The ECHR case of Dolsayev and Others v. Russia (application no. 10700\/04).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
..<\/span><\/p>\n \n \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>\n EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n CASE OF DOLSAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n (Application no. 10700\/04)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a>JUDGMENT<\/span><\/p>\n STRASBOURG<\/span><\/p>\n 22 January 2009<\/span><\/p>\n This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article\u00a044 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In the case of Dolsayev and Others v. Russia,<\/span><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/span><\/p>\n Christos Rozakis, President, Having deliberated in private on 16 December 2008,<\/span><\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/span><\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 10700\/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court on 5 February 2004 under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by five Russian nationals, listed below.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (\u201cthe SRJI\u201d), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The second applicant died on 14 June 2007 and the other applicants expressed their wish to pursue the application on her behalf. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.<\/span><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 May 2007 the Court decided to apply Rule\u00a041 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application.<\/span><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 May 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 \u00a7 3 of the Convention).<\/span><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having considered the Government’s objection, the Court dismissed it.<\/span><\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/span><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/span><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are:<\/span><\/p>\n (1) Mr Kursolt Biboltovich Dolsayev, born in 1949;<\/span><\/p>\n (2) Ms Mak (also spelled as Makka) Isayevna Dolsayeva, born in 1953;<\/span><\/p>\n (3) Ms Madina Kursoltovna Dolsayeva, born in 1982;<\/span><\/p>\n (4) Mr Shamil (also known as Adam) Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1984; and<\/span><\/p>\n (5) Mr Baysongur Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1995.<\/span><\/p>\n The first, third, fourth and fifth applicants live in the village of Martan-Chu, in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya. Prior to her death in June 2007 the second applicant also lived there.<\/span><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/span><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Disappearance of Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants’ account<\/span><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Abduction of the Dolsayev brothers<\/span><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The first and second applicants were married. They were the parents of Beslan Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1974, Mr Rizvan Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1977, Mr Rizavdi Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1978, and Mr Shuddi Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1980, as well as the third, fourth and the fifth applicants.<\/span><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0At the material time Beslan Dolsayev worked as a police officer of the department of the interior of the Zavodskoy district of Grozny (\u201cthe Zavodskoy ROVD\u201d) and had a service machine gun. The Dolsayev brothers had positive references from local authorities and were not suspected of participation in illegal armed groups.<\/span><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0From December 1999 Martan-Chu was under the full control of the Russian federal forces. From the end of September 2001 the village was under curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. The checkpoints of the Russian military forces were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. Military servicemen conducted regular identity checks in the village; prior to the events in question they had visited the applicants’ house for identity checks on eleven occasions.<\/span><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0On the night between 20 and 21 October 2002 Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev, the applicants and other members of the Dolsayev family were sleeping in their house at 4 Tsentralnaya Street, Martan-Chu, in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya.\u00a0At about 4 a.m. around thirty men in camouflage uniform and masks and armed with machine guns entered the Dolsayevs’ yard. They were equipped with portable radio transmitters but used gestures to communicate among themselves. The men shouted that they belonged to the Main Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Defence (\u201cthe GRU\u201d) and ordered everyone not to move. Ten of them broke into the house. Meanwhile, one or two armoured personnel carriers (\u201cAPCs\u201d) and a Ural vehicle arrived at the house; their registration numbers were painted over.<\/span><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The servicemen ordered the men from the Dolsayev family to stand along the wall, checked everyone’s identity papers and took Beslan Dolsayev’s service gun. Some of them searched the house without producing any warrant and took away a large knife with a black handle.<\/span><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The servicemen then instructed Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev to go outside; the brothers were not allowed to put on clothing. After that, the four brothers were placed in the APC. The servicemen also intended to take the fourth applicant with them, but the second applicant dissuaded them from doing so as he was sick.<\/span><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Having locked the women together with the fifth applicant in one room and the first and fourth applicants in another, the intruders left the house and drove away in the APCs and the Ural vehicle.<\/span><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants’ neighbour Ms A.M. submitted in her witness statement that on the night of the abduction of the Dolsayev brothers she had been awoken by the sounds of heavy military vehicles passing by her yard. When she had looked out of the window, she had seen an armoured military vehicle on wheels. She could not identify whether this was a tank or an APC. The vehicle had been parked about 50 metres away, next to the school yard; its headlights were off, but it was clearly visible in the electric light coming from the school’s boiler room. Some time later she had seen men in military uniform; the men had got into the vehicle and left without turning the headlights on. They had left in the direction of the military checkpoint located on the road to Urus-Martan.<\/span><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0After the abductors had left, the first and fourth applicants were released from the room by their neighbour, Mr A.S. The first applicant ran outside and saw footprints in the yard and the vegetable garden. The footprints led in the direction of the school, located 40-45 metres away from the applicants’ house. The first applicant followed the traces. Next to the school he saw APC tyre marks; they led in the direction of the road from Martan-Chu to Urus-Martan, where a military checkpoint manned by servicemen of the district military commander’s office was located.<\/span><\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants have had no news of Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev since 21\u00a0October 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Subsequent events<\/span><\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0On one of the days between the end of October 2002 and the end of November 2002, in the morning, the second and fourth applicants were together at a market in Urus-Martan. There they saw a Russian soldier holding the knife which had been taken away by the abductors of their relatives. The applicants recognised the knife by its shape and the black handle. They followed the soldier to the town’s central square. There they met the first applicant and told him about the soldier. The latter was standing next to a group of parked APCs and military Ural vehicles. At that moment the first applicant saw an acquaintance of his who was a police officer, Captain T.Sh. The first applicant told him about his sons’ abduction and asked whether he could arrest the soldier. Mr T.Sh. told the applicant that the police did not have the jurisdiction to arrest military personnel.<\/span><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0According to the second applicant, in August 2003 she provided this information to the authorities investigating her sons’ abduction. She did not mention to them that she had been together with her younger son when she had seen the soldier as she feared for her son’s safety. The first applicant also provided the investigators with a statement concerning the events in question.<\/span><\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0In support of their application the applicants submitted a number of documents, including the following: witness statements provided by the first applicant on 20 May 2003, 13 July 2003 and on an unspecified date; witness statements provided by the second applicant on 20 May 2003 and on an unspecified date; a witness statement by the applicants’ neighbour Mr\u00a0S.A., provided on an unspecified date; a witness statement by the applicants’ neighbour Mr A.S., provided on an unspecified date; a witness statement by the applicants’ relative Ms Z.G., provided on 20 May 2003; four character references for Beslan Dolsayev, provided by the Zavodskoy ROVD, the Urus-Martan ROVD and the Martan-Chu village administration on 25 July 2002 and on unspecified dates; a copy of the newspaper announcement introducing a curfew in the Urus-Martan district as of 25\u00a0September 2001; four statements certifying that Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev did not participate in military clashes in Chechnya, all dated 22 May 2003; character references for Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev, all undated; three hand-drawn maps of the premises of the applicants’ house; and copies of documents received by the applicants from the investigating authorities.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Information submitted by the Government<\/span><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Abduction of the Dolsayev brothers<\/span><\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The Government did not challenge most of the facts as submitted by the applicants. According to the Government, \u201cat about 4 a.m. on 21\u00a0October 2002 unidentified persons armed with automatic weapons arrived at the village of Martan-Chu in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya and took Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev away from their house\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0At the same time the Government contended that the applicants’ statement of facts was unreliable. In particular, they pointed out that according to the first applicant’s witness statement of 2 November 2002, the abductors had locked him in a room with his younger son Adam. However, several years later the applicant changed his testimony. In his witness statement provided on 16 May 2007 the applicant stated that he had been locked by the abductors in a room with his son Shamil and that he had heard one of the intruders saying to the others in Russian: \u201cThe commander said to leave Shamil [here] as he is an invalid\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The Government further pointed out that the applicants had not been sure about the precise number of intruders who had broken into their house on 21 October 2002 as in their statements the number varied from 10 to 25. In addition, the applicants had been inconsistent in their descriptions of the abductors’ behaviour: the first applicant had stated that the intruders had initially enquired whether there were any weapons in the house, whereas according to the second applicant, the intruders had not asked any questions.<\/span><\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The Government also expressed their doubts concerning the reliability of the witness statement provided by the applicants’ neighbour Ms A.M. In particular, they questioned her inability to distinguish between a tank and an APC and emphasised that she had not witnessed the Dolsayev brothers being placed in the vehicles.<\/span><\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Subsequent events<\/span><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Government did not dispute that the applicants had seen the soldier with the knife which had been taken away by the abductors. However, they contended that the first and second applicants had provided inconsistent accounts of these events: according to the second applicant’s witness statement of 14 August 2003, the events in question had taken place about a week after the abduction and the soldier had been walking alone, whereas according to the first applicant’s witness statement given at a later date (the Government did not specify the date), the events in question had taken place about a month after the abduction and the soldier had been accompanied by two other servicemen.<\/span><\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The Government further stated that the applicants’ failure to submit this information to the authorities in a timely manner had impeded the investigation into the abduction of the Dolsayev brothers.<\/span><\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Search for Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev and the investigation into their disappearance<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants’ account<\/span><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0The official investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives<\/span><\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0Since 21\u00a0October 2002 the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies. They have been supported in their efforts by the SRJI. In their letters to the authorities the applicants referred to their relatives’ abduction and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. Mostly these enquiries have remained unanswered, or purely formal replies have been given in which the applicants’ requests have been forwarded to various prosecutors’ offices. The applicants submitted to the Court some of their letters to the authorities and their replies. These documents are summarised below.<\/span><\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 October 2002, immediately after the detention of her sons, the second applicant wrote to the prosecutor’s office of the Urus-Martan district (\u201cthe district prosecutor’s office\u201d) describing in detail the circumstances of their abduction and asking for assistance in releasing them. In particular, she pointed out that on the morning after the abduction she and members of her family had discovered APC tyre marks next to their family’s vegetable garden.<\/span><\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 October 2002 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev under Article 126 \u00a7 2 (aggravated kidnapping) of the Russian Criminal Code. The case was assigned no. 61144. No investigative measures, other than the questioning of the first and second applicants on 2\u00a0November 2002, were taken following the opening of the criminal proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 November 2002 the second applicant wrote to the military commander of the Urus-Martan district (\u201cthe district military commander\u201d), the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (ROVD) and the district prosecutor’s office. She stated that her four sons had been abducted by servicemen of law-enforcement agencies of the Urus-Martan district and requested assistance in establishing her sons’ whereabouts.<\/span><\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 December 2002 the military prosecutor’s office of the North-Caucasus military circuit informed the second applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (\u201cthe UGA\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 December 2002 <\/a><\/a>the district prosecutor’s office granted the second applicant victim status in criminal proceedings concerning the kidnapping of the Dolsayev brothers (case no. 61144).<\/span><\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0On the same date the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 61144 owing to the failure to identify the culprits. On 16 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant of the suspension of the investigation.<\/span><\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 January 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that in spite of the suspension of the investigation in criminal case no. 61144, operational-search measures were being taken to solve the crime.<\/span><\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 February 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 (\u201cthe unit military prosecutor’s office\u201d) informed the second applicant that it did not have any information either about the involvement of military personnel, the police or the Federal Security Service (FSB) in the kidnapping of her relatives or about the whereabouts of the Dolsayev brothers.<\/span><\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 March 2003 the Zavodskoy ROVD carried out an internal inquiry into the disappearance of Beslan Dolsayev. It was established that he had been kidnapped by \u201cunidentified persons armed with machine guns and wearing camouflage uniform and masks\u201d. Beslan Dolsayev’s service machine gun was declared lost and put on a missing list.<\/span><\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 March 2003 the office of the Prosecutor General sent a report to the Commission of the Russian State Duma for Assistance in Political Settlement and Protection of Human Rights in Chechnya. The report provided data on disappearances in Chechnya and described investigative measures taken by the authorities to solve the kidnappings. The document referred to a specific group of disappearance cases, including the abduction of the Dolsayev brothers, in which the investigation had been opened and then suspended owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators. It noted that in all such cases the investigation had found no evidence implicating federal servicemen and that further steps were being taken to solve these crimes.<\/span><\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 March 2003 the Prosecutor General’s office forwarded a letter from a deputy of the Russian State Duma accompanying the second applicant’s complaint to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office.<\/span><\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 April 2003 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to inform him of the progress in the investigation into his sons’ disappearance and to grant him victim status in the criminal case. On 11\u00a0April 2003 the district prosecutor’s office replied that the investigation had been suspended on 30 December 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 April 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that the time-limit of the investigation in case no. 61144 had been extended until 20 May 2003 and that it was supervising the criminal proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 April 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that it was not necessary to grant him victim status in the criminal case since his wife had already been granted such status.<\/span><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0On 8 May 2003 the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA.<\/span><\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 May 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators and informed the second applicant of this.<\/span><\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0On 13 June 2003 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (\u201cthe Chechnya MVD\u201d) forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the ROVD.<\/span><\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 June 2003 the district military commander informed the second applicant that he had no information either about the whereabouts of the Dolsayev brothers or about the reasons for their abduction.<\/span><\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 July 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA requested the unit military prosecutor’s office to establish whether military personnel had been involved in the Dolsayev brothers’ abduction.<\/span><\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 July 2003 the office of the Prosecutor General informed the first applicant that his complaint about the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation in case no. 61144 had been forwarded to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office.<\/span><\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 July 2003 the second applicant requested the Chechnya prosecutor’s office to overturn the decision to suspend the investigation into her sons’ abduction and to ensure that the investigators took the necessary measures to solve the crime.<\/span><\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 August 2003 the Chechnya MVD informed the first applicant that the identities of the perpetrators of the Dolsayev brothers’ abduction had not been established, but that measures to identify the culprits were in progress.<\/span><\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 August 2003 the second applicant was questioned by the investigators. In her statement she pointed out that at some time between the end of October and the end of November 2002, in Urus-Martan, she had seen a soldier with the knife which had been taken away from her house by her sons’ abductors.<\/span><\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0On 6 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that the investigation into her sons’ abduction had been suspended on 6 September 2003.<\/span><\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 September 2003 the second applicant complained to the district prosecutor about the suspension of the investigation in the criminal case and requested that it be resumed. She expressed the opinion that her sons had been abducted by State representatives and pointed out that she had provided the investigators with detailed information which could have assisted them in identifying the perpetrators. In particular, she stated that she had told the investigators that the abductors had used military vehicles and had been able to pass through the checkpoints of the Russian military forces at night; that the abductors must have had permission from the military commander’s office to drive through the checkpoints; that the investigators had failed to question chief officers of local law-enforcement agencies who could have given such permission; and that the investigators had demonstrated their negligent attitude towards the investigation by failing to preserve and examine the tyre marks found next to the applicants’ yard and to question the servicemen who had manned the village checkpoints on the night of the abduction. The second applicant did not receive any response to this complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 April 2004 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that it was taking investigative measures to identify the perpetrators.<\/span><\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 October 2005 the applicants’ representative, the SRJI, wrote to the district prosecutor’s office requesting information about the progress of the investigation in the criminal case and asking for the applicants to be allowed to study the material in the case file. No response was given to this letter.<\/span><\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 November 2005 the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor’s office. He expressed the opinion that his sons had been abducted by representatives of federal forces. He complained about the ineffectiveness of the investigation and pointed out that the lack of information about the investigation precluded him from appealing against the investigators’ decisions. He requested that the investigation into his sons’ abduction be resumed and that he be allowed to study the investigation file. No response was given to this request.<\/span><\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 November 2006 the second applicant wrote to the district prosecutor’s office. She requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be provided with information concerning its progress.<\/span><\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 November 2006 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that it had rejected her request of 24 November 2006.<\/span><\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 November 2006 the district prosecutor’s office informed the second applicant that on the same date it had suspended the investigation owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators.<\/span><\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 March 2007 the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor’s office. He complained about the lack of information concerning the investigation and requested that the investigation be resumed and that he be allowed to study the case file.<\/span><\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 March 2007 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that \u201cas a person who has witness status in the criminal case, [he did] not have the right to lodge the request [to study the case file]…\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 May 2007 the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor’s office about the lack of information concerning the investigation and requested to be granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 May 2007 the second applicant complained to the district prosecutor’s office about the lack of information concerning the investigation and requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be allowed to study the case file.<\/span><\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 May 2007 the district prosecutor’s office partly allowed the second applicant’s complaint. Its decision stated that the applicant would receive permission to study the material in the case file \u201cwhich would not divulge investigative secrets\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n 64.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 May 2007 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status in criminal case no.\u00a061144.<\/span><\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 July 2007 the district prosecutor’s office conducted a crime scene examination at the applicants’ household. No evidence was collected from the scene.<\/span><\/p>\n 66.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 July 2007 and 17 July 2007 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office that he be granted the status of a civil plaintiff in the criminal case. No response was given to these requests.<\/span><\/p>\n 67.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 July 2007 the applicants’ lawyer Mr M.A. submitted to the SRJI a written statement concerning his study of the investigation file in case no.\u00a061144. In this letter he described the following:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201c… the criminal case file comprises one volume. The case was opened on 30\u00a0October 2002 … Makka Dolsayeva was granted victim status and questioned. Kursolt Dolsayev was also questioned. No other investigative measures were taken. The investigation forwarded information requests to law-enforcement agencies in Chechnya asking whether the latter had apprehended the Dolsayev brothers; according to the responses, the brothers had not been apprehended [by the law-enforcement agencies].<\/span><\/p>\n On 30 December 2002 [the prosecutor’s office] decided to suspend the investigation owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators; the investigator’s decision stated that all possible investigative measures in the absence of anyone to be charged with the crime had been taken.<\/span><\/p>\n … the crime scene examination was not conducted. Therefore it is possible to conclude that from the very beginning the investigation in the criminal case led to a dead-end; one could not possibly talk about its effectiveness.<\/span><\/p>\n For instance, in their witness statements Kursolt and Makka Dolsayev stated that after the abduction they had seen tyre marks of military vehicles on the ground; however, the investigation did not find that it was necessary to examine the crime scene [although] traces of the criminals or any other evidence left [by the culprits] could have been discovered there …<\/span><\/p>\n The investigation did not question all the witnesses to the crime. [The applicants’] neighbours were questioned only in August 2003.<\/span><\/p>\n … on 20 April 2003 the investigation in the criminal case was resumed owing to ‘the lack of response to several information requests forwarded to law-enforcement agencies in Chechnya’.<\/span><\/p>\n … on 20 May 2003 the decision to suspend the criminal investigation was taken.<\/span><\/p>\n On 6 August 2003 the investigation was resumed.<\/span><\/p>\n A plan of operational-investigative measures was drawn up on 6 August 2003. According to the prosecutor’s office, the investigation’s main theory was the abduction of the Dolsayev brothers by servicemen of federal forces. To verify this theory, [the investigation] issued the order ‘to conduct by 18 August 2003 an expert evaluation of the objects collected from the crime scene’. However, it should be recalled that the crime scene examination had not been conducted and, consequently, no objects had been collected from the scene. The investigative orders listed in the plan of operational-investigative measures had not been carried out.<\/span><\/p>\n The investigation in the criminal case was suspended on 6 September 2003.<\/span><\/p>\n On 4 April 2005 the investigation was resumed.<\/span><\/p>\n Orders concerning ‘verification of the operations conducted by the servicemen of the Urus-Martan FSB and servicemen of the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office on the day of abduction’ were issued …<\/span><\/p>\n On 4 May 2005 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended.<\/span><\/p>\n On 6 June 2005 the investigation was resumed …<\/span><\/p>\n On 6 July 2005 the investigation was suspended.<\/span><\/p>\n On 27 November 2006 the investigation was resumed …<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span> Nina Vaji\u0107,
\n<\/span> Anatoly Kovler,
\n<\/span> Elisabeth Steiner,
\n<\/span> Khanlar Hajiyev,
\n<\/span> Dean Spielmann,
\n<\/span> Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
\n<\/span><\/span> and Andr\u00e9 Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar<\/span><\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\n