the investigation was adjourned.<\/span><\/p>\n 79.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 December 2005 the investigation was resumed. On 28\u00a0December 2005 the investigators questioned Kheda A., the first, third and fourth applicants and two other persons.<\/span><\/p>\n 80.\u00a0\u00a0The Government further stated that in December 2005 the investigators had questioned the head of the Urus-Martan administration, who had stated that on 8 September 2002 he had seen the cordon of servicemen in Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, but had had no information about the detention of Ayndi Dzhabayev. According to him, the district military commander, G., had been in charge of the operation, but he could not be questioned because he had died.<\/span><\/p>\n 81.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations produced in March 2008 the Government indicated that on 28 December 2005 the investigation had been closed in the part concerning the damage to the applicants’ property, in view of the expiry of time-limits. They did not specify whether the applicants had been informed of this decision.<\/span><\/p>\n 82.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 January 2006 the investigation was adjourned.<\/span><\/p>\n 83.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 March 2006 the investigation was resumed. The Government stated that at that time Kheda A. and Roza P. had stated to the investigation that they had not been eyewitnesses to the detention of Mr Ayndi Dzhabayev. A similar statement had been made by Fatima A.’s husband, who had not been at home on the day in question. It appears that the investigation was then again adjourned.<\/span><\/p>\n 84.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations of 24 March 2008 the Government additionally submitted that the investigation had resumed on 27 March 2006. A number of answers from various departments of the Ministry of the Interior and the FSB testified that these bodies had no information about Ayndi Dzhabayev’s whereabouts.<\/span><\/p>\n 85.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 and 26 April 2006 the investigators questioned two neighbours of the applicants. One of them testified that on 8 September 2002 at about 11 a.m. he had been stopped at the intersection of Budennogo and Krasnoarmeyskaya Streets by a group of military servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with automatic weapons. They explained to her that a \u201csweeping operation\u201d was under way and did not allow her to pass through. She also saw military vehicles, including APCs, and heard shots being fired. Later she learnt that Ayndi Dzhabayev had been kidnapped. Another neighbour testified that on that day at about 11 a.m. a group of armed men came into the courtyard of her house and ordered her, in Russian, to remain at home. About 30 minutes later she went outside and saw the dead body of a young man in the courtyard nearby. Later she learnt that the armed men had kidnapped Ayndi Dzhabayev.<\/span><\/p>\n 86.\u00a0\u00a0The Government also submitted that on 30 May 2006 the head of Urus-Martan administration was again questioned. He confirmed his previous submissions that in early September 2002 he had been present at Krasnoarmeyskaya Street where a \u201cspecial operation\u201d was being carried out. He saw a large number of civilian and military persons and witnessed the military taking away the body of a man. He also saw ammunition and military gear thrown around. On 27 June 2006 the then first deputy to the Urus-Martan district administration M.G. gave similar information. He was not aware which agency had conducted the operation or of the circumstances of Dzhabayev’s kidnapping.<\/span><\/p>\n 87.\u00a0\u00a0In June 2005 the investigation forwarded additional information requests to the local departments of the Interior, the FSB and the regional headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior. None of these agencies had any information about the crime, but continued to take steps to resolve it.<\/span><\/p>\n 88.\u00a0\u00a0At some point the central archive of the Ministry of Defence replied to the investigation that they had no information about the conducting of a special operation in Urus-Martan on 8 September 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span> Nina Vaji\u0107,
\n<\/span> Anatoly Kovler,
\n<\/span> Elisabeth Steiner,
\n<\/span> Khanlar Hajiyev,
\n<\/span> Sverre Erik Jebens,
\n<\/span> Giorgio Malinverni, judges,<\/span><\/span>
\nand S\u00f8ren Nielsen, Section Registrar<\/span><\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\n