The ECHR cases of Abayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 2952\/06); Abdurashidova v. Russia (no. 32968\/05); Mudayevy v. Russia (no. 33105\/05); Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 38570\/05); Seriyevy v. Russia (no. 20201\/05); Tasatayevy v. Russia (no. 37541\/05); and Umalatov and Others v. Russia (no. 8345\/05).<\/p>\n
\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n 293<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n 08.04.2010<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Press release issued by the Registrar<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Seven Chamber judgments against Russia concerning Chechnya and Dagestan<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven Chamber judgments concerning Russia, none of which are final.<\/span><\/p>\n All seven cases concerned the applicants\u2019 allegations that their close relatives were killed by Russian agents of the State in Chechnya, notably after detention and disappearance or during a security operation. All the applicants further complained that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They relied in particular on Articles\u00a02 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and\u00a013 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In one case the applicant also complained that her property had been damaged during the security operation in breach of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 (protection of property) to the Convention. <\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0Abayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 37542\/05)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The applicants are four Russian nationals who live in the town of Urus-Martan in Chechnya. The first three applicants are the mother, wife and son of Magomed-Ali Abayev, who was born in 1970. The fourth applicant is the mother of Anvar Shaipov, born in 1976. Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov disappeared on 13 September 2000 when, walking to the town centre, they were stopped at a Russian military checkpoint and taken into a nearby factory building. Neighbours witnessed the two men being taken into the building and, warned of this, the applicants waited at the checkpoint. While they were waiting they saw a grey military vehicle leaving the factory yard with its windows closed; a soldier told them, however, that their relatives had been released from the other side of the building. They have had no reliable news of the two men apart from at the end of September 2000 when a young Chechen man went to see Anvar Shaipov\u2019s mother to tell her that he had seen her son chopping firewood at the headquarters of an infantry regiment. The Court found as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of their disappearance;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the applicants\u2019 mental suffering;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court decided to strike out of its list of cases the application in so far as it concerned Magomed-Ali Abayev\u2019s wife as she no longer intended to pursue her complaints.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court awarded Magomed-Ali Abayev\u2019s mother and son jointly 12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, they were further awarded EUR\u00a060,000, jointly, and Anvar Shaipov\u2019s mother EUR\u00a060,000. All the applicants were awarded EUR\u00a02,115 for costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0Abdurashidova v. Russia (no. 32968\/05)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The applicant is a Russian national who is currently an asylum seeker living abroad. The case concerned her allegation that her seven-year old daughter, Summaya Abdurashidova, was killed by police gunfire when the family home in the village of Solnechnoye in Dagestan (Russia) was stormed in the early hours of 14\u00a0March 2005. No autopsy was carried out as the applicant and her family decided against it. The authorities\u2019 investigation, based on a forensic expert\u2019s report which stated that the applicant\u2019s daughter had died from splinter wounds caused by an explosive device, concluded that, during an operation to apprehend two armed suspects in hiding at the applicant\u2019s house, there had been a skirmish in which the two criminals \u2013 also killed \u2013 had used hand grenades against police officers, resulting in Summaya\u2019s death. The applicant further alleged that her house had been severely damaged and was uninhabitable. The Court found as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n No violation of Article 2 (right to life) concerning direct State responsibility for Summaya\u00a0Abdurashidova\u2019s death;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) on account of the Russian authorities\u2019 failure to take reasonable measures to prevent a real and immediate risk to the life of Summaya\u00a0Abdurashidova;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Summaya Abdurashidova died;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the damage to the applicant\u2019s home;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2 and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR\u00a060,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR\u00a03,480 for costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0Mudayevy v. Russia (no. 33105\/05)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The applicants are two Russian nationals who live in Raduzhnoye (Grozny district, Chechnya). They are the father and aunt of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev, brothers, born in 1985 and 1982 respectively. The Mudayev brothers have not been seen since they were taken away from the family home in the village of Raduzhnoye (Chechnya) by Russian servicemen during a security operation on 29 January 2003. More than 20 other people detained during the security operation were released the following day. The Government acknowledged that the brothers had been detained and taken for questioning by the security services but stated that they had been released at a later date. The applicants further alleged that their relatives, according to detainees held with them, had been held in inhuman conditions of detention and been severely beaten. Furthermore, their allegations were not properly examined despite having reported them in detail to the investigating authorities. The Court found as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev\u2019s disappearance;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 3 (investigation) on account of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Aslan and Mokhmad\u00a0Mudayev;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court awarded the first applicant EUR\u00a020,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. In respect of non-pecuniary damage it awarded EUR\u00a0100,000 to the first applicant and EUR\u00a020,000 to the second applicant. EUR\u00a03,150 was awarded for costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n 4.\u00a0Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 38570\/05)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The applicant is a Russian national who lives in Martan-Chu (Urus-Martan district, Chechnya). The case concerned her allegation that her son, Aslan Sadulayev, born in\u00a01978, was detained and disappeared on 9 December 2002 when, on his way to the family home in Urus-Martan (Chechnya), he was stopped by Russian servicemen at a mobile military checkpoint for an identity check. Two acquaintances, travelling in a bus and also stopped at the checkpoint, witnessed Aslan being taken away along with two other men in the car. He has not been seen since. The Court found as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Aslan Sadulayev;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Aslan Sadulayev\u2019s disappearance;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the applicant\u2019s mental suffering;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Aslan Sadulayev;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court awarded the applicant EUR\u00a060,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR\u00a01,110 for costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0Seriyevy v. Russia (no. 20201\/05)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The applicants are two Russian nationals who currently live in Shali (Chechnya). They are the father and sister of Sarali Seriyev, born in 1980, who has not been seen since 1\u00a0June\u00a02004 when he was taken away from the then family home in Belgatoy (Chechnya) by 30\u00a0heavily-armed and masked men in uniforms. The first applicant tried to prevent his son, who was disabled and blind in one eye, from being taken away by throwing himself onto one of the abductors\u2019 cars, but was stopped when he had liquid sprayed into eyes. The Court found as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Sarali Seriyev;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of Sarali Seriyev\u2019s disappearance;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the applicants\u2019 mental suffering;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Sarali Seriyev;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR\u00a060,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR\u00a06,500 for costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0Tasatayevy v. Russia (no. 37541\/05)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The applicants are two Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechnya). They are the mothers of Aslan Tasatayev who was born in 1975 and his cousin, Aslanbek Tasatayev, born in 1979 of whom they have had no news since the early hours of 1\u00a0June\u00a02001 when they were taken away from the family home by 30 masked men, some armed with sniper rifles, accompanied by a sniffer dog. The Court found as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of their disappearance;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the applicants\u2019 mental suffering;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court awarded each applicant 60,000\u00a0EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and EUR\u00a05,000, jointly, for costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0Umalatov and Others v. Russia (no. 8345\/05)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The applicants are three Russian nationals who live in the Chechen Republic. The first and second applicants are the father and wife of Usman Umalatov who was born in 1969. The third applicant is the father of Shamad Durdiyev, born in 1976. The two men have not been seen since they were taken away from the family home by Russian servicemen during a security operation in the village of Nagornoye (Chechnya) on 15 October 2002. A few days later nine men apprehended during the security operation in Nagornoye were released; the Government suggested that the applicants\u2019 relatives had either been released or abducted and killed by paramilitaries. The Court found as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of Usman Umalatov and Shamad Durdiyev;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 2 (right to life) for failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of their disappearance;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the applicants\u2019\u00a0mental suffering;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 5 (unacknowledged detention) in respect of Usman Umalatov and Shamad Durdiyev;<\/span><\/p>\n Violation of Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2.<\/span><\/p>\n In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR\u00a060,000, jointly, to the first and second applicants, and EUR\u00a060,000 to the third applicant. The Court awarded the applicants EUR\u00a02,750 for costs and expenses.<\/span><\/p>\n *********<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Additional information concerning the Court\u2019s findings in these cases<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In the six disappearance cases the Court considered that the applicants, mostly eyewitnesses to the incidents, had presented a coherent and convincing picture of their relatives\u2019 detention, corroborated by other eyewitnesses including family and\/or neighbours. In all but one (Mudayevy) of those cases it further considered it unlikely that, as suggested by the Government, the abductors of the applicants\u2019 relatives could have been criminals or members of paramilitary groups. In particular, in the cases of Sadulayeva, Seriyevy, and Tasatayevy the fact that a large group of armed men in uniform were able to move freely in such areas, carry out identity checks and apprehend people at a checkpoint or in their homes strongly supported the applicants\u2019 allegation that those men had been Russian servicemen conducting a security operation. In the cases of Mudayevy and Umalatov the Court further observed that the Government had either not presented evidence at all or it had been contradictory to support their claim that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been released. Further drawing inferences from the Russian Government\u2019s failure to submit documents in most of those cases \u2013 despite specific requests from the Court \u2013 to which it exclusively had access and the fact that it had not provided any other plausible explanation for the events in question, the Court considered that the applicants\u2019 relatives had to be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 2 in respect of the disappeared men of these six cases.<\/span><\/p>\n In the case of Abdurashidova the Court noted, however, that the applicant\u2019s allegation had been based exclusively on her own statement with no corroborating statements or evidence. Indeed, the forensic report, which the Court saw no reason to doubt, indicated that the applicant\u2019s daughter had been killed by splinters from an explosive device used by two criminal suspects whereas the police had used firearms during the security operation. Unfortunately, there was no other document such as an autopsy report to provide a complete and accurate record of the seven year old\u2019s injuries and the cause of her death. Accordingly, the Court found that it had not been established \u201cbeyond reasonable doubt\u201d that the security forces had been directly responsible for the death of the applicant\u2019s daughter and therefore held that there had been no violation of Article 2. On the other hand, there was nothing in the case file to suggest that any serious consideration had been given to adequate planning, control and execution of the search and apprehension in the applicant\u2019s home, especially bearing in mind that, not spontaneous, it had been set up in full knowledge of the danger posed by two criminal suspects and had been carried out by well-equipped and trained servicemen. Furthermore, it was entirely unclear why it had been possible to evacuate the applicant, her husband and two other children but not her daughter. The Court therefore concluded that the authorities had failed to take reasonable measures to prevent a real and immediate risk to the life of the applicant\u2019s daughter, in violation of Article\u00a02.<\/span><\/p>\n In all seven cases, the Court further held that there had been violations of Article\u00a02 relating to the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out effective criminal investigations into the circumstances in which the applicants\u2019 relatives had disappeared or been killed.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court also found that the applicants in five of the cases had suffered and continued to suffer distress and anguish as a result of the disappearance of their relatives and their inability to find out \u2013 despite repeated enquiries, both in writing and in person, to various official bodies \u2013 what had happened to them. The manner in which their complaints had been dealt with by the authorities had to be considered to constitute inhuman treatment in violation of Article\u00a03.<\/span><\/p>\n As regards the case Mudayevy, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article\u00a03, given that no adequate investigation had been carried out into the applicants\u2019 complaint concerning the ill-treatment of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court found that in the six disappearance cases the applicants\u2019 relatives had been held in unacknowledged detention without any of the safeguards contained in Article\u00a05, which constituted a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in that Article.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court finally held that as the criminal investigations into the disappearances and a violent death in these cases had been ineffective and the effectiveness of any other remedy that might have existed, including civil remedies suggested by the Government, had consequently been undermined, the State had failed in its obligation under Article\u00a013 of the Convention. Consequently in all seven cases there had been a violation of Article\u00a013 in conjunction with Article 2. In the case of Abdurashidova the Court further held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01 on account of the fact that, the authorities having denied any involvement in the damage to the applicant\u2019s home and the matter not having been examined at all during the domestic investigation, the applicant did not have any effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violation of her property rights.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n CASE OF ABAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n (Application no. 37542\/05)<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n JUDGMENT<\/span><\/p>\n STRASBOURG<\/span><\/p>\n 8 April 2010<\/strong><\/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><\/p>\n In the case of Abayeva and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/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 18 March 2010,<\/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. 37542\/05) 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 four Russian nationals listed below (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 9 September 2005.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by lawyers of the NGO EHRAC\/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mr A. Savenkov, First Deputy Minister of Justice, and, subsequently, by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.<\/span><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 March 2008 the Court decided to apply Rule\u00a041 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application and to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.<\/span><\/p>\n 4.\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 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants are:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) Ms Arua Abayeva, born in 1949,<\/span><\/p>\n 2) Ms Raminat Zhansayeva, born in 1983,<\/span><\/p>\n 3) Mr Siddyk Abayev, born in 2000 and<\/span><\/p>\n 4) Ms Malika Shaipova, born in 1947.<\/span><\/p>\n The applicants are two distantly related families of Russian nationals who live in the town of Urus-Martan, Chechnya. The first applicant is the mother of Magomed-Ali Abayev, who was born in 1970. The second applicant is his wife and the third applicant is his son. The fourth applicant is the mother of Anvar Shaipov, who was born in 1976.<\/span><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The disappearance of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov and subsequent events<\/span><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants’ account<\/span><\/p>\n a.\u00a0Abduction of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov<\/span><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0At the material time the town of Urus-Martan was under curfew. The first applicant lived there with Magomed-Ali Abayev and other relatives at 12 Lenin Street. Their house was in the town centre and less than a hundred metres from the nearest checkpoint of the Russian military forces. The checkpoint and its staff occupied two buildings; one was the building of the former Siluet clothing factory and the other was a nearby smaller building in Lenin Street.<\/span><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0At about 4 p.m. on 13 September 2000 Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov left the first applicant’s house. They were walking to the town centre when two Russian servicemen at the checkpoint stopped them. The servicemen took their passports and one of the soldiers went with them into the factory building. A few minutes later he came out, took Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov into the building and returned to the checkpoint without them.<\/span><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants’ neighbours Mr R.G. and Mr M.A. witnessed Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov being taken into the factory building and did not see them come out. Several minutes later Mr R.G. asked the servicemen at the checkpoint why Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov were still in the building; he did not receive any response. Meanwhile Mr M.A. went to the first applicant’s house and informed her and the second applicant about the arrest of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov at the checkpoint.<\/span><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The first and the second applicants immediately went to the checkpoint and asked the soldiers why Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov had been arrested. They were told that the two men had been taken into the building for an identity check and that they would be released shortly. The applicants decided to wait for the men at the entrance to the building. While they were waiting, a grey military UAZ vehicle with open windows drove up to the factory building. The soldiers opened the factory gates and let the car into the yard. Shortly after its arrival the car left with its windows closed.<\/span><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0After the car drove away the second applicant asked one of the soldiers about Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov. The soldier spoke with someone on his portable radio set and told her that the two men had been released from the other side of the factory building.<\/span><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0At that time the father of Magomed-Ali Abayev, Mr V.A., arrived at the checkpoint and went to the other side of the building to meet his son and Anvar Shaipov. About five minutes later he returned and told the first and the second applicants that Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov had not left the building. He further informed them that he had met an acquaintance who had been waiting for someone on the other side of the building for two hours and that this man had not seen Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov leaving the factory building.<\/span><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Then the second applicant went to the fourth applicant’s house and told her Anvar Shaipov had been arrested. The second and the fourth applicants immediately went to the town centre, where they met the first applicant. In the late afternoon all of them managed to speak to the deputy head of the Urus-Martan district administration, Mr L.M., who told them that Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov had been taken to the \u201cWest\u201d group of the Russian federal forces (\u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u043f\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u0444\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0441\u0438\u043b ‘\u0417\u0430\u043f\u0430\u0434’) stationed in the village of Tangi-Chu in the Urus-Martan district, and that on 14 September 2000 the applicants’ relatives would be brought back to Urus-Martan.<\/span><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0In support of their statements the applicants submitted the following: two accounts by the first applicant dated 19 March 2004 and 2 June 2005; an account by the second applicant dated 17 March 2004; an account by Mr\u00a0R.G. dated 29 March 2004; an account by Mr M.A. dated 2 April 2004; an account by the fourth applicant dated 18 March 2004, on an account by Mr M.-E.A. dated 1 June 2005 and a hand-drawn map of the former clothing factory.<\/span><\/p>\n b. The subsequent events<\/span><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On the morning of 14 September 2000 the deputy head of the administration, Mr L.M., told the applicants that he had not been able to find out where Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov had been taken. He suggested that they had been taken either to the main military base of the Russian federal forces in Khankala or to the detention centre of the Russian federal forces in the settlement of Chernokozovo.<\/span><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 September 2000 the two applicant families started a joint search for Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov. For the first few days the applicants addressed State authorities primarily in person, hoping for an immediate release of their relatives.<\/span><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0In the end of September 2000 (in the submitted documents the date was also stated as October 2001) a young Chechen man came to the fourth applicant’s house. He did not introduce himself. He told her that he had seen Anvar Shaipov at the headquarters of infantry regiment no.\u00a0245 of the West group of the Russian federal forces. Anvar Shaipov had been chopping firewood. He had told the man that he had been arrested by Russian military servicemen and asked him to inform his relatives that he had been detained at the headquarters of infantry regiment no.\u00a0245 of the West group. The young man said he had never heard of Magomed-Ali Abayev.<\/span><\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Since the end of September 2000 the applicants have had no news of their disappeared relatives.<\/span><\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Information submitted by the Government<\/span><\/p>\n
\nAnatoly Kovler,
\nElisabeth Steiner,
\nDean Spielmann,
\nSverre Erik Jebens,
\nGiorgio Malinverni,
\nGeorge Nicolaou, judges,
\nand S\u00f8ren Nielsen, Section Registrar,<\/span><\/p>\n