{"id":440,"date":"2009-05-11T00:49:22","date_gmt":"2009-05-11T07:49:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/?p=440"},"modified":"2009-05-11T00:49:22","modified_gmt":"2009-05-11T07:49:22","slug":"arzu-akhmadova-and-others-v-russia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/2009\/05\/arzu-akhmadova-and-others-v-russia\/","title":{"rendered":"Arzu Akhmadova and Others v. Russia"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The ECHR case of Arzu Akhmadova and Others v. Russia (application no 13670\/03).<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #ffffff;\">..<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #ffffff;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\">\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #ffffff;\">\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: left;\"><span style=\"color: #ffffff;\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Normal--Char\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"margin-top: 72pt; text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Normal--Char\" style=\"font-weight: bold;\">CASE OF ARZU AKHMADOVA  AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Normal--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">(Application no.  13670\/03)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"margin-top: 132pt; text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">JUDGMENT<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"margin-top: 36pt; text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">STRASBOURG<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: center;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">8 January  2009<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"margin-top: 24pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Normal--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">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<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> <br style=\"page-break-before: always;\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fCase\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In the case of Arzu Akhmadova and Others v. Russia,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The  European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber  composed of:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\">Christos  Rozakis,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> President,<br \/>\n<\/span> Anatoly Kovler,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"><br \/>\n<\/span> Elisabeth Steiner,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"><br \/>\n<\/span> Khanlar Hajiyev,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"><br \/>\n<\/span> Dean Spielmann,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"><br \/>\n<\/span> Sverre Erik Jebens,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"><br \/>\n<\/span> Giorgio Malinverni,<span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> judges,<br \/>\n<\/span>and S\u00f8ren Nielsen, <span class=\"Ju-005fJudges-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Section Registrar<\/span><\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Having  deliberated in private on 4 December 2008,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Delivers  the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fHead\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">PROCEDURE<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0The  case originated in an application (no. 13670\/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 eleven Russian nationals, listed below (\u201cthe applicants\u201d),  on 4 September 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants, who had been granted legal aid, were represented by lawyers  of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (\u201cSRJI\u201d), an NGO based  in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The Russian  Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by <span class=\"Strong--Char\"><span class=\"Strong--Char\" style=\"font-weight: normal;\">Mr\u00a0P.\u00a0Laptev and Ms\u00a0V.  Milinchuk<\/span><\/span>, former Representatives of the Russian Federation  at the European Court of Human Rights.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants alleged, in particular, that their close relatives had disappeared  after their abduction by State servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">4.\u00a0\u00a0On  15 September 2005 the President of the Chamber decided to grant priority  to the present application (Rule 41).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">5.\u00a0\u00a0By  a decision of 10 January 2008, the Court declared the application partly  admissible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">6.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants and the Government each filed further written observations  (Rule 59 \u00a7 1). The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties,  that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 \u00a7 3 <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">in fine<\/span>), the parties replied in writing to each other&#8217;s observations.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fHead\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">THE FACTS<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">7.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants are:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-left: 53pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Arzu Abdulazimovna Akhmadova, born in 1949;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-left: 53pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Taisa Amadovna Kanayeva, born in 1962;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-left: 53pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Sharfudin Saydkhasanovich Sambiyev, born  in 1955;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-left: 53pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Akhmat Khuseynovich Chagayev, born in 1952;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-left: 53pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Kiisa Ibragimovna Minazova, born in 1957;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-left: 53pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Salman Alaudinovich Magomadov, born in 1951;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-left: 53pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mr Khasan Izuyevich Isambayev, born in 1953;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-left: 53pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Zara Khabibullayevna Magomadova, born in  1979;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-left: 53pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">9.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Luiza Magomedovna Mugayeva, born in 1966;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-left: 53pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">10.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Ira Ilyinichna Dzuchkayeva, born in 1940;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"margin-left: 53pt; text-indent: -18pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">11.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ms Razet Zakayeva, born in 1939.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">8.\u00a0\u00a0They  live in Staryye Atagi, the Chechen Republic.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A.\u00a0Apprehension of the applicants&#8217; relatives<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0 The applicants&#8217; account<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> (a)\u00a0\u00a0Sweeping operation in Stariye Atagi<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">9.\u00a0\u00a0According  to the applicants, from 6 to 11 March 2002 federal military officers,  acting under the command of General Borisov, conducted a sweeping operation  (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0437\u0430\u0447\u0438\u0441\u0442\u043a\u0430<\/span>) involving around 10,000 servicemen, 50\u00a0armoured  personnel carriers (\u201cAPCs\u201d) and several military helicopters in  the village of Stariye Atagi. General Moltenskiy, the commander of the  United Group Alignment (UGA) in the Northern Caucasus (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0434\u0443\u044e\u0449\u0438\u0439 \u041e\u0431\u044a\u0435\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u043f\u043e\u0439 \u0432\u043e\u0439\u0441\u043a  \u043d\u0430 \u0421\u0435\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u043c \u041a\u0430\u0432\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0435<\/span>) visited the village twice  during the operation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">10.\u00a0\u00a0Throughout  the said period the military besieged Stariye Atagi and restricted freedom  of movement in the village. They organised a filtering point at the  poultry yard and the mill at the outskirts of Stariye Atagi where they  held residents detained during the operation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">11.\u00a0\u00a0In  total fifteen men residing in Stariye Atagi were apprehended between  6 and 11 March 2002. Whilst some of them were subsequently released,  eleven residents disappeared. The applicants are relatives of nine of  those who disappeared.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> (b)\u00a0\u00a0Detention of Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr  Said-Selim Kanayev<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">12.\u00a0\u00a0The  first applicant is the mother of Mr Aslan Akhmadov, born in 1979, who  was a student at Grozny University. They and other relatives lived at  261 Nuradilova Street and were neighbours of the second applicant, who  resided with her nephew, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, born in 1983, and other  family members at 9 Polevaya Street.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">13.\u00a0\u00a0On  6 March 2002, between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr\u00a0Said-Selim  Kanayev and several other residents of Stariye Atagi were standing in  the street when a group of masked and armed federal servicemen arrived  in three APCs, two UAZ cars and an Ural vehicle. The APCs&#8217; hull numbers  were covered with mud and the vehicles&#8217; registration plates were wrapped  in a rag. The servicemen started beating Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim  Kanayev without any explanation. Several women, including Mr Aslan Akhmadov&#8217;s  seventy-five-year-old grandmother, attempted to intervene, but the military  threw smoke bombs and fired in front of the women&#8217;s feet and above their  heads.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">14.\u00a0\u00a0According  to the first applicant, while she was at home she heard women and children  screaming and rushed into the street. She saw her son and Mr\u00a0Said-Selim  Kanayev on their knees with their hands behind their heads. Both of  them were bleeding.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">15.\u00a0\u00a0Then  the military escorted Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev to  their houses. Without introducing themselves or producing any documents  to justify their actions, the servicemen searched the houses and the  courtyards. The first applicant inquired about the charges against her  son, whereupon one of the soldiers replied that they were servicemen  of the 405<sup>th<\/sup> regiment stationed in the village of Khatuni  and had an order \u201cto take away everyone they met on their way\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">16.\u00a0\u00a0According  to the first and second applicants, the military promised to release  Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev in exchange for money. The  Akhmadov family gave them 200 US dollars (USD), which Aslan Amkhadov&#8217;s  grandmother had been saving for her funeral. One of the servicemen took  the money and said into his radio transmitter: \u201cPlus I have their  son and money\u201d. The Kanayev family gave them USD 300. Having received  the money, the military nevertheless took Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim  Kanayev away \u201cfor a computer check of their identities\u201d. The first  two applicants had no news of their relatives thereafter.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">17.\u00a0\u00a0The  first and second applicants enclosed statements of eight witnesses to  confirm their account of the events. Ms Kh. Kh., Ms Kh. Ch., Ms B. Ch.,  Ms R. S., Ms P. M. and Ms Kh. A., residents of Stariye Atagi, and Ms  A. A., Mr Aslan Akhmadov&#8217;s grandmother, stated that they had witnessed  the apprehension of Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev by servicemen  in the circumstances described by the applicants. Ms L. Ya. stated that  on the date in question she was selling bread in the village market.  At about 12.30 p.m. military vehicles approached the market. Five minutes  later the first applicant had run up and said that her son had been  out in one of those vehicles. Then the first applicant, Ms L. Ya. and  other residents had asked the officer in charge to release him. The  officer had replied that if Mr Aslan Akhmadov was innocent, they would  let him go after checking the documents.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(c)\u00a0\u00a0Detention of Mr Amir Pokayev<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">18.\u00a0\u00a0The  third applicant is the father of Mr Amir Pokayev, born in 1982. They  lived with other family members at 91 Nuradilova Street.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">19.\u00a0\u00a0On  6 March 2002, at around 12.30 p.m., three APCs, two UAZ cars and a UAZ  armoured vehicle arrived at 91 Nuradilova Street. All the registration  numbers were concealed. A group of about twenty servicemen entered the  courtyard of the third applicant&#8217;s house. They were wearing masks and  khaki uniforms resembling those of the Main Intelligence Department  (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0413\u043b\u0430\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0420\u0430\u0437\u0432\u0435\u0434\u044b\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0423\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435<\/span>)  and those of the Federal Security Service (\u201cFSB\u201d, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0421\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430 \u0411\u0435\u0437\u043e\u043f\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438<\/span>)  and its special units such as <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Alfa<\/span>, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Don<\/span> and others. The servicemen had short Kedr machine-guns,  Stechkin pistols, machine guns fastened to their legs and switchblade  knives bearing the owners&#8217; initials.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">20.\u00a0\u00a0The  military forced all the men of the third applicant&#8217;s family into the  courtyard and checked their papers. The soldiers seized Mr Amir Pokayev&#8217;s  temporary identity document and took it to one of the UAZ cars. Then  they said that they would take the third applicant&#8217;s son with them so  as to check his documents through a computer database. The military  further stated that they would bring Mr Amir Pokayev back after the  check, put him into the APC and left.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">21.\u00a0\u00a0While  his son was being apprehended, the third applicant talked to two officers.  One of them introduced himself as Oleg and promised that Mr\u00a0Amir Pokayev  would be released as soon as the operation was over. According to the  third applicant, he saw Oleg on TV on 9 and 12\u00a0March\u00a02002 standing next  to General Moltenskiy, who was giving an interview. The other officer&#8217;s  surname was Tolstykin. The third applicant also saw him on TV in the  news report on the military operation in the village of Uluskert. The  third applicant submitted that he was able and willing to identify those  two officers.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">22.\u00a0\u00a0On  12 March 2002 the third applicant talked to another resident of Stariye  Atagi, Mr R. D., who had been detained on 10 March 2002 and then released.  The latter told the third applicant that he had been kept in the basement  of the mill and had seen a note scratched on the ceiling to the effect  that Mr Amir Pokayev had been held there. On his release Mr\u00a0R. D. asked  a security guard about the detainees who had been held in the basement  before him. The guard replied that on 9 March 2002, at around 12\u00a0noon,  the military had taken them away, having told the guard that they would  be releasing them.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">23.\u00a0\u00a0The  third applicant enclosed a statement by Ms V. S., a resident of Stariye  Atagi, who had witnessed Mr Amir Pokayev being apprehended by servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(d)\u00a0\u00a0Detention of Mr Islam Chagayev<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">24.\u00a0\u00a0The  fourth and fifth applicants are husband and wife and live at 97\u00a0Nuradilova  Street. They are the parents of Mr Islam Chagayev, who was born in 1982  and developed a disability during childhood. At the material time he  worked in Nazran, the capital of neighbouring Ingushetia. On 4\u00a0March  2002 he came to Stariye Atagi for several days to visit his family.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">25.\u00a0\u00a0On  6 March 2002, at around 1.30 p.m., the same servicemen who had detained  Mr Amir Pokayev entered the Chagayev family house. They requested all  the men to go outside. Then the military took Mr Islam Chagayev&#8217;s documents  and escorted him into the street. The fourth applicant&#8217;s sister attempted  to obstruct the detention of Mr Islam Chagayev, but the soldiers explained  to her that she should not be afraid and that if her nephew was innocent  he would soon be released. The military officers then put Mr Islam Chagayev  into an APC, which left in the direction of the mill.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">26.\u00a0\u00a0Later  that day the servicemen returned and searched the house. The next day,  after throwing the Chagayev family&#8217;s belongings around and breaking  them, they conducted another search.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">27.\u00a0\u00a0The  fourth and fifth applicants submitted that one of the officers in charge  of the operation was the acting commander Zdanovich. They enclosed statements  of Ms L. Ch., Mr Islam Chagayev&#8217;s aunt, and Ms Z. U., a resident of  Stariye Atagi who had witnessed Mr Islam Chagayev being apprehended  by servicemen and confirmed the applicants&#8217; account of the events. Ms  V. S. (see paragraph 23 above) also submitted that she had seen Mr Islam  Chagayev being taken away by servicemen in the above-described circumstances.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(e)\u00a0\u00a0Detention of Mr Ibragim Magomadov<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">28.\u00a0\u00a0The  sixth applicant is the father of Mr Ibragim Magomadov, born in 1982,  who was a student at the Economics and Management College.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">29.\u00a0\u00a0On  8 March 2002, in the afternoon, a group of federal servicemen wearing  camouflage uniforms forcibly entered the Magomadov family house at 19  Beregovaya Street. The sixth applicant, his wife and Mr Ibragim Magomadov  were at home at the time.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">30.\u00a0\u00a0The  servicemen did not introduce themselves or present any documents authorising  their actions and ordered the sixth applicant, his wife and Mr\u00a0Ibragim  Magomadov to raise their hands and step outside. Then they subjected  each member of the Magomadov family to a body search and checked their  identity documents.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">31.\u00a0\u00a0One  of the servicemen said into his radio transmitter that there were two  men in the house, an old one and a young one. In reply he was ordered  to take away the young one. According to the sixth applicant, the officer  was around 25\u201332 years old and of Slavic appearance. Then another  serviceman escorted Mr Ibragim Magomadov, who was wearing black jeans,  a jeans shirt, a sports vest and shoes with thick soles, into the street  and put him into an APC. This soldier was of Ossetian origin and about  19\u00a0years old. The sixth applicant submitted that he was able and willing  to identify those two servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">32.\u00a0\u00a0The  sixth applicant and his wife tried to obstruct the detention of their  son, but the military officers threatened them with their firearms.  One of the servicemen injured his wife, who had attempted to follow  the servicemen and her son. Later that day the military returned to  the sixth applicant&#8217;s house. They were drunk and laughed in reply to  the sixth applicant&#8217;s questions about his son.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(f)\u00a0\u00a0Detention of Mr Magomed Isambayev<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">33.\u00a0\u00a0The  seventh applicant is the father of Mr Magomed Isambayev, born in 1981.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">34.\u00a0\u00a0On  9 March 2002, at 8.30 a.m., about ten servicemen wearing camouflage  uniforms and armed with machine guns entered the house of the Isambayev  family at 53 Ambulatornaya Street. The seventh applicant, his wife and  their six children, including Mr Magomed Isambayev and the seventh applicant&#8217;s  brother, were inside at the time. Some of the servicemen were masked  and none of them had shoulder stripes or any other marks of distinction.  According to the seventh applicant, they spoke Russian without an accent.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">35.\u00a0\u00a0The  servicemen did not produce any documents justifying their actions or  give any explanations. They woke Mr Magomed Isambayev up and ordered  him to show them his identity documents. He explained that he had turned  twenty last December and had not yet received the new passport that  was due at that age. The servicemen then took the seventh applicant&#8217;s  son with them, having reassured the other members of the Isambayev family  that they would release him as soon as they had found out whether he  was a local resident.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">36.\u00a0\u00a0The  seventh applicant and his wife attempted to follow Mr\u00a0Magomed Isambayev,  but the military did not allow them to leave the courtyard. The seventh  applicant&#8217;s wife managed to see through the fence that the servicemen  then visited three neighbouring houses and took her son to the courtyard  of each of those houses. One of the neighbours, a police officer, told  the servicemen that he had known Mr Magomed Isambayev since the latter&#8217;s  childhood and that he had never been involved in any offence. It appears  that the soldiers ignored this statement.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">37.\u00a0\u00a0Thereafter  two armoured UAZ vehicles and a car resembling an ambulance arrived.  Their registration plates were either painted over or wrapped in a rag.  The servicemen put the seventh applicant&#8217;s son into one of the vehicles  and left.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(g)\u00a0\u00a0Detention of Mr Adlan Baysarov<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">38.\u00a0\u00a0The  eighth applicant is the wife of Mr Adlan Baysarov, born in 1972, and  the mother of their two minor children. At the material time Mr\u00a0Adlan  Baysarov, a resident of Grozny and a student at the Economics and Management  College, was living in Stariye Atagi as an internally displaced person.  The Baysarov family lived with their relatives, including the ninth  applicant, who was the wife of Mr Adlan Baysarov&#8217;s cousin, in the premises  of an abandoned hospital in Pochtovaya Street.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">39.\u00a0\u00a0On  10 March 2002 the federal military officers arrived at Pochtovaya Street  in three APCs and an UAZ car with tinted windows and entered the house  in which Mr Adlan Baysarov and his relatives lived. The soldiers were  wearing camouflage uniform and had helmets, portable radio transmitters  and sawn-off machine guns. The ninth applicant believed that they represented  special task forces.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">40.\u00a0\u00a0The  servicemen searched the house and forced Mr Adlan Baysarov to go outside  for a check of his identity documents. The ninth applicant saw two or  three servicemen talking to Mr Adlan Baysarov. They intimidated and  threatened him, swearing at him. Then they put Mr Adlan Baysarov into  an APC, which left an hour and a half later.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">41.\u00a0\u00a0The  ninth applicant submitted that she was able and ready to identify two  officers who had apprehended Mr Adlan Baysarov. One of them had a moustache.  She also submitted that on 11 March 2002 Mr G., the head of the administration  of Stariye Atagi (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0435\u0434\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c \u0441\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0442\u0430<\/span>), who, according  to the ninth applicant, had witnessed the events, had stated that the  surname of one of those officers was Suvorov.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(h)\u00a0\u00a0Detention of Mr Timur Khadzhayev<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">42.\u00a0\u00a0The  tenth applicant is the mother of Mr Timur Khadzhayev, born in 1976.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">43.\u00a0\u00a0On  10 March 2002, in the morning, a group of armed federal servicemen entered  the courtyard of the tenth applicant&#8217;s house at 16\u00a0Shkolnaya Street.  The tenth applicant, her other son, his wife and their three children,  the tenth applicant&#8217;s daughter and Mr Timur Khadzhayev were in the house.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">44.\u00a0\u00a0The  military officers refused to introduce themselves and ordered the Khadzhayev  men to step out into the courtyard for an identity check. The latter  complied and produced their documents. The tenth applicant also furnished  the military officers with a medical certificate confirming that Mr\u00a0Timur  Khadzhayev had a disability dating from his childhood which consisted  in an impaired ability to move his left arm. The servicemen took the  certificate as well as the Khadzhayev brothers&#8217; identity documents.  According to the tenth applicant, some of the servicemen were masked  and they were mostly young, apart from the officer who checked the documents,  who was middle-aged.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">45.\u00a0\u00a0After  the check the military escorted the tenth applicant&#8217;s sons to the courtyard  of one of the neighbouring houses and ordered them to get undressed.  The soldiers searched the Khadzhayev brothers and beat them. The tenth  applicant screamed, asking the military why they were beating her sons.  In reply, the servicemen ordered her to keep quiet, threatening to blow  up her house. Thereafter they took the tenth applicant&#8217;s sons and two  men who lived in the neighbouring house away. The tenth applicant referred  to the account given by her neighbours, who stated that the Khadzhayev  brothers were put into an APC. Some time later that day the tenth applicant&#8217;s  other son returned home. He had been beaten. Mr Timur Khadzhayev has  been missing since that day.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">46.\u00a0\u00a0During  the detention of her sons the tenth applicant managed to talk to an  officer who introduced himself as \u201cZhigan\u201d and told her that he  could be found in the military commander&#8217;s office (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0432\u043e\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0434\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430<\/span>). After the sweeping  operation was over, the tenth applicant visited the military commander&#8217;s  office and inquired after \u201cZhigan\u201d. She was told that he had already  left and that he was a FSB officer.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">47.\u00a0\u00a0The  tenth applicant&#8217;s account of the events is supported by statements of  Ms B. E. and Ms L. M., residents of Stariye Atagi, who had witnessed  Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev being beaten and apprehended by servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(i)\u00a0\u00a0Detention of Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">48.\u00a0\u00a0The  eleventh applicant is the mother of Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev, born in  1965. They both lived at 14 Uchitelskaya Street.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">49.\u00a0\u00a0On  10 March 2002, at around 3 p.m., Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev was standing  in the street when federal servicemen arrived in two APCs and an UAZ  vehicle with tinted windows. The APCs hull numbers were smudged and  the UAZ car had no registration plates.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">50.\u00a0\u00a0When  the eleventh applicant&#8217;s son saw the military approaching, he entered  the courtyard of one of the neighbouring houses. The servicemen followed  him. They were wearing camouflage uniforms of the armed forces of Russia  and had firearms. They spoke Russian. Some of the military had portable  radio transmitters. Without introducing themselves or producing any  documents to justify their actions, the servicemen threatened to use  their firearms and ordered Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev and two other men  who lived in that house to raise their hands and stand against the wall.  The soldiers subjected the three men to a body search and checked their  passports. Then they took Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev away \u201cfor a computer  check of his identity\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">51.\u00a0\u00a0The  eleventh applicant enclosed a statement by Mr R. M., one of the two  men whose documents had been checked together with Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev&#8217;s,  to support her account of the events.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(j)\u00a0\u00a0Other incidents in Stariye Atagi during  the sweeping operation of 6-10\u00a0March 2002<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">52.\u00a0\u00a0On  6 March 2002 federal servicemen also detained two other residents of  Stariye Atagi \u2013 Mr Ismail Dzhamayev, born in 1981 (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Dzhamayeva and Others v. Russia<\/span>, no. 43170\/04) and Mr Imran  Kuntayev, born in 1976 \u2013 who subsequently disappeared. The disappearance  of these two people does not form part of the present application.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">53.\u00a0\u00a0On  7 March 2002 the residents of Stariye Atagi found five bodies in an  abandoned house at 81 Nagornaya Street, on the outskirts of the village.  According to the eyewitness statements, the house was burnt but there  were no bullet holes or shell marks on the walls. The bodies were severely  burnt, and only one of them was identified \u2013 as Mr Imran Kuntayev.  It was impossible to identify the other corpses.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">54.\u00a0\u00a0According  to the ninth applicant, on 9 March 2002 federal military officers seized  a red VAZ 21099 car belonging to a resident of Stariye Atagi. The servicemen  hitched the car, which was parked in the vicinity of the poultry yard,  to an APC and towed it away.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">55.\u00a0\u00a0The  next day the villagers found the vehicle outside Stariye Atagi. It was  burnt and flattened. There were three bodies inside. They had been burnt  to a degree that made it impossible to identify them. The applicants  submitted photographs of the destroyed car with the burnt bodies in  it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">56.\u00a0\u00a0Before  the operation was over, the federal military officers forced the council  of elders and the head of administration of Stariye Atagi to sign a  declaration to the effect that there had been no incidents during the  operation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">57.\u00a0\u00a0On  13 March 2002, when the restrictions were lifted, the villagers brought  all the unidentified corpses to Grozny. It appears that they did not  manage to contact the authorities, and later that day they returned  the bodies to Stariye Atagi.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">58.\u00a0\u00a0On  14 or 15 March 2002 officers of the Grozny district office of the Interior  (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0420\u041e\u0412\u0414 \u0413\u0440\u043e\u0437\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0430<\/span>) took the corpses  to the village of Tolstoy-Yurt intending to send them on to Mozdok for  a forensic examination.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">59.\u00a0\u00a0On  1 April 2002 D., an investigator from the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the  Chechen Republic, delivered the bodies back to Stariye Atagi. The corpses  were wrapped in bags and were decomposed. They remained unidentified.  D. explained to the villagers that the prosecutor&#8217;s office had insufficient  funds to conduct the forensic examination of the corpses and that the  refrigerators in the forensic examination department in which they had  been kept had been out of order.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">60.\u00a0\u00a0On  3 April 2002 the residents of Stariye Atagi buried the unidentified  bodies.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0The Government&#8217;s account<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">61.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government confirmed that a sweeping operation had been conducted in  the village of Stariye Atagi from 6 to 13 March 2002. The aim of the  operation had been to find and arrest members of illegal armed groups  who had abducted and killed four servicemen of the FSB on 12\u00a0February  2002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">62.\u00a0\u00a0On  7 March 2002, at around 2 p.m., a fight broke out between members of  the illegal armed groups and federal servicemen in a house at 81 Nagornaya  Street. As a result of the use of small arms and grenade dispensers,  four members of the illegal armed group were killed. As the house was  set on fire, bodies were severely burnt; after an inspection by law-enforcement  officers they were handed over to the local administration for burial.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">63.\u00a0\u00a0On  9 March 2002 a group of servicemen was fired at from a car that was  driving along the road between Grozny and Shatoy within three kilometres  of Stariye Atagi. The servicemen fired back. The car was set on fire  and the three members of illegal armed groups in it were killed. Their  bodies were also severely burnt and handed over to the local administration  for burial.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">64.\u00a0\u00a0After  the operation had been completed, village residents lodged applications  concerning the apprehension and subsequent disappearance of eleven residents  of Stariye Atagi, including nine relatives of the present applicants.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0The applicants&#8217; search for their relatives<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">65.\u00a0\u00a0Immediately  after their family members had been apprehended, the applicants started  searching for them. Before the end of the sweeping operation, the search  was mostly conducted by women since it was dangerous for men to be seen  in the village.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">66.\u00a0\u00a0Between  6 and 11 March 2002 the mothers and other women from the families of  the apprehended persons repeatedly went to the poultry yard and the  mill and inquired after their relatives. One of the servicemen confirmed  that all the detained persons were being kept in the mill.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">67.\u00a0\u00a0On  9 March 2002, in reply to a query by Said-Selim Kanyaev&#8217;s relatives,  an officer of the rank of general, who introduced himself as Nikolay  Artemovich (in the applicants&#8217; opinion, General N.A. Kolbaskin), stated  that he had delivered all the detainees to the police and the FSB.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">68.\u00a0\u00a0On  11 March 2002 a representative of the federal military stated, in the  presence of Mr G., the head of the village administration, that all  the detainees had been taken to the village of Tolstoy-Yurt.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">69.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants lodged numerous separate and joint applications with prosecutors  of various levels, public bodies, including the President of Russia,  regional administrative authorities, including a deputy of the State  Duma, the Director of the FSB, the Head of the General Headquarters  of the Armed Forces of Russia (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0413\u0435\u043d\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0448\u0442\u0430\u0431\u0430 \u0412\u043e\u043e\u0440\u0443\u0436\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445  \u0441\u0438\u043b \u0420\u0424<\/span>), and the Special Envoy of the Russian President  in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0421\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c \u041f\u0440\u0435\u0437\u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430  \u0420\u0424 \u043f\u043e \u043e\u0431\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044e \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u0438 \u0441\u0432\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434 \u0447\u0435\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0435\u043a\u0430  \u0438 \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0434\u0430\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430 \u0432 \u0427\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0420\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0435<\/span>).  They also visited a number of State bodies. The applicants were supported  in their efforts by various human rights NGOs such as the SRJI, Memorial  and Human Rights Watch. In their letters to the authorities the applicants  and the NGOs referred to the facts of the disappearance of the applicants&#8217;  relatives, provided a description of them, asked for assistance in searching  for them, requested that the applicants be granted victim status and  complained of the absence of any developments in the investigation and  the lack of information on its progress. The applicants mainly received  formal responses informing them that their requests had been forwarded  to various prosecutor&#8217;s offices for examination.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">C.\u00a0The official investigation into the disappearance  of the applicants&#8217; relatives<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">70.\u00a0\u00a0On  13 March 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Grozny District (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430 \u0413\u0440\u043e\u0437\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0430<\/span>)  instituted a criminal investigation under Article\u00a0105\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02\u00a0(a) of the Russian  Criminal Code (murder of two or more persons) into the disappearance  of 13 residents of Stariye Atagi, including the applicants&#8217; relatives  and Mr Ismail Dzhamayev, Mr\u00a0Imran Kuntayev, Mr V. D. and Mr R. D., between  6 and 11 March 2002. The file was assigned the number\u00a056031.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">71.\u00a0\u00a0By  decision of 13 March 2002 the Government of the Chechen Republic set  up a commission for the investigation of the allegations of disappearance  of residents of Stariye Atagi during passport checks.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">72.\u00a0\u00a0On  15 March 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor&#8217;s Office granted victim status to  Mr A. Kh., a brother of Mr Timur Khadzhayev and to Mr S. K., the father  of Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, who were questioned on the same date.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">73.\u00a0\u00a0Mr  A. Kh. submitted:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> \u201c&#8230;[Mr] Timur Khadzhayev was my brother.  He was disabled &#8230; He was not a member of any illegal armed group.  He had no job. He lived in Nazran as a refugee. He came [to Stariye  Atagi to visit his family] on 4 March 2002&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 10 March 2002, at around 10 a.m., armed men  wearing camouflage and helmets rushed into our house through the orchard.  One of them was wearing a black sports cap and a black uniform&#8230; At  that time my mother, my sister, my brother Timur and my wife with the  children were in the yard. This man in black uniform took me and Timur  outside the gates and checked our passports after which he took us to  house no.\u00a022&#8230; There [in the yard] they stood us with our face against  the wall and made us stand with our legs apart. They put [Mr R. D.]  and [Mr V. D.] alongside us. For an hour and a half they beat us all  over our bodies. They did not ask any questions while they did this&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Then one of them, using a portable radio transmitter,  asked for our personal details and, after he received a reply, said  that everything was fine. They let the three of us go, but took my brother  Timur. We still do not know anything about his fate. On the same day  they took &#8230; [Mr R. D.] and [Mr V. D.]. Then they let [Mr R. D.] go&#8230;  and, according to rumour,[Mr V. D.] is being held in Chernokozovo. [Mr\u00a0R.\u00a0D.]  says he does not know anything about my brother&#8217;s fate. I don&#8217;t remember  whether [the armed men] called each other by their names. One of them,  who was wearing a camouflage uniform and a helmet, had &#8230; a scar across  his nose. I could recognise him and the other one who was wearing a  black uniform&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">74.\u00a0\u00a0Mr  S. K. submitted:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c[Mr] Said-Selim Kanayev&#8230; is my son.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 6 March 2002, at around 1 p.m., my son and  [Mr]\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov were taken away when they were in the yard of house  no. 19 in Polevaya Street.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">[Later] my son was escorted home and [the servicemen]  searched our house but did not find anything. I was not at home during  the search. When I learnt that my son had been apprehended, I went to  the head of the village administration. When I returned home I learnt  that&#8230; my wife had paid USD 300. It was Said-Selim who had asked for  money in the amount of 10,000 roubles to be given to them. [H]e had  said that he would then be released. His mother had given him the money.  Then one of [the servicemen] had permitted my son to talk to his relatives.  He had assured everybody that he would be released after the documents  had been checked. Nevertheless, they beat him and took him to the APC  and [then] took him away with them. Since then I have not had any news  of my son and I still do not know where he is.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On that day there were three APCs and other military  vehicles in our street, including an Ural and a UAZ, in which, according  to the residents, there was a general who was in charge of the operation  in our village.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">According to the eyewitnesses, &#8230; the vehicles&#8217;  registration plates were deliberately covered with mud.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 11 March, when the military convoy was leaving  the village after the operation, the mother of [Mr]\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov and  some other women were standing on a bridge as the convoy passed by.  They recognised several people in an APC as the ones who had taken my  son Said-Selim and [Mr]\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov away. They could remember the  registration plates of two APCs: no. 225 and no. 207. Some of the servicemen  who had apprehended my son and [Mr]\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov were in those very  APCs. One of them, who was the head of the group that had entered our  house, I could identify by his height and features. My son was not a  member of any illegal armed group&#8230; He helped me at home&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">75.\u00a0\u00a0On  16 March 2002 victim status was granted to the first applicant, who  was questioned on the same date. She submitted:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c&#8230;[Mr]\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov is my son. He was a  fourth-year student at the oil college. Throughout the whole year he  studied full time and did not skip lectures. He came home two days before  the \u201csweeping\u201d operation and stayed at home. When he left home,  he did not go far and always let me or his father know where he was  going.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 6 March, at around 11 a.m. or 12 noon, my  son and [Mr] Said-Selim Kanayev were apprehended by servicemen of the  Russian federal authorities in the yard of no.\u00a019 Polevaya Street. The  people who took them away were accompanied by three APCs, an Ural vehicle,  a light grey four-wheel drive UAZ vehicle and a blue UAZ car. The vehicles&#8217;  registration plates were deliberately covered with mud&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">I was at home and when I heard that my son and  [Mr] Said-Selim Kanayev had been apprehended, I went to the street and  saw [them] standing at the western side of the neighbours&#8217; mosque with  their hands against the wall. One of us was allowed to approach our  sons. After a while five or six people surrounded my son Alsan and brought  him to our home. Then Aslan told me that they wanted money in the amount  of 10,000 roubles and that he knew that we did have this money. My mother-in-law  entered the house and came out with USD 200 in two notes. She gave this  money to the senior officer. She told him that she had saved this money  for her funeral&#8230; The officer took the money and promised to let my  son go after the documents had been checked. I could recognise this  officer; he was around forty years old, about 1.90 metres tall, big  and fat, and was wearing sunglasses and a black headscarf; he had a  long thin nose. He did not give his name.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">They put Aslan in an APC and took him away. In  the evening [somebody] brought me his college record book that some  women had found in Ambulatornaya Street. When Aslan was apprehended,  he had the record book in his pocket together with his passport.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Since the day of Aslan&#8217;s apprehension, I and  some other women have stayed [everyday] until evening &#8230; near the filtration  point. On 9 [March] I and some other women saw a red VAZ 21099 car being  removed from the territory of the filtration point. [I]t was hitched  to an APC and taken down the road in the direction of the town. After  the sweeping operation this car was found six or seven kilometres away  from the village, 500 metres from the road. It was burnt and burnt bodies  were in it. To date I have no information about my son and his fate.  He was not a member of any illegal armed group&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">76.\u00a0\u00a0On  18 March 2002 victim status was granted to the seventh applicant, to  Ms R. P., the mother of Mr\u00a0Amir Pokayev, to Ms L. K., a sister of Mr\u00a0Imran  Kuntayev, and to Ms Kh. D., a relative of Mr V. D.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">77.\u00a0\u00a0The  seventh applicant submitted:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c&#8230;On 6 March 2002 a \u201csweeping\u201d operation  started in Stariye Atagi. On 9 March, at 8.30 a.m., the servicemen who  conducted the \u201csweeping\u201d operation took my son, Magomed, away&#8230;  I still do not know anything about his fate. When he was apprehended  he had a birth certificate&#8230; with him. He was taken away in two grey  UAZ four-wheel-drive vehicles and a green UAZ-469 car. The people who  took my son had firearms and were not wearing masks. I could recognise  them. They did not find anything at our home. They asked for his personal  details using a portable radio transmitter and said that he had to be  apprehended&#8230; They treated us in a polite manner. They promised that  they would check the houses and then let him go. Apart from him, nobody  was taken from this street. We were not let in to the filtration point  and I do not know whether he was taken there at all&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">78.\u00a0\u00a0Ms  R. P. submitted:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c[Mr]\u00a0Amir Pokayev was my son. On 6 March 2002  a \u201csweeping\u201d operation started in our village. That day I was in  Grozny and came back only in the evening. When I came home, I learnt  that at around 1.30 p.m. servicemen had arrived in armoured vehicles  with registration plates covered with mud, including three APCs, a green  UAZ-469 car and a grey four-wheel-drive UAZ vehicle. They had checked  the passports of all the men. They had kept my son Amir&#8217;s passport and  when my husband had asked what they needed it for, they had explained  that they had a computer in the car. There they would check [the passport]  and then let [Amir] go. At the same time [Mr\u00a0I.\u00a0S.], my husband&#8217;s nephew,  had been taken from his house and they had both been taken to the filtration  point. According to [Mr I. S.], when they had reached [the filtration  point], they had been placed in different APCs, following which [Mr  I. S.] had been taken to [the filtration point]. He did not know anything  about my son&#8217;s fate. According to my husband, the name of the person  who had taken our son away was Oleg. [O]n 9 March at 6 p.m. \u201cOleg\u201d  was shown in the TV programme <span class=\"Ju-005fQuot--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Vesti<\/span> next to the UGA commander Moltenskiy. [My husband said]  that [Oleg] was wearing a moustache and that he recognised him at once,  as well as some other people. All the servicemen who had taken my son  away were armed with Stechkin guns, machine guns with short barrels  and other weapons; some of them had armoured shields.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 10 [March] [Mr R. D.], who lived at Shkolnaya  Street, was also apprehended and held at the mill. In the pit [he was  held in] he saw an inscription \u201c[M.] and Amir were here]\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">My son had nothing to do with members of illegal  armed groups; he was repairing his car together with his father and  was helping me at home. When they took him away he was wearing a black  polo-neck, blue jeans, a beige sweater and dark blue trainers&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">79.\u00a0\u00a0On  5 April 2002 the local administration of Stariye Atagi (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u043c\u0435\u0441\u0442\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f \u0441\u0435\u043b\u0430 \u0421\u0442\u0430\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0410\u0442\u0430\u0433\u0438<\/span>)  issued the applicants with a certificate confirming that their nine  relatives and Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had been apprehended and taken away  by federal military officers between 6 and 11 March 2002 and had then  disappeared. The certificate was signed by the acting head of administration  of Stariye Atagi and bore an official stamp of the administration. It  read as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c[The present] certificate is issued by the  local administration of the village Stariye Atagi in respect of written  applications by the village&#8217;s residents, whose children were apprehended  and taken for passport check in the period between 6 and 10\u00a0March\u00a02002  during the special operation conducted by the federal troops.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The local administration thereby confirms that:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0The following residents of Stariye Atagi were  apprehended by the federal troops and taken to an unknown destination:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">on 6 March 2002 \u2013 Akhmadov Aslan Pavlovichm  born in 1982;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 99pt; text-indent: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> \u2013 Kanayev Said-Selim Saidovich, born in 1983,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 99pt; text-indent: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> \u2013 Dzhamayev Ismail Issayevich, born in 1981,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 99pt; text-indent: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> \u2013 Chagayev Islam Akhmadovich, born in 1982,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 99pt; text-indent: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> \u2013 Pokayev Amir Sharfutdinovich, born in 1982,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 21pt; text-indent: 7pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">on  8 March 2002 \u2013 Magomadov Ibragim Salmanovich, born in 1982,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 21pt; text-indent: 7pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">on  9 March 2002 \u2013 Isambayev Magomed Khasanovich, born in 1981,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 21pt; text-indent: 7pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">on  10 March 2002 \u2013 Zakayev Abdul-Naser Mustapayevich, born in 1965,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 99pt; text-indent: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> \u2013 Baysarov Adlan Sharputdinovich, born in 1972,<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 99pt; text-indent: 0pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> \u2013 Khadzhayev Timur Sultanovich, born in 1976.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 21pt; text-indent: 7pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0On  13 March 2002 the Grozny Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office instituted criminal  proceedings no. 56031 in respect of the disappearance of the above-named  persons following their relatives&#8217; applications; the investigation is  under way.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"margin-left: 21pt; text-indent: 7pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0A  governmental commission headed by the deputy chairman of the Government  of the Chechen Republic, Magomadov Nasrudin Nozhayevich, was created  (by governmental decree no. 188-rp of 13 March 2002) [to investigate]  the events.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">80.\u00a0\u00a0On  7 April 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Chechen Republic answered  a request received from Memorial, stating that on 13 March 2002 a criminal  investigation had been instituted under Article 105\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 (a) of the Russian  Criminal Code into the disappearance of 13 residents of Stariye Atagi,  including the applicants&#8217; relatives, between 6 and 11 March 2002. The  letter also stated that:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cOn 9 March 2002, at around 1 p.m., four burnt  corpses of unknown persons had been found in the mosque of Stariye Atagi.  An ensuing investigation established that on 7\u00a0March 2002, at around  1 p.m., fighting had broken out between servicemen and members of illegal  armed groups in the courtyard of the house at 81 Nagornaya Street. Both  parties opened heavy fire using various kinds of firearm, missile, grenade  and grenade launcher with the result that the house was burnt down.  On the same day, at around 6 p.m., &#8230; the local residents found and  apparently took to the mosque four corpses of unknown persons bearing  signs of a violent death. The identification of those persons is being  conducted in the context of the criminal proceedings in case no.\u00a056028  instituted by the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Grozny District under Articles  317, 30, 105 \u00a7 2 (a) and (e) of the Russian Criminal Code.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 9 March 2002, at around 3 p.m., a VAZ 21099  vehicle approached a checkpoint of military unit 3179 situated about  4 km away from the outskirts of Stariye Atagi on the road between Chechen-Aul  and Stariye Atagi. In response to [the servicemen&#8217;s] order to stop the  car and produce identity papers, shots were fired from the car. During  the shoot-out four passengers were killed and the car was burnt. During  the examination of the vehicle the remains of a AKM machine gun, a hand  grenade launcher and RGD-5 grenades without fuses were found and seized.  In this connection, on 12 March 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the  Grozny District initiated criminal proceedings in case no. 56030 under  Article 317 of the Russian Criminal Code. The identities of the persons  killed in the car have not yet been established.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">81.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants alleged that the VAZ 21099 car referred to in the letter  was the one seized by the federal military on 9 March 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">82.\u00a0\u00a0On  13 May 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Grozny District suspended  the criminal proceedings in case no. 56031 on account of the failure  to establish the identity of the culprits.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">83.\u00a0\u00a0On  26 June 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Chechen Republic quashed  the decision to suspend the investigation. On 17 July 2002 the case  was taken up again by the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Grozny District.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">84.\u00a0\u00a0In  letters of 18 July 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Chechen Republic  notified the first and ninth applicants and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev&#8217;s  mother that on 13 March 2002 criminal proceedings in case no.\u00a056031 had  been brought in connection with the disappearance of their relatives  and that the preliminary investigation had been resumed on 22\u00a0June 2002  and was now in progress.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">85.\u00a0\u00a0On  25 July 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Grozny District informed  the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 that the preliminary  investigation in criminal case no. 56031 had established, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">inter alia<\/span>, that the servicemen who had detained Mr Said-Selim  Kanayev had travelled in APCs with hull numbers 225, 207 and 313, and  requested, in this connection, to verify to what detachment and military  unit those APCs belonged, the person or persons who had been in charge  of the operation and the persons who had formed the crew of the said  vehicles.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">86.\u00a0\u00a0On  21 August 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no.\u00a020102 informed  the applicants that their allegations that their relatives had disappeared  during the sweeping operation in Stariye Atagi had been investigated  and that criminal proceedings in criminal cases nos.\u00a014\/33\/0184-02 and  14\/33\/0185-02 had been instituted in connection with the combat between  the servicemen and the members of the illegal armed groups and as regards  the discovery of four bodies bearing signs of a violent death in a burnt  car on the road from Chechen-Aul to Stariye Atagi. The letter continued  as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cThe preliminary investigation established  that on 9 March 2002, during the special operation in the village of  Stariye Atagi, the servicemen of military unit no. 3228 under the command  of Senior Lieutenant Z. were checking vehicles going out of the village  of Stariye Atagi, since, in accordance with intelligence received, members  of illegal armed groups stationed in Stariye Atagi were planning an  attack on this road.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">At around 3 p.m. a VAZ 21099 car approached the  servicemen of military unit no.\u00a03228 under the command of Z. In reply  to the servicemen&#8217;s order to stop, machine-gun fire was opened from  the car. The servicemen opened return fire with the result that the  car started burning. Subsequently three burnt corpses of unidentified  persons were found in it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 18 May 2002 the criminal proceedings brought  in connection with the servicemen&#8217;s use of firearms were discontinued&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The preliminary investigation in case no. 14\/33\/0185-02  established that on 7\u00a0March\u00a02002, at around 1 p.m., in the courtyard of  the house at 81 Nagornaya Street, in the course of the operation to  locate and detain members of illegal armed groups, fighting had broken  out between the servicemen of military unit no. 3228 under the command  of Major V. and rebel fighters (<span class=\"Ju-005fQuot--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">boyevik<\/span>), the latter having hidden in the house and opened  machine-gun fire. The servicemen inflicted fire damage, using, <span class=\"Ju-005fQuot--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">inter alia<\/span>,  RPG-26 weapons with the result that the house caught fire. During the  ensuing examination of the house four burnt bodies were found, one of  whom was identified by [Ms K.] as her brother, [Mr] Imran Kuntayev.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 10 May 2002 the criminal proceedings brought  in connection with the servicemen&#8217;s use of firearms were discontinued&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Accordingly, no involvement on the part of the  servicemen in the abduction of [the applicants&#8217; relatives] has ever  been established &#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">87.\u00a0\u00a0On  9 October 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Grozny District sent the  case file to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 for  investigation. The case file was given the number 34\/33\/0657-02.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">88.\u00a0\u00a0By  a letter of 14 October 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit  no.\u00a020102 replied to a query of the SRJI concerning the search for Mr\u00a0Said-Selim  Kanayev. It stated that, upon the termination of the special operation  in the village of Stariye Atagi, the head of the administration, Mr\u00a0G.,  signed a statement to the effect that he had no complaints in respect  of the servicemen, but lacked information as regards six residents of  Stariye Atagi, including Mr Said-Selim Kanayev. The letter went on to  say that the investigating authorities had inspected the scene of the  crime and questioned the relatives of the missing persons on several  occasions so as to verify the version that residents of the village,  including Mr Kanayev, had been among the members of the illegal armed  groups killed during the combat. However, the identities of the persons  killed during the combat had not yet been established. The letter further  stated that the allegations to the effect that the servicemen who had  detained Mr Said-Selim Kanayev had claimed money for his release were  unfounded, and that \u2013 according to the information provided by the  Chechen Department of the FSB (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0423\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u0424\u0421\u0411 \u0420\u0424 \u043f\u043e \u0427\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439<\/span> <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0420\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0435<\/span>) \u2013 Mr Said-Selim Kanayev had been a  member of an illegal armed group. Finally, the letter re-stated the  events of 7 and 9\u00a0March 2002 concerning the combat between the federal  servicemen and the alleged rebel fighters as this had been described  in the letter of the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102  dated 21 August 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">89.\u00a0\u00a0On  25 October 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no.\u00a020102 replied  in a similar vein to a query by the NGO Human Rights Watch relating  to the identification of the remains found in Stariye Atagi during the  sweeping operation of 6 \u2013 11 March 2002. The letter stated, in particular,  that there was no evidence to confirm that the federal military had  detained the six residents of Stariye Atagi listed in the statement  of the head of administration and that, according to the Chechen Department  of the FSB of Russia, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev and Mr Aslan Akhmadov had  participated in the activities of illegal armed groups.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">90.\u00a0\u00a0On  26 October 2002 the military prosecutor of military unit no.\u00a020102 suspended  the investigation on account of the failure to establish the identity  of the culprits. The decision read, in particular:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cDuring the period from 6 to 10 March 2002,  in the course of a special operation in the village of Stariye Atagi,  unidentified servicemen abducted thirteen residents of the village:  A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, I. Kuntayev, I. A. Chagayev,  A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev, I. S. Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov, T.\u00a0S.\u00a0Khadzhayev,  [V. D.], [R. D.], N. Zakayev.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Upon the completion of the operation on 13 March  2002 [V. D.] and [R. D.] were released. The whereabouts of the other  residents of Stariye Atagi who were apprehended has not been established&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In the course of the investigative actions &#8230;  person(s) who had committed the offence were not identified&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">91.\u00a0\u00a0Relatives  of the disappeared persons were notified of the decision to suspend  the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">92.\u00a0\u00a0In  a letter of 11 November 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Chechen  Republic informed the OSCE assistance group (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0413\u0440\u0443\u043f\u043f\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0438\u044f \u041e\u0411\u0421\u0415<\/span> <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0432 \u0427\u0435\u0447\u043d\u0435<\/span>) that criminal proceedings had been initiated  on 13 March 2002 in connection with the disappearance of the applicants&#8217;  relatives and an investigation was currently under way.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">93.\u00a0\u00a0On  14 December 2002 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA quashed  the decision to suspend the investigation for the following reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cThe decision was unfounded since in the course  of the preliminary investigation not all the investigative measures  aimed at identifying persons involved in the disappearance of the named  residents of Stariye Atagi were taken. [In particular,] the military  units that had conducted the special operation in the village were not  identified, the commanders of these units were not questioned, the persons  who had conducted a check and apprehended the [disappeared residents]  were not identified. Therefore, the preliminary investigation should  be reopened.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">94.\u00a0\u00a0On  23 December 2002 the case was taken up again by the military prosecutor  of military unit no. 20102. Relatives of the disappeared persons were  notified of the reopening of the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">95.\u00a0\u00a0On  23 January 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no.\u00a020102 suspended  the investigation on account of the failure to identify persons to be  charged with the offence. Relatives of the disappeared persons were  notified of the decision to suspend the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">96.\u00a0\u00a0By  letter of 18 March 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no.\u00a020102  replied to the query lodged by the SRJI on the applicants&#8217; behalf and  stated that in the file of criminal case no. 56031 opened in relation  to the abduction of the applicants&#8217; relatives there was no indication  that the federal servicemen had been involved in the alleged offence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">97.\u00a0\u00a0On  2 April 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 notified  the SRJI that the case file of the investigation instituted in connection  with the disappearance of the applicants&#8217; relatives had been returned  to the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Chechen Republic, as the military  prosecutor had no competence over the case in the absence of evidence  of the military personnel&#8217;s involvement in the alleged offence.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">98.\u00a0\u00a0On  24 April 2003 the SRJI requested the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Chechen  Republic to grant the applicants victim status and inform them of the  latest developments in the case.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">99.\u00a0\u00a0On  26 June 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 quashed  the decision of 23 January 2003 and reopened the investigation. Relatives  of the disappeared persons were notified of the reopening.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">100.\u00a0\u00a0On  27 July 2003 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 suspended  the investigation on account of the failure to identify persons to be  charged with the offence. Relatives of the disappeared persons were  notified of the decision.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">101.\u00a0\u00a0On  7 August 2003 the SRJI sent a request to the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office  of the UGA. The request read as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cFrom 6 to 11 March 2002 a special operation  of the federal forces was conducted in the village of Stariye Atagi.  In the course of the operation representatives of the federal forces  apprehended and took to an unknown destination the following residents  of Stariye Atagi: A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev, I. A.  Chagayev, I. S. Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov, T.\u00a0S.\u00a0Khadzhayev,  A.\u00a0N. Zakayev&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Upon the completion of the operation six unidentified  bodies were found in Stariye Atagi. On 14 or 15 March 2002 officers  of the Grozny District Office of the Interior took the unidentified  bodies away. On 1 April 2002 investigator [U. D.] of the Prosecutor&#8217;s  Office of the Chechen Republic brought the decomposed bodies back to  Stariye Atagi. He told the residents of the village that the bodies  had been brought from Mozdok where they had allegedly had to be identified  by means of a forensic medical examination. However, no examination  had taken place because, according to [U. D.], the refrigerators in  the bureau of forensic examination had not been working and, furthermore,  the prosecutor&#8217;s office had not had sufficient funds for the examination.  After that the residents of Stariye Atagi buried the bodies in a common  grave.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8230;[w]e ask you:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8211; to grant victim status to [the close relatives]  of the disappeared persons and to provide them with copies of the [relevant]  decision;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8211; to provide us with an update of the investigation;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8211; to inform us whether relatives of the persons  apprehended during the special operation in Stariye Atagi between 6  and 11 Match 2002 and other eyewitnesses were questioned;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8211; to order exhumation of the remains of the unidentified  bodies buried by the residents of Stariye Atagi in a common grave and  refer them to a forensic examination in order to identify them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">102.\u00a0\u00a0On  29 October 2003 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA quashed  the decision of 27 July 2003 to suspend the investigation on the ground  that the whereabouts of unspecified witnesses had been established which  required further investigative actions. Relatives of the disappeared  persons were notified of the reopening.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">103.\u00a0\u00a0On  1 December 2003 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA informed  the second applicant that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction  of the missing persons had not been established. It was also stated  that all questions concerning the investigation should be addressed  to the Grozny District Prosecutor&#8217;s Office.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">104.\u00a0\u00a0On  9 December 2003 the FSB Department in the Chechen Republic informed  the first, second and tenth applicants that it had no information about  the whereabouts of A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, I.\u00a0A.  Chagayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev, I. S. Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A.\u00a0Baysarov,  T.\u00a0S.\u00a0Khadzhayev or A.\u00a0N. Zakayev. They had neither been placed on a wanted  list nor suspected of unlawful activity. They had not been detained  by FSB officers either.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">105.\u00a0\u00a0On  17 January 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA granted  victim status to the tenth applicant.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">106.\u00a0\u00a0On  16 February 2002 the Ministry of the Interior informed the second applicant  that since March 2002 its officers had not conducted any special operations  in Stariye Atagi and had not detained any of the village&#8217;s residents.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">107.\u00a0\u00a0On  19 March 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA suspended  the investigation. The decision read:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cDuring the period from 6 to 13 March 2002  servicemen from the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior  and the Ministry of the Defence, officials of the Ministry of the Interior  and the FSB conducted a special operation in the village of Stariye  Atagi&#8230; aimed at the identification, arrest and extermination of members  of an illegal armed group and the search for four servicemen of the  FSB who had gone missing.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The special operation was headed by the Deputy  Commander of the UGA Major-General G. S. Borisov.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">At around 2 p.m. on 7 March 2002 fighting broke  out with members of illegal armed groups in Nagornaya Street. Servicemen  of the units Alpha and 1 pSpN (1\u00a0\u043f\u0421\u043f\u041d) were involved in the fight.  The scene of the fighting was blocked by servicemen of the unit 48 PON  (48 \u041f\u041e\u041d). As a result of the fighting six members of the illegal  armed group who had resisted with arms were killed. [Their] bodies were  severely burnt [and were not] identified.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 8 March 2002 in Stariye Atagi servicemen of  the units 1 pSpN, 348 and 349 OBON (348 \u0438 349 \u041e\u0411\u041e\u041d) killed two  members of an illegal armed group, E. B. and Z.\u00a0S., who had resisted  them with arms.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">At around 4 p.m. on 9 March 2002 in Stariye Atagi  servicemen of the unit 1 pSpN killed three members of the illegal armed  group who were in a car and resisted with arms. [Their] bodies were  severely damaged and burnt [and were not] identified.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">During the period when the special operation  was being conducted unidentified persons in camouflage uniform accompanied  by cars and armoured vehicles abducted [the following] residents of  Stariye Atagi: A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I.\u00a0Dzhamayev, I. Kuntayev,  I. A. Chagayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev, I. S. Magomadov, M.\u00a0Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov,  T.\u00a0S.\u00a0Khadzhayev, A. N. Zakayev.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Taking into account that the term of the preliminary  investigation has expired and that the investigative measures that could  be taken in the absence of a suspect have been completed, [the investigation  should be suspended].\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">108.\u00a0\u00a0Relatives  of the disappeared persons were notified of the decision to suspend  the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">109.\u00a0\u00a0On  22 May 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA quashed the  decision and reopened the investigation. Relatives of the disappeared  persons were informed accordingly.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">110.\u00a0\u00a0On  24 May 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA ordered a forensic  molecular-genetic expert examination of six unidentified bodies out  of the seven bodies buried at the village cemetery.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">111.\u00a0\u00a0On  17 June 2004 a forensic report was drawn up according to which the remains  of the six bodies found at the cemetery were those of Mr\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov,  Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr\u00a0Islam Chagayev, Mr Ibragim  Magomadov and Mr Ismail Dzhamayev.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">112.\u00a0\u00a0On  22 June 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA again suspended  the investigation. The decision read:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cDuring the period from 6 to 13 March 2002  servicemen from the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior  and the Ministry of the Defence, officials of the Ministry of the Interior  and the FSB conducted a special operation in the village of Stariye  Atagi&#8230; aimed at the identification, arrest and extermination of members  of an illegal armed group and the search for four servicemen of the  FSB who had gone missing.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">According to the materials from the case file,  at around 2 p.m. on 7 March 2002 fighting broke out with members of  illegal armed groups in Nagornaya Street. Servicemen of the FSB and  the military unit 3179 were involved in the fighting. The scene of the  fighting was blocked by servicemen of military unit 3656. In the course  of the fight six members of the illegal armed group were killed. [Their]  bodies were severely burnt. No measures were taken to identify them.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 8 March 2002 in the same village servicemen  of military units 3179, 6779 and 6780 killed two members of the illegal  armed group, E. B. and Z. S., who had resisted them with arms.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">At around 4 p.m. on 9 March 2002 in Stariye Atagi  servicemen of military unit 3179 killed three members of the illegal  armed group who were in a car. [Their] bodies were severely damaged  and burnt. No measures were taken to identify them.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">At the same time, according to applications and  statements by residents of Stariye Atagi, during the period when the  special operation was being conducted unidentified persons in camouflage  uniform accompanied by cars and armoured vehicles abducted A. P. Akhmadov,  S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, I. Kuntayev, I. A. Chagayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev,  I.\u00a0S.\u00a0Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Baysarov, T.\u00a0S.\u00a0Khadzhayev, A.\u00a0N.\u00a0Zakayev.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In the course of the investigation the bodies  of the members of the illegal armed groups buried in the cemetery of  Stariye Atagi were exhumed and body tissue taken from them; blood samples  were taken from relatives of the abducted persons. According to the  medical opinion no. 52\/2004, the forensic (molecular-genetic) expert  examination showed that the remains found at the cemetery were those  of I.\u00a0A.\u00a0Chagayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev, S.-S. Kanayev, I. Dzhamayev, A. P. Akhmadov  and I.\u00a0S.\u00a0Magomadov&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Taking into account that the term of the preliminary  investigation has expired and that the investigative measures that could  be taken in the absence of a suspect have been completed, [the investigation  should be suspended].\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">113.\u00a0\u00a0Relatives  of the disappeared persons were notified of the decision to suspend  the investigation. It appears, however, that they were not provided  with copies of the expert reports. On 8 October 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s  Office of the UGA invited relatives of Mr Islam Chagayev, Mr\u00a0Magomed  Isambayev and Mr Timur Khadzhayev to study the expert report at the  investigation department in Khankala. However, on 12\u00a0October\u00a02004 it wrote  to relatives of the ten disappeared persons telling them that the investigator&#8217;s  refusal to provide them with copies of the expert report had been lawful  since they could only study the case file upon the completion of the  preliminary investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">114.\u00a0\u00a0On  6 November 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA quashed  the decision and reopened the investigation. Relatives of the disappeared  persons were informed accordingly.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">115.\u00a0\u00a0On  6 December 2004 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA suspended  the investigation again. Apart from restating the facts set out in the  decision of 22 June 2004, the decision also contained the following  information:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cAccording to the FSB, Akhmadov and Zakayev  were members of an illegal armed group, and the sister of [Mr] Kuntayev,  a resident of Stariye Atagi, &#8230; had been trained for a terrorist suicide  attack and in the beginning of October 2003 had left for an unknown  destination in order to commit an act of terrorism as a \u201ckamikaze\u201d.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">116.\u00a0\u00a0Relatives  of the disappeared persons were notified of the decision.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">117.\u00a0\u00a0On  31 December 2005 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA wrote to  the SRJI stating, in particular, that while the seventh and tenth applicants  had been granted victim status, the eighth and eleventh applicants would  be granted victim status if it were established that there were grounds  for such a decision.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">118.\u00a0\u00a0According  to the Government, on an unspecified date the sixth applicant was granted  victim status.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">119.\u00a0\u00a0On  10 January 2006 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA quashed  the decision of 6 December 2004 and reopened the investigation on the  following grounds:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cIn the course of the investigation significant  discrepancies between statements by residents of Stariye Atagi and servicemen  concerning the detention of the [disappeared] persons and their possible  death as a result of the fighting on 7 and 9\u00a0March 2002 &#8230; were not  resolved. Witness statements in this regard were not duly verified and  recorded.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The investigating authorities did not take comprehensive  measures in order to establish the specific places where the bodies  of A. P. Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I.\u00a0Dzhamayev, I.\u00a0A.\u00a0Chagayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev,  and I. S. Magomadov, who, according to their relatives, had been apprehended  together with the other residents of the village, had been found.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Up until now the whereabouts and the fate of  other residents of Stariye Atagi who have been missing since the operation  was conducted in March 2002 have not been established.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In such circumstances the decision to suspend  the preliminary investigation should be quashed and the investigation  resumed.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">120.\u00a0\u00a0On  7 July 2006 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA ordered a forensic  molecular-genetic expert examination in order to establish whether the  bodies of Mr Timur Khadzhayev, Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr\u00a0Abdul-Naser Zakayev  and Mr Shamsudi Baysarov could have been among the unidentified bodies  transferred to the 16<sup>th<\/sup> State Centre of Forensic Expert Examination  of the North-Caucasia Military District (<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">16<\/span><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> \u0413\u0426 \u0421\u041c \u0438 \u041a\u042d \u0421\u041a\u0412\u041e<\/span>) after 13 March 2002. The conclusions  of the forensic report were negative.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">121.\u00a0\u00a0On  9 September 2006 the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA ordered  another forensic molecular-genetic expert examination. The order read,  in particular:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cDuring the period from 6 to 13 March 2002  servicemen from the internal troops of the Ministry of the Interior  and the Ministry of the Defence, officials of the Ministry of the Interior,  the Ministry of Justice and the FSB conducted a special operation in  the village of Stariye Atagi&#8230; aimed at the identification, arrest  and extermination of members of illegal armed groups. During the operation  unidentified persons in camouflage uniform accompanied by cars and armoured  vehicles abducted A.\u00a0P.\u00a0Akhmadov, S.-S. Kanayev, I. I. Dzhamayev, I. A.  Chagayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Pokayev, I.\u00a0S.\u00a0Magomadov, M. Kh. Isambayev, A. Sh. Baysarov,  T.\u00a0S.\u00a0Khadzhayev, A.\u00a0N.\u00a0Zakayev.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In the course of the operation a house situated  in Nagornaya Street was shelled and blown up, a red VAZ 21099 car with  members of an illegal armed group in it was burned and crushed by an  APC.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 7 March 2002 four burnt bodies were found  in the house in Nagornaya Street. On 10 March 2002 three other burnt  bodies were found in a car on the outskirts of Stariye Atagi&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Hitherto the whereabouts of A.\u00a0N.\u00a0Zakayev, M. Kh.  Isambayev, A.\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Baysarov and T.\u00a0S.\u00a0Khadzhayev have not been established.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">On 17 March 2004 two unidentified bodies were  found in Stariye Atagi; their hair fascicles were seized.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The  experts had to establish whether the hair fascicles could belong to  Mr Timur Khadzhayev, Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr\u00a0Abdul-Naser Zakayev or  Mr Shamsudi Baysarov. The conclusions of the forensic report were negative.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">122.\u00a0\u00a0In  their submissions made prior to the decision as to admissibility of  the present application, the applicants submitted that they had no information  about any results of the investigation. The tenth applicant also submitted  that her requests for a confrontation with the representatives of the  federal armed forces had remained unanswered and that the investigating  authorities had never questioned her son and daughter who had witnessed  the apprehension of Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev. Together with their submissions  made after the decision as to admissibility the applicant enclosed copies  of the three reports of forensic molecular-genetic expert examinations.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">123.\u00a0\u00a0In  their submissions made prior to the decision as to admissibility, the  Government stated that the case was being investigated by the military  prosecuting authorities and that the case file had been given no.\u00a034\/00\/0014-03.  They further noted that the case file contained conflicting statements  by the residents of Stariye Atagi and federal servicemen who had participated  in the special operation and in the fighting with the members of illegal  armed groups. At the same time some of the residents living next to  81\u00a0Nagornaya Street confirmed that there had been fighting with members  of illegal armed groups who had resisted the servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">124.\u00a0\u00a0In  their submissions made after the decision as to admissibility, the Government  informed the Court that the investigation in case no.\u00a034\/00\/0014-03 had  been discontinued on 26 March 2007 on account of the absence of any  indication of a crime allegedly committed by servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">D.\u00a0Alleged harassment of the first applicant<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">125.\u00a0\u00a0On  3 June 2005 the SRJI notified the Court that on 31 May 2005 a large  group of federal servicemen had arrived in ten UAZ cars and several  armoured UAZ vehicles at the first applicant&#8217;s house in Stariye Atagi.  According to eyewitness statements, about 100 military officers surrounded  and then searched the first applicant&#8217;s house and seven neighbouring  ones, producing no search warrants. The military had camouflage uniforms  and spoke Russian.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">126.\u00a0\u00a0Having  entered the first applicant&#8217;s house, the military ordered the first  applicant&#8217;s husband, Mr Pavel Akhmadov, to lie down and pointed their  rifles at him. The first applicant&#8217;s youngest son, Mr Rustam Akhmadov,  was forced to stand against the wall. The first applicant and other  residents attempted to find out the reasons for the servicemen&#8217;s actions,  but the latter ignored their questions.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">127.\u00a0\u00a0The  servicemen had photographs of the first applicant&#8217;s third son, Mr\u00a0Magomed  Akhmadov, a student at Grozny University, who was away at that time,  and seized some more from the applicant&#8217;s house. They compared the photographs  and repeatedly asked the local residents about Mr\u00a0Magomed Akhmadov&#8217;s  distinguishing marks. After the search the military left. The whole  operation lasted for three hours and was well organised.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">128.\u00a0\u00a0On  the same day the military stopped and searched a student shuttle bus  running between Stariye Atagi and Grozny. According to the statements  of the students who were in the bus at that time, the servicemen inquired  after Mr Magomed Akhmadov and asked where he could be found. Following  those events, the first applicant&#8217;s son, Mr Magomed Akhmadov, had to  leave his home in Stariye Atagi and was unable to go to Grozny University  to take his final exams in June 2005, fearing for his safety.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"text-indent: 14pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">129.\u00a0\u00a0In  view of the seriousness of the allegations, on 3 June 2005 the Court  invited the Russian Government to submit comments on the SRJI&#8217;s letter.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Normal\" style=\"text-indent: 14pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">130.\u00a0\u00a0On  24 June 2005 the Government submitted a reply prepared by the Prosecutor  General&#8217;s Office stating that on 31 May 2005 the federal servicemen  had conducted a search for members of the illegal armed groups who had  participated in a clash that had taken place in Stariye Atagi on 18\u00a0May  2005. During the search the servicemen came to the first applicant&#8217;s  house and inquired where the other members of her family were and whether  any members of the illegal armed groups were hiding at her house. According  to the Government, the first applicant herself decided to show a photograph  of her son to the servicemen and suggested that she bring him to the  local police station upon his return from Grozny, but the servicemen  insisted that he was not the person they were looking for. They were  polite and did not ask any questions concerning the Court.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">131.\u00a0\u00a0On  19 July 2005 the SRJI furnished the Court with the first applicant&#8217;s  comments and a number of witness statements, including those of the  first applicant&#8217;s daughter. The first applicant stated that on 10\u00a0June\u00a02005  a group of servicemen and officers of a district prosecutor&#8217;s office  arrived at her house and interrogated her about the events of 31\u00a0May\u00a02005.  According to the first applicant, in the group there were several servicemen  who had raided her house on 31 May 2005. They asked her why she had  complained to higher instances, why she had indicated that there had  been persons of Russian origin and whether anybody had been beaten or  anything had been stolen from her. According to the first applicant&#8217;s  daughter, Mr\u00a0Magomed Akhmadov managed to take his final exam on 11 June  2005.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">132.\u00a0\u00a0On  30 May 2006 the Grozny District Office of the Interior (ROVD) replied  in writing to the Chairman of the Bar of the Urus-Martan District. The  reply read:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c[We hereby] inform you that Magomed Pavlovich  Akhmadov born in 1981 residing in Stariye Atagi &#8230; is not on the wanted  list of [the Grozny ROVD]. He is not charged in connection with criminal  proceedings conducted by [the Grozny ROVD] or the Grozny District Prosecutor&#8217;s  Office. However, [the Grozny ROVD] has information that Magomed Pavlovich  Akhmadov is an active member of an illegal armed group which formed  part of a gang under the command of emir Timur Alviyevich Maayev, killed  on 9 May 2006. At present Magomed Pavlovich Akhmadov is hiding from  the authorities.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">133.\u00a0\u00a0On  12 February 2008 the first applicant wrote to the SRJI and said that  on 1 February 2008 she and her husband and on 9\u00a0February\u00a02008 she and  her daughter had been questioned in respect of her son, Mr\u00a0Magomed Akhmadov.  They had been asked, in particular, about his whereabouts and when they  had last talked to him.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">E.\u00a0The Court&#8217;s request for the case file<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">134.\u00a0\u00a0Despite  specific requests made by the Court on several occasions, the Government  did not submit a copy of the file in criminal case no.\u00a056031 (at present  no. 34\/00\/0014-03), having provided only copies of decisions to suspend  and resume the investigation and to grant victim status and of the records  of the interviews held in March 2002. Relying on the information obtained  from the Prosecutor General&#8217;s Office, the Government stated that the  investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would  be in violation of Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure,  since the file contained information of a military nature and personal  data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal  proceedings. At the same time the Government suggested that a Court  delegation could have access to the file at the place where the preliminary  investigation was being conducted, with the exception of \u201cthe documents  [disclosing military information and personal data of the witnesses],  and without the right to make copies of the case file and transmit it  to others\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0The Code of Criminal Procedure<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">135.\u00a0\u00a0Until  1 July 2002 criminal-law matters were governed by the 1960 Code of Criminal  Procedure of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic).  On 1 July 2002 the old Code was replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure  of the Russian Federation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">136.\u00a0\u00a0Article  125 of the new CCP lays down a judicial procedure for the consideration  of complaints. Orders of an investigator or prosecutor refusing to institute  criminal proceedings or terminate a case, and other orders and acts  or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights  and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede a citizen&#8217;s  access to justice may be appealed against to a local district court,  which is empowered to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned  decisions.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">137.\u00a0\u00a0Article  161 of the new CCP prohibits the disclosure of information from the  preliminary investigation file. Under part 3 of the Article, information  from the investigation file may be divulged only with the permission  of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe  the rights and lawful interests of the parties to the criminal proceedings  or prejudice the investigation. Divulging information about the private  lives of parties to criminal proceedings without their permission is  prohibited.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0The Law on the Suppression of Terrorism<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">138.\u00a0\u00a0Federal  Law no. 130-FZ of 25 July 1998 on the Suppression of Terrorism (<span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439  \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d \u043e\u0442 25\u00a0\u0438\u044e\u043b\u044f 1998 \u0433. \u2116 130-\u0424\u0417 \u00ab\u041e \u0431\u043e\u0440\u044c\u0431\u0435 \u0441  \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0440\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0437\u043c\u043e\u043c\u00bb<\/span><\/span>) provides as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Section 3. Basic Concepts<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cFor the purposes of the present Federal Law  the following basic concepts shall be applied:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8230; &#8216;suppression of terrorism&#8217; shall refer to  activities aimed at the prevention, detection, suppression and minimisation  of the consequences of terrorist activities;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8216;counter-terrorist operation&#8217; shall refer to  special activities aimed at the prevention of terrorist acts, ensuring  the security of individuals, neutralising terrorists and minimising  the consequences of terrorist acts;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8216;zone of a counter-terrorist operation&#8217; shall  refer to an individual terrain or water surface, means of transport,  building, structure or premises with adjacent territory where a counter-terrorist  operation is conducted;\u00a0&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Section 13. Legal regime in the zone of an  anti-terrorist operation<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c1. In the zone of an anti-terrorist operation,  the persons conducting the operation shall be entitled:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8230; (2) to check the identity documents of private  persons and officials and, where they have no identity documents, to  detain them for identification;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(3) to detain persons who have committed or are  committing offences or other acts in defiance of the lawful demands  of persons engaged in an anti-terrorist operation, including acts of  unauthorised entry or attempted entry to the zone of the anti-terrorist  operation, and to convey such persons to the local bodies of the Ministry  of the Interior of the Russian Federation;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(4) to enter private residential or other premises  &#8230; and means of transport while suppressing a terrorist act or pursuing  persons suspected of committing such an act, when a delay may jeopardise  human life or health;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(5) to search persons, their belongings and vehicles  entering or exiting the zone of an anti-terrorist operation, including  with the use of technical means;\u00a0&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Section 15. Informing the public about terrorist  acts<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c&#8230;2. Information that cannot be released  to the public includes:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(1) information disclosing the special methods,  techniques and tactics of an anti-terrorist operation; &#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(4) information on members of special units,  officers of the operational centre managing an anti-terrorist operation  and persons assisting in carrying out such operation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Section 21. Exemption from liability for damage<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">In accordance with the legislation and within  the limits established by it, damage may be caused to the life, health  and property of terrorists, as well as to other legally-protected interests,  in the course of conducting an anti-terrorist operation. However, servicemen,  experts and other persons engaged in the suppression of terrorism shall  be exempted from liability for such damage, in accordance with the legislation  of the Russian Federation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fHead\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">THE LAW<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">I.\u00a0\u00a0THE GOVERNMENT&#8217;S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties&#8217; submissions<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">139.\u00a0\u00a0In  their submissions made prior to the decision as to admissibility of  the present application, the Government contended that the application  should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,  since the applicants had failed to challenge either before a higher  prosecutor or a court any actions or omissions of the investigating  authorities during the investigation, as provided by Chapter 16 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure. They also pointed out that the applicants  had not lodged a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage under  Articles 1067-69 of the Civil Code. In their submissions made after  the decision as to admissibility, the Government stated that the applicants  had not appealed against the decision of 26 March 2007 to discontinue  the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">140.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants disputed that objection. They maintained that they had exhausted  all domestic remedies which could be adequate and effective. The applicants  submitted that the criminal-law remedies invoked by the Government were  not effective in the Chechen Republic. They pointed out that applicants  in other cases raising similar issues had lodged complaints under Article  125 of the Code on Criminal procedure, but that these had been to no  avail. The applicants further argued that the civil-law remedies relied  on by the Government could not be considered effective since their outcome  would depend on the results of the criminal investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court&#8217;s assessment<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">141.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court refers to its the decision as to admissibility of 10\u00a0January\u00a02008  in which it dismissed the Government&#8217;s objection in the part related  to civil-law remedies. However, at the admissibility stage the Court  took no decision about the exhaustion of domestic criminal-law remedies,  having found that this question was too closely linked to the merits.  It will now proceed to examine the arguments of the parties in the light  of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a  relevant summary, see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Estamirov and Others v. Russia<\/span>, no. 60272\/00, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a073-74, 12\u00a0October  2006).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">142.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that the applicants complained to the law-enforcement  authorities immediately after the disappearance of their family members  and that an investigation has been pending since 13 March 2002. The  applicants and the Government disputed the effectiveness of this investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">143.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court will examine these matters below under the substantive provisions  of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  2 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">144.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that some of  their family members had disappeared and some had been killed after  having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities  had failed to carry out an effective investigation of the matter. Article  2 reads:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone&#8217;s right to life shall be protected  by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the  execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime  for which this penalty is provided by law.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as  inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the  use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(a)\u00a0\u00a0in defence of any person from unlawful violence;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(b)\u00a0\u00a0in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent  the escape of a person lawfully detained;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(c)\u00a0\u00a0in action lawfully taken for the purpose of  quelling a riot or insurrection.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A.\u00a0\u00a0The alleged violation of the right to life  of Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr Islam  Chagayev and Mr Ibragim Magomadov<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0Arguments of the parties<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">145.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants reiterated their allegations that their family members had  been unlawfully apprehended by representatives of the State and then  killed. They alleged that the federal troops had staged a fight at the  house in Nagornaya Street and set the VAZ 21099 car on fire to justify  the unlawful killing of their relatives.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">146.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government referred to the results of the forensic examination according  to which the remains of Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr  Amir Pokayev, Mr Islam Chagayev and Mr Ibragim Magomadov had been found  at the cemetery where the bodies of the illegal armed groups&#8217; members  killed on 7 and 9 March 2002 had been buried. They submitted that the  above persons had been members of paramilitary groups and had resisted  the representatives of federal forces with arms and that the latter  had had to apply force in response which had led to the killing of those  persons. The Government stated that the special operation conducted  in Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13 March 2002 had been properly planned  and carried out by competent State bodies in compliance with the applicable  legislation, in particular, with Federal Law no. 130-FZ of 25 July 1998  on the Suppression of Terrorism. They further submitted that the force  applied had been \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d within the meaning of Article  2 of the Convention and, therefore, there had been no breach of the  above provision.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court&#8217;s assessment<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(a)\u00a0\u00a0General principles<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">147.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that, in the light of the importance of the protection  afforded by Article\u00a02, it must subject deprivations of life to the most  careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of  State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances. Detained persons  are in a vulnerable position and the obligation on the authorities to  account for the treatment of a detained individual is particularly stringent  where that individual dies or disappears thereafter (see, among other  authorities, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Orhan v. Turkey<\/span>, no. 25656\/94, \u00a7\u00a0326, 18 June 2002, and the  authorities cited therein). Where the events in issue lie wholly, or  in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as  in the case of persons within their control in detention, strong presumptions  of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during  that detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting  on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation  (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Salman v. Turkey<\/span> [GC], no. 21986\/93, \u00a7\u00a0100, ECHR 2000-VII,  and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u00c7ak\u0131c\u0131 v. Turkey<\/span> [GC], no. 23657\/94, \u00a7 85, ECHR 1999-IV).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">148.\u00a0\u00a0The  situations where deprivation of life may be justified are exhaustive  and must be narrowly interpreted. The use of force which may result  in the deprivation of life must be no more than \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d  for the achievement of one of the purposes set out in Article 2 \u00a7 2  (a), (b) and (c). This term indicates that a stricter and more compelling  test of necessity must be employed than that normally applicable when  determining whether State action is \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d  under paragraphs 2 of Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention. In assessing  the proportionality of the force used the Court must take into consideration  not only the actions of State agents who actually administer the force  but also all the surrounding circumstances including such matters as  the planning and control of the actions under examination (see <a name=\"01000001\"><\/a><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom<\/span>, 27 September 1995,  \u00a7\u00a7 146-50, Series\u00a0A no.\u00a0324; <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Andronicou  and Constantinou v. Cyprus<\/span><\/span>, 9\u00a0October 1997, \u00a7 171, <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Reports  of Judgments and Decisions<\/span><\/span><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> O\u011fur\u00a0v.  Turkey<\/span><\/span> [GC], no.\u00a021594\/93, \u00a7\u00a078, ECHR 1999-III).<\/span> 1997-VI; and<\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(b)\u00a0\u00a0Establishment of the facts<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">149.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that it has developed a number of general principles  relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when  faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention  (for a summary of these, see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Bazorkina v. Russia<\/span>, no. 69481\/01, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0103-109, 27 July 2006).  The Court also notes that the conduct of the parties when evidence is  being obtained has to be taken into account (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Ireland v. the United Kingdom<\/span>, 18 January 1978, \u00a7 161, Series\u00a0A  no.\u00a025).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">150.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants alleged that on 6 March 2002 Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim  Kanayev, Mr Amir Pokayev and Mr Islam Chagayev and on 8 March 2002 Mr  Ibragim Magomadov had been apprehended by Russian servicemen and then  disappeared. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants  were themselves eyewitnesses to their family members&#8217; apprehension.  They supported their allegations with statements by other residents  of Stariye Atagi who had witnessed the events. The applicants and witnesses  provided a coherent account of the special operation conducted in the  village on those dates and of the circumstances in which the applicants&#8217;  relatives had been apprehended. In particular, seven persons confirmed  that they had witnessed Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev  being apprehended by federal servicemen. Another resident of Stariye  Atagi submitted that she had witnessed Mr Amir Pokayev and Mr Islam  Chagayev being apprehended by the servicemen involved in the operation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">151.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government confirmed that a special operation had been conducted in  Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13 March 2002. However, they submitted that  servicemen had not apprehended the persons in question. At the same  time the Government stated that they were killed by servicemen in fight  at a house in Nagornaya Street and in a car from which fire had been  opened at servicemen near the road between Grozny and Shatoy. In support  of their submissions they referred to the conclusions of the forensic  report according to which remains of persons allegedly killed in the  above circumstances were those of Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev,  Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr Islam Chagayev and Mr Ibragim Magomadov.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">152.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that despite its repeated requests for a copy of the investigation  file in respect of the abduction of the applicants&#8217; family members,  the Government refused to submit the materials requested having produced  copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant  victim status and of the records of interviews held in March 2002. They  relied on Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes  that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient  to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court  (see<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> Imakayeva\u00a0v. Russia<\/span>, no.\u00a07615\/02, \u00a7\u00a0123, ECHR 2006-&#8230; (extracts)).\u00a0\u00a0In  view of this and bearing in mind the principles cited above, the Court  finds that it can draw inferences from the Government&#8217;s conduct in this  respect.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">153.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes, firstly, that it is common ground between the parties that  a special operation was conducted in Stariye Atagi between 6\u00a0and 13 March  2002. It further notes that, according to the applicants, Mr\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov,  Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr\u00a0Islam Chagayev and Mr Ibragim  Magomadov were apprehended by servicemen during the operation and taken  to an unknown destination. Their account of the events is confirmed  by statements of numerous eyewitnesses. Moreover, less than a month  after the completion of the operation the administration of Stariye  Atagi issued the applicants with a certificate, confirming that their  relatives had been apprehended by servicemen during the special operation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">154.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that the Government, in their observations, repeatedly stated  that the applicants&#8217; family members had been killed by servicemen in  two different fights. However, they barely addressed the applicants&#8217;  allegations that their relatives had been apprehended by servicemen  in the first place. In this respect the Government merely noted that  the applicants&#8217; version of the events was not confirmed by the findings  of the investigation. The Court observes, however, that at the early  stages of the investigation the applicants&#8217; allegation that their relatives  had been apprehended by servicemen was accepted by the investigating  authorities. It refers, in particular, to the decision to suspend the  investigation of 26\u00a0October 2002 (see paragraph 90 above). At the later  stages, in particular in the decision to suspend the investigation of  19 March 2004 and the order to conduct a forensic examination of 9 September  2006 (see paragraphs 107 and 121 above) the investigating authorities  did not state expressly that the applicants&#8217; family members had been  apprehended by servicemen, but referred to \u201cunidentified persons in  camouflage uniform accompanied by cars and armoured vehicles\u201d. However,  the investigation failed to identify those persons.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">155.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that the Government thus did not deny that the applicants&#8217;  relatives had been abducted by armed men and, at the same time, confirmed  that a special operation had been conducted in the village on the dates  of their abduction. The fact that a large group of armed men in uniform,  equipped with military vehicles which could not have been available  to paramilitary groups, proceeded during a large-scale special operation  conducted in the village by the State&#8217;s forces in broad daylight to  apprehend several persons with a view to checking their identity documents,  strongly supports the applicants&#8217; allegation that these were State servicemen.  It further notes that after six years the domestic investigation has  produced no tangible results.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">156.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that where the applicant makes out a prima facie<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> <\/span>case and the Court is prevented from reaching factual conclusions  owing to the lack of the necessary documents, it is for the Government  to argue conclusively why the documents in question cannot serve to  corroborate the allegations made by the applicant, or to provide a satisfactory  and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred. The  burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in  their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and\/or Article 3  (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">To\u011fcu v. Turkey<\/span>, no.\u00a027601\/95, \u00a7\u00a095, 31 May 2005, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Akkum and Others v. Turkey<\/span>, no.\u00a021894\/93, \u00a7\u00a0211, ECHR 2005-II).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">157.\u00a0\u00a0Taking  into account the above elements, the Court is satisfied that the applicants  have made out a prima facie case that their family members were apprehended  by State servicemen. The Government&#8217;s statement that the investigation  did not find any evidence to support the involvement of the special  forces in the abduction is insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned  burden of proof. Drawing inferences from the Government&#8217;s failure to  submit the documents which were in their exclusive possession or to  provide a plausible explanation of the events in question, the Court  finds it established that Mr\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr  Amir Pokayev, Mr\u00a0Islam Chagayev were apprehended on 6\u00a0March 2002 and Mr  Ibragim Magomadov on 8 March 2002 by State servicemen during a security  operation in Stariye Atagi.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">158.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court further notes that their burnt bodies, which had been identified  more than two years later, had been found at two different locations  on 7 and 10 March 2002. According to the Government, they were killed  by servicemen during fights which took place on 7 and 9\u00a0March\u00a02002 at  those locations. The Government, however, presented no documents, such  as military reports, which could enable the Court to establish the exact  circumstances of the fight the events that took place between the apprehension  of the applicants&#8217; family members and their death. Furthermore, on the  basis of the materials available it appears impossible to establish  who precisely was killed on which date and at which location, except  that it is clear that Mr Ibragim Magomadov, apprehended on 8\u00a0March 2002,  could not have been killed on 7 March 2002. However, the Court finds  it more appropriate to address this issue below when assessing the State&#8217;s  compliance with Article 2 of the Convention. For the purpose of establishing  the facts the Court accepts that Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr\u00a0Said-Selim Kanayev,  Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr Islam Chagayev and Mr\u00a0Ibragim Magomadov were killed  by servicemen on 7 and 9\u00a0March\u00a02002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">159.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly,  the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish  to the requisite standard of proof that Mr\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov, Mr\u00a0Said-Selim  Kanayev, Mr Amir Pokayev and Mr\u00a0Islam Chagayev were apprehended by State  servicemen on 6 March 2002 and Mr Ibragim Magomadov on 8 March 2002  and that they were killed by the servicemen on 7 and 9\u00a0March\u00a02002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(c)\u00a0\u00a0The State&#8217;s compliance with the substantive  obligation under Article 2<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">160.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that in addition to setting out the circumstances when  deprivation of life may be justified, Article 2 implies a primary duty  on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place an appropriate  legal and administrative framework defining the limited circumstances  in which law-enforcement officials may use force and firearms, in the  light of the relevant international standards (see<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> Makaratzis v. Greece <\/span>[GC], no.\u00a050385\/99, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a057-59, ECHR 2004-XI,<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> <\/span>and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria <\/span>[GC], nos.\u00a043577\/98 and 43579\/98,  \u00a7\u00a096, ECHR\u00a02005-VII). Furthermore, the national law regulating policing  operations must secure a system of adequate and effective safeguards  against arbitrariness and abuse of force and even against avoidable  accident (see<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> Makaratzis<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a058). In particular, law-enforcement  agents must be trained to assess whether or not there is an absolute  necessity to use firearms, not only on the basis of the letter of the  relevant regulations, but also with due regard to the pre-eminence of  respect for human life as a fundamental value (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Nachova and Others<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7 97).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">161.\u00a0\u00a0In  the present case, it has been acknowledged by the Government that Mr  Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr\u00a0Islam Chagayev  and Mr Ibragim Magomadov were killed by State agents as a result of  the intentional use of lethal force against them. The State&#8217;s responsibility  is therefore engaged, and it is for the State to account for the deaths  of the applicants&#8217; relatives. It is notably for the State to demonstrate  that the force used against them by the federal servicemen could be  said to have been absolutely necessary and therefore strictly proportionate  to the achievement of one of the aims set out in paragraph 2 of Article  2.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">162.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that it is faced with conflicting accounts of the events  which led to the killing of the applicants&#8217; relatives. According to  the applicants, after their family members had been apprehended by the  State servicemen on 6 and 8 March 2002, the latter had unlawfully killed  them and had staged the fights on 7 and 9 March 2002 so as to justify  the killing. According to the Government, the fights on 7 and 9 March  2002 had indeed taken place and the applicants&#8217; relatives had been killed  as a result of the use of force which was no more than \u201cabsolutely  necessary\u201d. The Court will address these conflicting accounts below.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">163.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes firstly that it is aware of the difficult situation in the  Chechen Republic at the material time, which called for exceptional  measures on the part of the State to suppress the illegal armed insurgency  (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Isayeva and Others v. Russia<\/span>, nos. 57947\/00, 57948\/00 and 57949\/00,  \u00a7\u00a0178, 24 February 2005, or <a name=\"01000002\"><\/a><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Khatsiyeva and Others v. Russia<\/span>, no. 5108\/02, \u00a7\u00a0134, 17\u00a0January  2008). It also does not overlook the fact that an armed conflict, such  as that in Chechnya, may entail developments to which State agents are  called upon to react without prior preparation. Bearing in mind the  difficulties in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human  conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities  and resources, the obligation to protect the right to life must be interpreted  in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden  on the authorities (see, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">mutatis mutandis<\/span>, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Makaratzis<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7 69, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey<\/span>, no. 22535\/93, \u00a7 86, ECHR 2000-III).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">164.\u00a0\u00a0Turning  to the facts of the present case, the Court notes the Government&#8217;s contention  that the special operation conducted in Stariye Atagi between 6 and  13 March 2002 had been properly planned and carried out in compliance  with the applicable legislation, in particular with Federal Law no.  130-FZ of 25 July 1998 on the Suppression of Terrorism. The Court leaves  open the question whether the law in question constituted an appropriate  legal framework for the use of force and contained clear and sufficient  safeguards to prevent arbitrary deprivation of life since, in any event,  the Government failed to demonstrate that the circumstances in which  the applicants&#8217; relatives had been killed rendered the use of lethal  force against them inevitable.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">165.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that in their observations on the admissibility and merits  of the present application of 13 January 2006 the Government provided  a concise description of the fights on 7 and 9 March 2002 reproduced  in paragraphs 62-63 above. The circumstances of the fights were also  outlined in certain decisions and letters by the prosecuting authorities  but not in much more detail. However, no documents pertaining to the  conduct of the special operation as a whole and these two fights in  particular have been submitted to the Court. In particular, no military  reports on the conduct of the fights with a detailed description of  circumstances which warranted the use of lethal force, orders made in  this respect and actions of the servicemen have been made available  to the Court. No records of questioning of servicemen who took part  in the fights, if such questioning ever took place, have been presented  either. Such scarce information on the circumstances in which, according  to the Government, the applicants&#8217; relatives were killed clearly could  not constitute sufficient justification for the use of lethal force.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">166.\u00a0\u00a0In  particular, as regards the events of 7 March 2002 in a house at 81\u00a0Nagornaya  Street, the Government submitted that \u201ca fight broke out\u201d between  members of the illegal armed groups and federal servicemen. As a result  of the use of small arms and grenade dispensers, four members of the  illegal armed group were killed and the house was set on fire. In the  letter of the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Chechen Republic of 7\u00a0April  2002 it was stated that \u201cboth parties opened heavy fire using various  kinds of firearm, missile, grenade and grenade launcher with the result  that the house was burnt down\u201d. The letter of the military prosecutor  of military unit no. 20102 of 21 August 2002 stated that the fighting  had broken out between the servicemen of military unit no. 3228 and  rebel fighters, the latter having hidden in the house and opened machine-gun  fire. The servicemen had inflicted fire damage, using, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">inter alia<\/span>, RPG-26 weapons with the result that the house caught  fire. During the ensuing examination four burnt bodies had been found  in the house. According to the decision of the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s  Office of the UGA to suspend the investigation of 19\u00a0March\u00a02004, the scene  of the fighting at 81 Nagornaya Street had been blocked by servicemen  of the unit 48 PON (48 \u041f\u041e\u041d) and servicemen of the units Alpha and  1 pSpN (1 \u043f\u0421\u043f\u041d) had been involved in the combat. As a result of  the fighting six members of the illegal armed group who had resisted  with arms had been killed. According to another decision to suspend  the investigation of the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA, issued  on 22 June 2004, the scene of the fighting had been blocked by servicemen  of military unit 3656 and servicemen of the FSB and military unit 3179  had been involved in the combat, as a result of which six members of  the illegal armed group had been killed. In the decision of the Military  Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA of 9 September 2006 to conduct a forensic  examination it was stated, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">inter alia<\/span>, that in the course of the special operation conducted  in Stariye Atagi a house situated in Nagornaya Street had been shelled  and blown up and four burnt bodies were then found in it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">167.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes, firstly, that the Government&#8217;s submissions and the letters  and decisions of the prosecuting authorities contain conflicting information  on the number of persons killed in the fight of 7 March 2002, on the  military units involved in it as well as on the matter of whether the  house was set on fire or blown up. Apart from this, the Court observes  that the information provided does not permit it to establish conclusively  who started the fight and which party used which particular weapons,  the intensity of fire opened from either side, the exact number of persons  involved in the combat on each side or the duration and development  of the combat. In the absence of these key elements it is impossible  to conclude that the situation required the use of lethal force that  led to the applicants&#8217; relatives&#8217; killing. Accordingly, even assuming  that they were killed in the circumstances described by the Government,  the latter failed to justify that the use of force was no more than  \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">168.\u00a0\u00a0As  regards the events of 9 March 2002, according to the Government a group  of servicemen was fired at from a car that was driving along the road  between Grozny and Shatoy within three kilometres of Stariye Atagi.  As the servicemen fired back, the car was set on fire and the three  members of illegal armed groups in it were killed. The letter of the  Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Chechen Republic of 7 April 2002 stated in  this connection that on 9 March 2002 a VAZ 21099 car had approached  a checkpoint of military unit no. 3179 situated about 4 km away from  the outskirts of Stariye Atagi on the road between Chechen-Aul and Stariye  Atagi. In response to the order to stop the car and produce identity  papers, shots had been fired from the car. During the shoot-out four  passengers had been killed and the car had been burnt. In the course  of the subsequent examination of the car the remains of an AKM machine  gun, a hand grenade launcher and RGD-5 grenades without fuses had been  found and seized. According to the letter of the military prosecutor  of military unit no. 20102 of 21 August 2002, at around 3 p.m. on the  date in question a VAZ 21099 car had approached the servicemen of military  unit no. 3228. In reply to their order to stop, machine-gun fire had  been opened from the car. The servicemen had opened return fire which  had set the car on fire. Subsequently three burnt corpses of unidentified  persons had been found in it. The decision of the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s  Office of the UGA to suspend the investigation of 19 March 2004 stated, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">inter alia<\/span>, that at around 4 p.m. on 9 March 2002 in Stariye  Atagi servicemen of the unit 1 pSpN had killed three members of the  illegal armed group who had been in a car and resisted with arms. In  the decision of the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA of 9 September  2006 to conduct a forensic examination it was noted that in the course  of the special operation conducted in Stariye Atagi a red VAZ 21099  car with members of an illegal armed group in it had been burnt and  crushed by an APC.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">169.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes the discrepancies contained in the Government&#8217;s submissions  and the letters and decisions of the prosecuting authorities concerning  the number of persons killed in the car on 9 March 2002. It further  observes that, as can be seen from the information submitted, the fire  was opened from the car which disregarded the servicemen&#8217;s order to  stop and present identity papers. The Court accepts that the opened  fire must have posed a danger to the lives of the servicemen at the  checkpoint and might have warranted the use of arms in response. However,  the information available does not permit it to establish conclusively  which weapons were used by the servicemen and which particular actions  led to the death of the applicants&#8217; relatives, thus precluding the Court  from finding that the use of lethal force was in compliance with Article  2 of the Convention. It notes, in particular, that it follows from the  decision of the Military Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the UGA of 9 September  2006 that the car with several persons in it, which had already been  shot at and set on fire, was crushed by an APC, which is further supported  by photographs of the car submitted by the applicants. No explanation  has been provided to the Court as to why an action as drastic as this  was necessary in the circumstances. Accordingly, with regard to this  incident as well, the Court considers that even assuming that the applicant&#8217;s  family members were killed in the circumstances described by the Government,  the latter have not justified their submission that the use of force  was no more than \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">170.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that the applicants contested the Government&#8217;s account  of the events and claimed that the servicemen had staged both fights  so as to justify the unlawful killing of their relatives. In particular,  they claimed that the red VAZ 21099 car from which, according to the  Government, fire had been opened at the checkpoint on 9 March 2002 had  been seized from a resident of Stariye Atagi on that date by the servicemen  themselves. The also maintained that there had been no bullet holes  or shell marks on the walls of the house at 81\u00a0Nagornaya Street when  the burnt bodies had been found there. However, the Court does not find  it necessary to examine specifically these allegations since it has  established above that, even assuming the Government&#8217;s version of the  events to be correct, they have failed to justify that the lethal force  was used in compliance with Article 2 of the Convention. Nevertheless,  it cannot but be perplexed, in view of its finding in paragraph 157  above that the applicants&#8217; family members were apprehended by State  servicemen and in the absence of any information provided by the Government  on their subsequent release or escape, by the submission that \u2013 despite  being in detention \u2013 they somehow managed to procure firearms and  a car and engage, in fights with federal forces. No explanation has  been provided by the Government in this respect.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">171.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court finds that in the absence of information on the crucial elements  mentioned in paragraphs 165-170 above the Government cannot be regarded  as having accounted for the use of lethal force in the circumstances  of the present case. It is therefore not persuaded that the killing  of Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr Islam  Chagayev and Mr Ibragim Magomadov constituted a use of force which was  no more than absolutely necessary in pursuit of the aims provided for  in paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">172.\u00a0\u00a0There  has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in this  respect.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0\u00a0The alleged violation of the right to life  of Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr Adlan Baysarov, Mr Timur Khadzhayev and  Mr\u00a0Abdul-Naser Zakayev<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0Arguments of the parties<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">173.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants maintained their complaint that their family members had  been apprehended by State servicemen during the security operation and  should be presumed dead in the absence of any reliable news of them  for several years.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">174.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government argued that the complaint was unfounded. They referred to  the fact that the investigation had obtained no evidence to the effect  that these persons were dead, or that representatives of the federal  forces had been involved in their abduction or alleged killing. They  submitted at the same time that in the course of the investigation it  had been established that the above persons had been members of illegal  armed groups.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court&#8217;s assessment<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(a)\u00a0\u00a0General principles<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">175.\u00a0\u00a0The  general principles are cited in paragraphs 147-149 above.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(b)\u00a0\u00a0Establishment of the facts<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">176.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants alleged that on 9 March 2002 Mr Magomed Isambayev and on  10 March 2002 Mr Adlan Baysarov, Mr Timur Khadzhayev and Mr Abdul-Naser  Zakayev had been apprehended by Russian servicemen and then disappeared.  The seventh, ninth and tenth applicants were eyewitnesses to their family  members&#8217; apprehension. The applicants supported their allegations with  statements by other residents of Stariye Atagi who had witnessed the  events. The applicants and witnesses provided a coherent account of  the special operation conducted in the village on those dates and of  the circumstances in which the applicants&#8217; relatives had been apprehended.  In particular, two persons confirmed that they had witnessed Mr Timur  Khadzhayev being apprehended by the servicemen involved in the operation,  and his brother, who had also been apprehended by the servicemen but  released soon thereafter, supported their submissions. Another resident  of Stariye Atagi, whose documents had been checked together with Mr  Abdul-Naser Zakayev&#8217;s, confirmed the eleventh applicant&#8217;s account of  the latter&#8217;s apprehension by the servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">177.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government confirmed that a special operation had been conducted in  Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13 March 2002. Furthermore, they did not  deny that the applicants&#8217; relatives had been abducted by unknown armed  men on the dates indicated by the applicants. However, the Government  referred to the absence of conclusions from the pending investigation  and denied that the State was responsible for the disappearance of the  applicants&#8217; family members.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">178.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court has already noted in paragraph 152 above that despite its repeated  requests the Government have refused to provide a full copy of the investigation  file into the abduction of the applicants&#8217; family members and it has  found the explanation provided for the refusal insufficient. It has  also found that it can draw inferences from the Government&#8217;s conduct  in this respect.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">179.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that it is common ground between the parties that a  special operation was conducted in Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13\u00a0March  2002. It further notes that, according to the applicants, Mr\u00a0Magomed  Isambayev, Mr Adlan Baysarov, Mr Timur Khadzhayev and Mr Abdul-Naser  Zakayev were apprehended by servicemen during the operation and taken  to an unknown destination. Their account of the events is confirmed  by statements of eyewitnesses and by a certificate issued by the administration  of Stariye Atagi less than a month after the completion of the operation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">180.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that the Government thus did not deny that the applicants&#8217;  relatives had been abducted by armed men and, at the same time, confirmed  that a special operation had been conducted in the village on the dates  of their abduction. Similarly to its findings in paragraph 155 above,  the Court considers that the fact that a large group of armed men in  uniform, equipped with military vehicles, during a special operation  conducted in the village by the State&#8217;s forces, proceeded in broad daylight  to apprehend several persons with a view to checking their identity  documents, strongly supports the applicants&#8217; allegation that these were  State servicemen. It further notes that after six years the domestic  investigation has produced no tangible results.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">181.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court is thus satisfied that the applicants have made out a prima facie  case that their family members were apprehended by State servicemen.  Having regard to the principle cited in paragraph 156 above, it considers  that the burden of proof should therefore be shifted to the Government.  The Government&#8217;s statement that the investigation did not find any evidence  to support the involvement of the special forces in the abduction is  insufficient to discharge them from the above-mentioned burden of proof.  Drawing inferences from the Government&#8217;s failure to submit the documents  which were in their exclusive possession or to provide a plausible explanation  of the events in question, the Court finds it established that Mr Magomed  Isambayev was apprehended on 9 March 2002 and Mr\u00a0Adlan Baysarov, Mr Timur  Khadzhayev and Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev on 10 March 2002 by State servicemen  during a security operation in Stariye Atagi.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">182.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court further notes that there has been no reliable news of the applicants&#8217;  family members since March 2002. Their names have not been found in  any official detention facilities&#8217; records. Lastly, the Government have  not submitted any explanation as to what had happened to them after  their apprehension.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">183.\u00a0\u00a0Having  regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of people in  Chechnya which have come before the Court (see, for example, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Imakayeva,<\/span> cited above, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Luluyev and Others\u00a0v. Russia<\/span>, no.\u00a069480\/01, ECHR 2006-&#8230; (extracts)),  the Court considers that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen  Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without  any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded  as life-threatening. The absence of the applicants&#8217; relatives or any  news of them for over six years corroborates this assumption. Furthermore,  the Government have failed to provide any explanation for their disappearance,  and the official investigation into their abduction, which has gone  on for several years, has produced no tangible results.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">184.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly,  the Court finds that the evidence available permits it to establish  to the requisite standard of proof that Mr\u00a0Magomed Isambayev was apprehended  by State servicemen on 9 March 2002 and Mr\u00a0Adlan Baysarov, Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev  and Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev on 10 March 2002 and that they must be presumed  dead following their unacknowledged detention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(c)\u00a0\u00a0The State&#8217;s compliance with the substantive  obligation under Article 2<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">185.\u00a0\u00a0Article  2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances  when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most  fundamental provisions in the Convention, to which no derogation is  permitted. In the light of the importance of the protection afforded  by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most  careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of  State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among  other authorities, <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom<\/span><\/span>, 27\u00a0September  1995, \u00a7\u00a7 146-47, Series A no. 324, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Av\u015far v. Turkey<\/span>, no.\u00a025657\/94, \u00a7\u00a0391, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">186.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court has already found it established that the applicants&#8217; family members  must be presumed dead following their unacknowledged apprehension by  State servicemen. Noting that the authorities do not rely on any ground  of justification in respect of the use of lethal force by their agents,  it follows that liability for their presumed death is attributable to  the respondent Government.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">187.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly,  the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 2 in respect  of Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr\u00a0Adlan Baysarov, Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev and Mr  Abdul-Naser Zakayev.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">C.\u00a0\u00a0The alleged inadequacy of the investigation<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0Arguments of the parties<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">188.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants claimed that the authorities had failed in their obligation  to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the  disappearance of the applicants&#8217; family members. In particular, it had  been pending for several years without any tangible results so far,  having been repeatedly suspended and reopened. They further noted that  those applicants who had not been granted victim status in the proceedings  had not even had a formal opportunity to have access to the information  concerning the investigation. The applicants argued that their right  to be informed of the progress of the investigation had been violated,  in particular, by the State&#8217;s refusal to submit the investigation file  to the Court. They further submitted that they had no information about  the investigating measures that had been taken by the authorities, in  particular, whether all witnesses to the unlawful detention of their  relatives, including servicemen, had been identified and questioned.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">189.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government submitted that a criminal investigation into the disappearance  of the residents of Stariye Atagi had been opened promptly on 13 March  2002 and complied with Article 2 of the Convention. The investigating  authorities had carried out a large amount of work. The investigation  was complicated by the need to eliminate discrepancies between the witnesses&#8217;  statements concerning the underlying events, especially since some of  them resided in different regions, and by the complexity of expert examinations  and tests.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005f1-002e\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court&#8217;s assessment<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(a)\u00a0\u00a0General principles<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">190.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under  Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State&#8217;s general  duty under Article\u00a01 of the Convention to \u201csecure to everyone within  [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention\u201d,  also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective  official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result  of the use of force (see, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">mutatis mutandis<\/span>, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">McCann and Others,<\/span> cited above, \u00a7 161, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Kaya v. Turkey,<\/span> 19 February 1998, \u00a7\u00a086, <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Reports<\/span> 1998-I). The essential purpose of such investigation  is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which  protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents  or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under  their responsibility. This investigation should be independent, accessible  to the victim&#8217;s family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition,  effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination  of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in  the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element  of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom<\/span>, no.\u00a024746\/94, \u00a7\u00a7 105-09,  4\u00a0May\u00a02001, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom <\/span>(dec.), no.\u00a056413\/00,  8\u00a0January 2002).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(b)\u00a0\u00a0The State&#8217;s compliance with the procedural  obligation under Article 2<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">191.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes at the outset that the documents from the investigation  file were not disclosed by the Government, apart from several procedural  decisions and records of questioning. It therefore has to assess the  effectiveness of the investigation on the basis of the few documents  submitted by the parties and the information about its progress submitted  by the Government.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">192.\u00a0\u00a0Turning  to the facts of the case, the Court notes that the applicants&#8217; relatives  were apprehended on 6, 8, 9 and 10 March 2002 during a special operation  conducted in Stariye Atagi between 6 and 13 March 2002. The investigation  was opened on 13 March 2002. The Court is therefore satisfied that the  authorities&#8217; reaction was sufficiently prompt.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">193.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court further notes that between 15 and 18 March 2002 the investigating  authorities granted victim status to several applicants and to other  relatives of the disappeared persons. They also questioned the first  and seventh applicants, the father of Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, the brother  of Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev who had been apprehended with him but then released  and the mother of Mr Amir Pokayev. However, it appears that after that  a number of crucial steps were either delayed or not taken at all.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">194.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes firstly that the bodies of the applicants&#8217; relatives  which were severely burnt were not identified until more than two years  after the events which led to their death. Not only did not the authorities  take any steps to identify the bodies of their own motion, but even  after the identification was requested by the applicants, it was refused  (see paragraphs 57-59 above) and the bodies remained unidentified until  17\u00a0June\u00a02004. The authorities&#8217; failure to identify the bodies for over  two years not only protracted the investigation but made it impossible  even to establish the exact date of death in respect of each of the  applicants&#8217; relatives concerned.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">195.\u00a0\u00a0From  the materials available to the Court it appears that a number of essential  steps were never taken. Most notably, it appears that apart from the  first and seventh, no other applicants were questioned. No witnesses,  including those whose statements were enclosed by the applicants with  the present application, were questioned either. No information, let  alone any documents, have been provided to the Court as to which servicemen,  if any, were questioned in relation to the incident at 81\u00a0Nagornaya Street  on 7\u00a0March 2002 and the incident with the car at the checkpoint on\u00a09\u00a0March\u00a02002.  Apart from these incidents, it appears that no servicemen were questioned  with regard to the applicants&#8217; allegations that their relatives had  been abducted in the course of the special operation in Stariye Atagi,  including those whose names or descriptions were provided by the applicants.  Likewise, there is no evidence that the applicants&#8217; homes or the places  where Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev and Mr\u00a0Abdul-Naser Zakayev  were apprehended were ever examined. It appears that the filtering point  at the poultry yard and the mill on the outskirts of the village were  not examined either. Furthermore, it appears that the officials of the  local administration which provided the applicants with a certificate  confirming that their relatives had been apprehended by servicemen during  the special operation were never questioned. The Court further notes  that on 25 July 2002 the Prosecutor&#8217;s Office of the Grozny District  asked the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 to verify to  what detachment and military unit belonged the APCs with hull numbers  225, 207 and 313 in which, according to the interim results of the investigation,  had travelled the servicemen who had detained Mr Said-Selim Kanayev.  The Court has no information that any investigative steps were taken  in this respect. Lastly, it notes that two forensic molecular-genetic  expert examinations that were intended to establish whether the bodies  of Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr\u00a0Adlan Baysarov, Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev and Mr  Abdul-Naser Zakayev could have been among the unidentified bodies transferred  to the 16<sup>th<\/sup> State Centre of Forensic Expert Examination or  whether the two unidentified bodies found in Stariye Atagi on 17 March  2004 could have been theirs were ordered and carried out only in 2006,  that is, four years after their disappearance and two years after the  two unidentified bodies had been found.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">196.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that in the present case the investigating authorities  not only did not comply with the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence  and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom<\/span>, no. 46477\/99,  \u00a7 86, ECHR 2002-II), but failed to take the most elementary investigative  measures.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">197.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court further notes that, according to the information available, only  the first, sixth, seventh and tenth applicants were granted victim status.  It also notes that the father of Mr Said-Selim Kanayev and the mother  of Mr\u00a0Amir Pokayev were granted victim status as well. However, even  those applicants who were granted victim status were not informed of  significant developments in the investigation apart from several decisions  to suspend and resume it and other applicants were not granted victim  status at all. Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that  the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny and  to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">198.\u00a0\u00a0Lastly,  the Court notes that the investigation was adjourned and resumed several  times. Such a manner of proceeding was conducive neither to ensuring  the accountability of the servicemen involved in the incidents of 7  and 9\u00a0March 2002 nor requiring those responsible for the abduction of  the applicants&#8217; relatives to establish the fate of those among them  whose bodies have not been found.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">199.\u00a0\u00a0Having  regard to the Government&#8217;s preliminary objection that was joined to  the merits of the complaint, the Court observes that the applicants,  having no access to the case file and not being properly informed of  the progress of the investigation, could not have effectively challenged  the actions or omissions of the investigating authorities before a court.  Furthermore, the investigation was resumed by the prosecuting authorities  themselves a number of times due to the need to take additional investigative  measures (see, in particular, paragraphs 93 and 119). However, they  still failed to investigate the applicants&#8217; allegations properly. Moreover,  owing to the time that had elapsed since the events complained of, certain  investigative steps that ought to have been carried out much earlier  could no longer usefully be conducted. Therefore, it is highly doubtful  that the remedy relied on, including the possibility to appeal against  the decision of 26 March 2007 to discontinue the investigation, would  have had any prospects of success. Therefore, the Court finds that the  remedy relied on by the Government was ineffective in the circumstances  and rejects their preliminary objection in this respect.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">200.\u00a0\u00a0In  the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed  to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances  surrounding the abduction and subsequent death of Mr Aslan Akhmadov,  Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr Islam Chagayev and Mr\u00a0Ibragim  Magomadov and the disappearance of Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr\u00a0Adlan Baysarov,  Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev and Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev, in breach of Article\u00a02  under its procedural head. Accordingly, there has been a violation of  Article\u00a02 on this account also.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">201.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants further complained that, as a result of their relatives&#8217;  abduction and the State&#8217;s failure to investigate those events properly,  they had endured mental suffering in breach of Article 3 of the Convention,  which reads:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to  inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. \u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">202.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants maintained their complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">203.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government accepted that the applicants must have suffered as a result  of their relatives&#8217; death and disappearance. However, since the involvement  of State agents in the abduction of Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr\u00a0Adlan Baysarov,  Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev and Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev had not been established  and the force used against Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev,  Mr Amir Pokayev, Mr Islam Chagayev and Mr\u00a0Ibragim Magomadov had been  no more than \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d, the State could not be held  responsible for their suffering.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">204.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that the question whether a member of the family of a  \u201cdisappeared person\u201d is a victim of treatment contrary to Article\u00a03  will depend on the existence of special factors which give the suffering  of the applicant a dimension and character distinct from the emotional  distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of  a victim of a serious human rights violation. Relevant elements will  include the proximity of the family tie, the particular circumstances  of the relationship, the extent to which the family member witnessed  the events in question, the involvement of the family member in the  attempts to obtain information about the disappeared person and the  way in which the authorities responded to those enquiries. The Court  would further emphasise that the essence of such a violation does not  mainly lie in the fact of the \u201cdisappearance\u201d of the family member  but rather concerns the authorities&#8217; reactions and attitudes to the  situation when it is brought to their attention. It is especially in  respect of the latter that a relative may claim directly to be a victim  of the authorities&#8217; conduct (<a name=\"01000003\"><\/a>see <a name=\"01000004\"><\/a><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Orhan<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0358, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Imakayeva<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0164).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">205.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants  are parents of Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr\u00a0Amir Pokayev, Mr Islam Chagayev  and Mr\u00a0Ibragim Magomadov and the second applicant is an aunt of Mr Said-Selim  Kanayev. Most of them were eyewitnesses to their family members&#8217; apprehension.  After unidentified bodies had been found in Stariye Atagi following  the incidents on 7 and 9 March 2002, the applicants themselves tried  to secure their identification. However, despite their efforts not only  did the authorities refuse to conduct a forensic examination, but on  1 April 2002 returned the severely decomposed bodies wrapped in bags  to the applicants on the ground that the refrigerators in the forensic  examination department had been out of order. The applicants had to  bury the bodies themselves. Over two years later, after the forensic  examination had eventually been conducted, they learned that those were  the disfigured remains of their family members. In the Court&#8217;s view,  such conduct of the authorities demonstrated an astonishing lack of  care and respect for both the persons killed and their relatives and  amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">206.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court further notes that the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh  applicants are close relatives of Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr\u00a0Adlan Baysarov,  Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev and Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev. Most of them were eyewitnesses  to their family members&#8217; apprehension. For more than six years they  have not had any news of them. During this period the applicants have  applied to various official bodies with enquiries about their relatives,  both in writing and in person. Despite their attempts, they have never  received any plausible explanation or information as to what became  of their family members following their detention. The responses received  by the applicants mostly denied that the State was responsible for their  relatives&#8217; detention or simply informed them that an investigation was  ongoing. The Court&#8217;s findings under the procedural aspect of Article  2 are also of direct relevance here.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">207.\u00a0\u00a0In  view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants suffered, and  continue to suffer, distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance  of their family members and their inability to find out what happened  to them. The manner in which their complaints have been dealt with by  the authorities must be considered to constitute inhuman and degrading  treatment contrary to Article 3.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">208.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article  3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">IV.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  5 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">209.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants further stated that their family members had been detained  in violation of the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention, which  reads, in so far as relevant:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone has the right to liberty and security  of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following  cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(c)\u00a0\u00a0the lawful arrest or detention of a person  effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal  authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or  when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing  an offence or fleeing after having done so;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8230;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone who is arrested shall be informed  promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his  arrest and of any charge against him.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone arrested or detained in accordance  with the provisions of paragraph\u00a01\u00a0(c) of this Article shall be brought  promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise  judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time  or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees  to appear for trial.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">4.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by  arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the  lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and  his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">5.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone who has been the victim of arrest  or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall  have an enforceable right to compensation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">210.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants contended that their relatives&#8217; detention did not fall under  any of the exceptions provided for by Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.  Moreover, although they had been detained by State agents, the applicants  had never been provided with any information about their whereabouts  and, therefore, their detention should be regarded as unacknowledged.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">211.\u00a0\u00a0In  their submissions made prior to the decision as to admissibility, the  Government stated that in the circumstances of the case and in view  of discrepancies between the witnesses&#8217; statements it was not possible  to make any final conclusions as regards the alleged breach of Article  5 of the Convention. In their submissions made after the decision as  to admissibility, the Government submitted that, inasmuch as the complaint  concerned Mr\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr\u00a0Amir Pokayev, Mr\u00a0Islam  Chagayev and Mr\u00a0Ibragim Magomadov, the domestic investigation had not  established that they had been detained. According to the findings of  the investigation, they had been killed in combats with servicemen.  Accordingly, no issue arose under Article 5 of the Convention in this  respect. Inasmuch as the complaint concerned Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr\u00a0Adlan  Baysarov, Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev and Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev, it appeared  impossible to establish their whereabouts. They were not held in either  remand or administrative or correctional detention facilities.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">212.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court has previously noted the fundamental importance of the guarantees  contained in Article 5 to secure the right of individuals in a democracy  to be free from arbitrary detention. It has also stated that unacknowledged  detention is a complete negation of these guarantees and discloses a  very grave violation of Article 5 (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">\u00c7i\u00e7ek v. Turkey<\/span>, no.\u00a025704\/94, \u00a7\u00a0164, 27 February 2001, and <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Luluyev<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0122).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">213.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court has found it established that State servicemen apprehended Mr\u00a0Aslan  Akhmadov, Mr\u00a0Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr\u00a0Amir Pokayev and Mr\u00a0Islam Chagayev  on 6 March 2002, Mr\u00a0Ibragim Magomadov on 8 March 2002, Mr Magomed Isambayev  on 9 March 2002, Mr\u00a0Adlan Baysarov, Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev, and Mr Abdul-Naser  Zakayev on 10 March 2002. Mr\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr\u00a0Amir  Pokayev, Mr\u00a0Islam Chagayev and Mr\u00a0Ibragim Magomadov were killed by servicemen  on 7 and 9 march 2002, and no information has been provided by the State  concerning their possible release and escape between the dates of their  apprehension and the dates of their death. Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr\u00a0Adlan  Baysarov, Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev and Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev have not been  seen since. Their detention was not acknowledged, was not logged in  any custody records and there exists no official trace of the whereabouts  of the five first-mentioned persons between their apprehension and killing;  nor is there any information about the subsequent whereabouts or fate  of the four last-mentioned persons. In accordance with the Court&#8217;s practice,  this fact in itself must be considered a most serious failing, since  it enables those responsible for an act of deprivation of liberty to  conceal their involvement in a crime, to cover their tracks and to escape  accountability for the fate of a detainee. Furthermore, the absence  of detention records, noting such matters as the date, time and location  of detention and the name of the detainee and the reasons for the detention  and the name of the person effecting it, must be seen as incompatible  with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see <a name=\"01000005\"><\/a><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Orhan<\/span><\/span>,  cited above, \u00a7\u00a0371).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">214.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court further considers that the authorities should have been more alert  to the need for a thorough and prompt investigation of the applicants&#8217;  complaints that their relatives had been apprehended and taken away  in life-threatening circumstances. However, the Court&#8217;s findings above  in relation to Article 2 and, in particular, the conduct of the investigation  leave no doubt that the authorities failed to take prompt and effective  measures to safeguard Mr Magomed Isambayev, Mr\u00a0Adlan Baysarov, Mr\u00a0Timur  Khadzhayev and Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev against the risk of disappearance.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">215.\u00a0\u00a0Consequently,  the Court finds that Mr\u00a0Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, Mr\u00a0Amir  Pokayev, Mr\u00a0Islam Chagayev, Mr Ibragim Magomadov, Mr Magomed Isambayev,  Mr\u00a0Adlan Baysarov, Mr\u00a0Timur Khadzhayev and Mr Abdul-Naser Zakayev were  held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained  in Article 5. This constitutes a particularly grave violation of the  right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">V.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13  OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">216.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants complained that they had been deprived of effective remedies  in respect of the aforementioned violations, contrary to Article 13  of the Convention, which provides:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set  forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy  before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been  committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">217.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants argued that in their case the State had failed to conduct  an adequate investigation into the disappearance of their family members,  which undermined the effectiveness of other possible remedies.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">218.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government submitted that four of the applicants had been granted victim  status and could actively participate in the investigation and appeal  against actions or omissions of the investigating authorities in court,  which they had failed to do. Furthermore, they could have filed claims  in respect of non-pecuniary damage, which they had not done either.  The Government argued that the applicants thus had effective domestic  remedies in respect of their complaints. They referred, in particular,  to several decisions by courts of the Chechen Republic delivered in  other cases upholding complaints concerning certain actions of investigating  authorities or awarding non-pecuniary damages.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">219.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability  at the national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention  rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured  in the domestic legal order. Given the fundamental importance of the  right to protection of life, Article 13 requires, in addition to the  payment of compensation where appropriate, a thorough and effective  investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment  of those responsible for the deprivation of life and infliction of treatment  contrary to Article\u00a03, including effective access for the complainant  to the investigation procedure leading to the identification and punishment  of those responsible (see <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Anguelova  v. Bulgaria<\/span><\/span>, no. 38361\/97, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0161-62, ECHR 2002-IV, and <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">S\u00fcheyla  Ayd\u0131n v. Turkey<\/span><\/span>, no. 25660\/94, \u00a7\u00a0208, 24 May 2005). The  Court further reiterates that the requirements of Article\u00a013 are broader  than a Contracting State&#8217;s obligation under Article 2 to conduct an  effective investigation (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia<\/span>, nos.\u00a057942\/00 and 57945\/00,  \u00a7\u00a0183, 24 February 2005).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">220.\u00a0\u00a0In  view of the Court&#8217;s above findings with regard to Article\u00a02, this complaint  is clearly \u201carguable\u201d for the purposes of Article\u00a013 (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom<\/span>, 27\u00a0April 1988, \u00a7\u00a052, Series  A no.\u00a0131). The applicants should accordingly have been able to avail  themselves of effective and practical remedies capable of leading to  the identification and punishment of those responsible and to an award  of compensation for the purposes of Article\u00a013.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">221.\u00a0\u00a0It  follows that in circumstances where, as here, a criminal investigation  into violent death and disappearance was ineffective and the effectiveness  of any other remedy that may have existed, including civil remedies,  was consequently undermined, the State has failed in its obligation  under Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">222.\u00a0\u00a0Consequently,  there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article  2 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">223.\u00a0\u00a0As  regards the applicants&#8217; reference to Article 3 of the Convention, the  Court notes that it has found a violation of the above provision on  account of the applicants&#8217; mental suffering as a result of, on the one  hand, the authorities&#8217; failure to identify the bodies of the family  members of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants  for over two years and their conduct in this respect and, on the other  hand, the disappearance of relatives of the seventh, eighth, ninth,  tenth and eleventh applicants, their inability to find out what had  happened to them and the way the authorities handled their complaints.  However, the Court has already found a violation of Article 13 of the  Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention on account  of the authorities&#8217; conduct that led to the suffering endured by the  applicants. T<span class=\"normal----char--Char\">he Court considers that,  in the circumstances, no separate issue arises in respect of Article  13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Car--Char\">224.\u00a0\u00a0As  regards the <\/span>applicants&#8217;<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Car--Char\"> reference to Article 5 of the Convention, the Court notes that according  to its established case-law the more specific guarantees of Article  5 \u00a7\u00a7 4 and 5, being a <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Car--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">lex specialis<\/span> in relation to Article\u00a013, absorb its requirements  and in view of its above findings of a violation of Article 5 of the  Convention by unacknowledged detention, the Court considers that no  separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with  Article 5 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">VI.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE  34 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">225.\u00a0\u00a0Having  regard to the incidents which allegedly took place in 2005-2008, the  first applicant complained that the respondent Government had failed  to comply with their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention,  the relevant parts of which provide as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cThe Court may receive applications from any  person &#8230; claiming to be the victim of a violation &#8230; of the rights  set forth in the Convention &#8230; The High Contracting Parties undertake  not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">226.\u00a0\u00a0The  first applicant maintained that the her questioning and that of her  husband and daughter had been caused by her numerous applications to  State bodies in connection with the abduction of her son, Mr Aslan Akhmadov.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">227.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government submitted that there was no connection between the questioning  concerning the first applicant&#8217;s son, Mr Magomed Akhmadov, and her application  before the Court concerning her other son, Mr Aslan Akhmadov. Furthermore,  even her own description of the questioning in 2008 does not disclose  any indication of intimidation towards her. In the Government&#8217;s view,  the complaint is unsubstantiated.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">228.\u00a0\u00a0In  its decision of 10 January 2008 as to the admissibility of the present  application the Court decided to adjourn the examination of this complaint  until the examination of the merits of the application.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">229.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court observes that from the first applicant&#8217;s own account of the events  in 2005-2008 it appears that the servicemen and officers of law-enforcement  agencies enquired only about her son Mr Magomed Akhmadov. There is no  evidence that she was ever questioned in relation to the present application  which concerns her other son, Mr Aslan Akhmadov, or that any pressure  was put on her in this regard. Therefore, the Court finds the complaint  unsubstantiated.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">230.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly,  there has been no failure to comply with the respondent State&#8217;s obligations  under Article 34 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">VII.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE <span class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman--Char\" style=\"text-transform: uppercase;\">38\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(<\/span>a<span class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman--Char\" style=\"text-transform: uppercase;\">) <\/span>OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">231.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants argued that the Government&#8217;s failure to submit the documents  requested by the Court at the communication stage disclosed a failure  to comply with their obligations under Article 38 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention,  which provides, in so far as relevant:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"> \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0If the Court declares the application admissible,  it shall<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(a)\u00a0\u00a0pursue the examination of the case, together  with the representatives of the parties, and if need be, undertake an  investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned  shall furnish all necessary facilities;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">&#8230;\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">232.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants invited the Court to conclude that the Government&#8217;s refusal  to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in response to the  Court&#8217;s requests was incompatible with their obligations under Article  38 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">233.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government reiterated that the submission of the case file would be  contrary to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also  pointed out that it had been suggested that a Court delegation have  access to the file at the place in the place where the preliminary investigation  was being conducted.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">234.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that proceedings in certain types of applications do  not in all cases lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle  whereby a person who alleges something must prove that allegation and  that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the  system of individual petition instituted under Article 34 of the Convention  that States should furnish all necessary facilities to make possible  a proper and effective examination of applications.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">235.\u00a0\u00a0This  obligation requires the Contracting States to furnish all necessary  facilities to the Court, whether it is conducting a fact-finding investigation  or performing its general duties as regards the examination of applications.  It is inherent in the proceedings relating to cases of this nature,  where individual applicants accuse State agents of violating their rights  under the Convention, that in certain instances it is only the respondent  State that has access to information capable of corroborating or refuting  those allegations. A failure on a Government&#8217;s part to submit such information  which is in their possession without a satisfactory explanation may  not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness  of the applicant&#8217;s allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the  level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under  Article\u00a038\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(a) of the Convention. In a case where the application raises  issues as to the effectiveness of the investigation, the documents of  the criminal investigation are fundamental to the establishment of the  facts and their absence may prejudice the Court&#8217;s proper examination  of the complaint both at the admissibility and at the merits stage (see <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Tanr\u0131kulu  v.\u00a0Turkey<\/span><\/span> [GC], no. 23763\/94, \u00a7 71, ECHR 1999-IV).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">236.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court notes that despite its repeated requests for a copy of the investigation  file opened into the disappearance and killing of the applicants&#8217; relatives,  the Government refused to produce such a copy, having produced very  few documents from the case file. They invoked Article 161 of the Code  of Criminal Procedure. The Court observes that in previous cases it  has already found this reference insufficient to justify refusal (see,  among other authorities,<span class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\"> Imakayeva<\/span>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0123).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">237.\u00a0\u00a0Referring  to the importance of a respondent Government&#8217;s cooperation in Convention  proceedings, and mindful of the difficulties associated with the establishment  of facts in cases of such a nature, the Court finds that the Government  fell short of their obligations under Article\u00a038 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention  because of their failure to submit copies of the documents requested  in respect of the disappearance and killing of the applicants&#8217; relatives.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fI-005fRoman\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">VIII.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF  THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">238.\u00a0\u00a0Article  41 of the Convention provides:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fQuot\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation  of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law  of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation  to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction  to the injured party.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">A.\u00a0\u00a0Pecuniary damage<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">239.\u00a0\u00a0The  eighth applicant claimed that she had sustained damage in respect of  the loss of her husband&#8217;s earnings and the tenth and eleventh applicants  in respect of the loss of their son&#8217;s earnings following their apprehension  and subsequent disappearance. The eighth applicant claimed a total of  425,427.74 roubles (RUR) under this head (approximately 11,963 euros  (EUR)). The tenth applicant claimed a total of RUR 359,399.37 (approximately  EUR 10,102) and the eleventh applicant claimed a total of RUR 311,194.40  (approximately EUR 8,745).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">240.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants claimed that their relatives had been temporarily unemployed  due to the situation in Chechnya. Having regard to the provisions of  the Civil Code on calculations of lost earnings, they claimed that the  amount of an unemployed person&#8217;s earnings should be equal to the average  remuneration of a person with similar qualifications and could not be  based on an amount lower than the subsistence level determined by federal  laws. They submitted that the eighth applicant was dependent on her  husband and the tenth and eleventh applicants on their sons. Each of  them would have benefited from their financial support in the amount  indicated above, that is, 30% of their earnings. The applicants&#8217; calculations  were based on the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the actuarial  tables for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases published  by the United Kingdom Government Actuary&#8217;s Department in 2007 (\u201cthe  Ogden tables\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">241.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government argued that no compensation for pecuniary damage should be  awarded to the applicants since it was not established that their family  members were dead. The Government also objected to the applicants having  based their claims on the Ogden tables.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">242.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between  the damage claimed by the applicants and the violation of the Convention.  Furthermore, under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court any claim for just  satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with  the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, \u201cfailing which the  Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part\u201d.\u00a0The Court finds  that there is indeed a direct causal link between the violation of Article\u00a02  in respect of the applicants&#8217; family members and the loss by the applicants  of the financial support which they could have provided for them.\u00a0It  further notes that the applicants&#8217; family members were unemployed. Nevertheless,  the Court finds it reasonable to assume that they would eventually have  had some earnings and that the applicants would have benefited from  them. Having regard to the applicants&#8217; submissions, the Court awards  the eighth, tenth and eleventh applicants EUR 5,000 each in respect  of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">B.\u00a0\u00a0Non-pecuniary damage<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">243.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants claimed the following amounts in respect of non-pecuniary  damage for the suffering they had endured as a result of the loss of  their family members and the indifference shown by the authorities towards  them:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0the  first applicant claimed EUR 80,000;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0the  second applicant claimed EUR 80,000;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0the  third applicant claimed EUR 250,000;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">4.\u00a0\u00a0the  fifth applicant claimed EUR 80,000;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">5.\u00a0\u00a0the  sixth applicant claimed EUR 80,000;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">6.\u00a0\u00a0the  seventh applicant claimed EUR 80,000;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">7.\u00a0\u00a0the  eighth applicant claimed EUR 80,000;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">8.\u00a0\u00a0the  tenth applicant claimed EUR 80,000;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">9.\u00a0\u00a0the  eleventh applicant claimed EUR 80,000.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">244.\u00a0\u00a0The  Government found the amounts claimed exaggerated. They also pointed  out in respect of the claims by the first, second, third, fifth and  sixth applicants, that their relatives had been members of illegal armed  groups and had been killed as a result of the use of force that had  been no more than \u201cabsolutely necessary\u201d. As regards the claims  by the seventh, eighth, tenth and eleventh applicants, it was not established  that the authorities had been involved into their relatives&#8217; disappearance.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">245.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention  on account of the unacknowledged detention and killing of the first,  second, third, fifth and sixth applicants&#8217; family members and the disappearance  of the seventh, eighth, tenth and eleventh applicants&#8217; relatives. The  applicants themselves have been found to have been the victims of a  violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court thus accepts that  they have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated  for solely by the findings of violations. It awards the first, second,  third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth and eleventh applicants  EUR\u00a035,000 each, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">C.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">246.\u00a0\u00a0The  applicants were represented by the SRJI. They submitted an itemised  schedule of costs and expenses that included research and interviews  in Ingushetia and Moscow, at a rate of EUR 50 per hour, and the drafting  of legal documents submitted to the Court and the domestic authorities,  at a rate of EUR 50 per hour for SRJI lawyers and EUR 150 per hour for  SRJI senior staff. They also claimed postal expenses in the amount of  EUR 314.76, translation expenses in the amount of EUR 622.40, as certified  by invoices, and administrative expenses in the amount of EUR\u00a01,106.  The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the  applicants&#8217; legal representation amounted to EUR 17,843.16.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">247. The Government did not  dispute the details of the calculations submitted by the applicants,  but pointed out that they should be entitled to the reimbursement of  their costs and expenses only in so far as it had been shown that they  had been actually incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see <span class=\"Ju-005fPara-0020Char-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Skorobogatova v. Russia<\/span>, no.\u00a033914\/02, \u00a7\u00a061, 1\u00a0December\u00a02005).  They objected, however, to the applicants&#8217; representatives&#8217; claim in  the part related to the work of lawyers other than those whose names  were on the power of attorney.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">248.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated  by the applicants were actually incurred and, second, whether they were  necessary and reasonable (see <span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\"><span class=\"ju--005fpara----char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Iatridis\u00a0v.\u00a0Greece <\/span><\/span> (just satisfaction) [GC], no.\u00a031107\/96, \u00a7\u00a054, ECHR\u00a02000-XI).<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">249.\u00a0\u00a0Having  regard to the details of the information available, the Court is satisfied  that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred  by the applicants&#8217; representatives.\u00a0\u00a0Further, it has to be established  whether the costs and expenses incurred for legal representation were  necessary. The Court notes that this case was rather complex and required  a certain amount of research and preparation. Accordingly, it accepts  that the expenses incurred were necessary.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">250.\u00a0\u00a0As  regards the Government&#8217;s objection, the Court notes that the applicants  were represented by the SRJI. It is satisfied that the lawyers indicated  in their claim formed part of the SRJI staff. Accordingly, the objection  must be dismissed.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">251.\u00a0\u00a0Having  regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants and  acting on an equitable basis, the Court awards them the amount of EUR\u00a017,843.16,  less EUR\u00a0850 received by way of legal aid from the Council of Europe,  together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable, the net award  to be paid into the representatives&#8217; bank <a name=\"01000006\"><\/a>account in  the Netherlands, as identified by the applicants.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fA\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">D.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-002cLeft-002cFirst-0020line-003a-0020-00200-0020cm\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">252.\u00a0\u00a0The  Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based  on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which  should be added three percentage points.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fH-005fHead\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">1.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Decides<\/span> to reject the Government&#8217;s preliminary objection;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">2.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that there has been a violation of Article\u00a02 of the Convention  in respect of the applicants&#8217; family members;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">3.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that there has been a violation of Article\u00a02 of the Convention  in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into  the killing and disappearance of the applicants&#8217; family members;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">4<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/span> that there has been a violation of Article\u00a03 of the Convention  in respect of the applicants on account of their mental suffering;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">5.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that there has been a violation of Article\u00a05 of the Convention  in respect of the applicants&#8217; family members;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Ju-005fList-0020Char--Char\">6.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that there has been a violation of Article\u00a013 of the Convention in conjunction  with Article 2<\/span> <span class=\"Ju-005fList-0020Char--Char\">of the  Convention;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span class=\"Ju-005fList-0020Char--Char\">7.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList-0020Char--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that no separate issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention <\/span> as regards <span class=\"Ju-005fList-0020Char--Char\">the <\/span>alleged <span class=\"Ju-005fList-0020Char--Char\">violations  of Articles 3 and 5;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">8.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that there has been no failure to comply with the State&#8217;s  obligation under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the alleged  intimidation of the first applicant;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">9.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span> that there has been a failure to comply with Article  38 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(a) of the Convention in that the Government have refused to submit  documents requested by the Court;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">10.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Holds<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay,  within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final  in accordance with Article\u00a044\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention, the following amounts:<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList-005fi\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a05,000 (five thousand euros), plus  any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage to each  of the eighth, tenth and eleventh applicants, to be converted into Russian  roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList-005fi\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a035,000 (thirty five thousand euros),  plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage  to each of the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth,  tenth and eleventh applicants, to be converted into Russian roubles  at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList-005fi\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(iii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a016,993.16 (sixteen thousand nine  hundred and ninety-three euros and sixteen cents), plus any tax that  may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses,  to be paid into the representatives&#8217; bank account in the Netherlands;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList-005fa\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">(b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned  three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the  above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European  Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fList\" style=\"margin-top: 12pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">11.\u00a0\u00a0<span class=\"Ju-005fList--Char\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">Dismisses<\/span> the remainder of the applicants&#8217; claim for just satisfaction.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fPara-005fLast\" style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">Done in English, and notified in writing  on 8 January 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 of the Rules of  Court.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fSigned\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">S\u00f8ren Nielsen\u00a0Christos  Rozakis<br \/>\nRegistrar\u00a0President<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"Ju-005fHeader\" style=\"text-indent: 36pt; text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #000000;\">ARZU AKHMADOVA  AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The ECHR case of Arzu Akhmadova and Others v. Russia (application no 13670\/03).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-echr-cases"],"views":2052,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/440","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=440"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/440\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":442,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/440\/revisions\/442"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waynakh.com\/eng\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}