6.  The applicants are:
1) Ms Zayra Benuyeva, born in 1951,
2) Ms Kheda Benuyeva, born in 1985,
3) Ms Razet Benuyeva, born in 1976,
4) Ms Larisa Benuyeva, born in 1977,
5) Ms Khava Benuyeva, born in 1994,
6) Ms Rezida Benuyeva, born in 1982,
7) Mr Saydmagomed Benuyev, born in 1986,
8) Mr Zelimkhan Benuyev, born in 1989,
9) Mr Magomed Zhanalayev, born in 1941,
10) Ms Lula Zhanalayeva, born in 1951,
11) Ms Billant Musayeva, born in 1975,
12) Ms Kheda Zhanalayeva, born in 1979,
13) Mr Denis Zhanalayev, born in 1971,
14) Mr Ilyas Zhanalayev, born in 1983, and
15) Mr Imam Zhanalayev, born in 1993. 7.  The applicants live in the Chechen Republic. The third applicant lives in the town of Urus-Martan. The twelfth applicant lives in the village of Grushevoye, the Urus-Martan District. The other applicants live in the village of Martan-Chu, the Urus-Martan District. 8.  The first applicant was married to Mr Mumad Benuyev, born in 1951. The couple were the parents of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants, and of Mr Sayd-Selim Benuyev, born in 1982. Mumad Benuyev died in 2005. 9.  The ninth and tenth applicants are the parents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth applicants, and of Mr Abu Zhanalayev, born in 1973. 10.  Abu Zhanalayev and his parents lived at 31 Pervomayskaya Street, in the village of Martan-Chu. Their house shared a courtyard with three other houses belonging to their relatives, including that of Mr Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev, Abu Zhanalayev's uncle. 11.  In the evening of 24 November 2002 around twelve armed men wearing masks entered Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev's house without identifying themselves and started searching it. They asked if someone named Ayup lived there; Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev replied in the negative. 12.  In the meantime, other armed men searched the houses of two other relatives of the Zhanalayevs. Abu Zhanalayev's house was not searched. 13.  At some point the armed men decided to leave Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev's house. In the courtyard they met Abu Zhanalayev and ordered him to produce his identity papers. Abu Zhanalayev asked his uncle to bring the papers. Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev went to the Zhanalayevs' house and told the tenth applicant about the armed men; then they took Abu's identity papers and rushed to the courtyard. They saw no trace of Abu Zhanalayev or the armed men and noticed a UAZ vehicle driving away from their courtyard.
(b)  Abduction of Sayd-Selim Benuyev 14.  In the evening of 24 November 2002 Sayd-Selim Benuyev, his parents, siblings and other relatives were at their family home at 24 Pervomayskaya Street, in Martan-Chu. It appears that on that night there was a blackout in the village as the electricity had been cut off. 15.  At about 9 p.m. around twelve armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns burst into the Benuyevs' house. All but four of them wore masks; those that were unmasked had Slavic features. The armed men spoke unaccented Russian. The Benuyev family inferred that the armed men belonged to the Russian military. 16.  The servicemen locked the first applicant in one of the rooms. Then they forced Mumad Benuyev to the floor and asked him where his sons were. Then they asked for Sayd-Selim Benuyev. When Sayd-Selim identified himself, the servicemen kicked and beat him and his father with machine gun butts until the two Benuyev men started to bleed. The servicemen also beat the second applicant. 17.  At some point the servicemen put a sack on Sayd-Selim Benuyev's head and took him barefoot into the street. The first applicant saw two UAZ vehicles parked near her house. The seventh applicant pointed at one of the UAZ vehicles with a flashlight and the first applicant noticed scratches on its right side; the vehicle had an aerial on its roof. The servicemen put Sayd‑Selim Benuyev into the UAZ with the aerial and drove off.
(c)  Subsequent events 18.  Immediately after Abu Zhanalayev's abduction the tenth applicant and Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev followed the UAZ vehicles. A few minutes later they met the first applicant and her brother-in-law. 19.  The relatives of the two abducted men chased the UAZ vehicles in a car. At some point Mr S., a serviceman of the military commander's office, managed to stop their car and told them not to follow the vehicles because they might be shot. Mr S. added that the UAZ vehicles belonged to the department of the interior of the Urus-Martan District (“the ROVD”). 20.  Later, villagers of Martan-Chu saw red and a green flares in the sky. At about 10 p.m. some of them noticed two UAZ vehicles parked next to the military commander's office of Martan-Chu. Five or ten minutes later three military servicemen got out of the vehicles and entered the military commander's office, while a few men walked out of it and got into them. The two vehicles then drove away in the direction of Urus-Martan. 21.  At about 11 p.m. two servicemen, acquaintances of the applicants, saw two UAZ vehicles driving in the direction of Urus-Martan. At some point they contacted other servicemen on duty at several checkpoints via portable radio and found out that the two vehicles had arrived at the ROVD. 22.  On 24 November 2002 Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev were kidnapped from the village of Martan-Chu. 23.  At about 11 p.m. on 24 November 2002 the first and tenth applicants went to the house of Mr M., the head of the ROVD. Mr M.'s bodyguards fired at the two women. They shouted and the firing ceased. Then the first and tenth applicants talked to Mr M. who told them not to worry and to go home. 24.  On 25 November 2002 the first and tenth applicants lodged written complaints about their relatives' abduction with the ROVD, the military commander's office of Urus-Martan, the prosecutor's office of the Urus‑Martan District (“the district prosecutor's office”) and the local administration. 25.  At about 11 a.m. on 26 November 2002 the first and tenth applicants saw two UAZ vehicles without registration numbers leaving the courtyard of the ROVD. They recognised the vehicles by their distinctive marks because one of them had a thick scratch and an aerial and the other one had white oil-cloth replacing broken windows. 26.  On 25 November 2002 the head of the ROVD told the applicants that he had contacted those who had abducted Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd‑Selim Benuyev and had asked them not to use force against the two men. 27.  Trying to establish the fate and whereabouts of their missing sons, the first and tenth applicants repeatedly contacted, in person and in writing, various State agencies and officials requesting assistance in the search for Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev. In particular, they applied to the Russian State Duma, the President of the Chechen Republic, the Administration of the Chechen Republic and the local administration. Most of those complaints were forwarded to prosecutors' offices at different levels. 28.  On 25 November 2002 the tenth applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office about her son's abduction. She mentioned the searches of her relatives' homes. On the same date the first applicant asked the district prosecutor's office to establish her son's whereabouts; she noted that her husband and daughter had been beaten. 29.  On 27 November 2002 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case was assigned the number 61161. 30.  On 29 November 2002 the local administration of the Urus-Martan District informed the first applicant that her complaint about the beating of Mumad Benuyev and the second applicant, as well as about the arrest of Sayd-Selim Benuyev had been forwarded to the military commander's office. 31.  On 20 December 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the tenth applicant's complaint about her son's abduction by State agents to the district prosecutor's office. 32.  On 25 January 2003 the district prosecutor's office granted victim status in case no. 61161 to Mumad Benuyev and Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev. 33.  On 27 January 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed Mumad Benuyev and Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev that the investigation in case no. 61161 had been suspended for failure to identify those responsible. 34.  On 7 April 2003 the first applicant complained to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic that Russian servicemen had abducted her son and beaten her husband and daughter. 35.  On an unspecified date the tenth applicant asked the district prosecutor's office to resume the investigation into her son's kidnapping. On 11 April 2003 the request was declined for the reason that all possible investigative measures had been taken to solve the crime. 36.  On 12 May 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office. 37.  On 14 and 16 May 2003 respectively, the district prosecutor's office informed the tenth and first applicants that the investigation in case no. 61161 had been resumed. 38.  On 30 May 2003 the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20102 (“the unit prosecutor's office”). 39.  On 6 June 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that on 19 May 2003 the investigation in case no. 61161 had been resumed. They also noted that they were verifying whether the vehicles belonging to the ROVD could have been used in the kidnapping. 40.  On 7 June 2003 the unit prosecutor's office forwarded the tenth applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office pursuant to jurisdiction rules. 41.  On 7 June 2003 the head of the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Chechen Republic (“the Chechen FSB”) informed the first and tenth applicants that required measures were being taken to establish their sons' whereabouts and that Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev had not been arrested by the Chechen FSB because there had been no legal grounds for their arrest. 42.  On 10 June 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the tenth applicant that the investigation in case no. 61161 had been suspended on 27 January 2003. They also noted that law-enforcement agencies would search for her son more vigorously. 43.  On 19 June 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic asked the district prosecutor's office for an update on progress in the investigation in case no. 61161. 44.  On 7 July 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first and tenth applicants that the decision on suspension of the investigation had been quashed on 19 May 2003 and that investigative measures were being taken to solve their sons' kidnapping. 45.  On 31 July 2003 the first and tenth applicants asked the district prosecutor's office to update them on the progress of the investigation. 46.  On 8 August 2003 the tenth applicant complained to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic that the district prosecutor's office was taking no action. 47.  On 18 August 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicants that the investigation in case no. 61161 had been suspended on 19 July 2003. 48.  On 25 August 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic informed the first and tenth applicants that the decision on suspension of the investigation in case no. 61161 had been quashed on 20 August 2003 and that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 49.  On 4 September 2003 the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office about her son's abduction by Russian servicemen and asked them to take certain investigative measures in order to establish his whereabouts. 50.  On 8 September 2003 the district prosecutor's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 61161 had been resumed on 20 August 2003 and was under way. 51.  On 30 December 2003 the SRJI asked, on behalf of the applicants, the district prosecutor's office to take certain measures in order to establish the whereabouts of Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev. 52.  On 27 and 30 April 2004 respectively, the district prosecutor's office informed the tenth and first applicants that the investigation in case no. 61161 had been suspended on 20 September 2003 for failure to identify those responsible. 53.  On 23 June 2004 the first and tenth applicants asked the district prosecutor's office to allow them access to the investigation file. 54.  On 26 October 2004 an investigator of the district prosecutor's office told the first and tenth applicants that there was no need to search for Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev as they were most probably dead. 55.  On 19 December 2005 the first and tenth applicants complained about their sons' abduction and the suspension of the criminal investigation to the military commander of the Urus-Martan District. 56.  On 24 January 2007 the first and tenth applicants asked the district prosecutor's office to update them on the progress of the investigation in case no. 61161 and to resume it if it had been suspended. 57.  On 31 January 2007 the district prosecutor's office informed the first and tenth applicants that the investigation had been suspended on 20 September 2003 but that investigative measures were being taken to find their sons and the perpetrators despite the suspension. 58.  On 27 November 2002 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the kidnapping of Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev in case no. 61161 on the basis of complaints lodged by the first and tenth applicants. 59.  Mumad Benuyev and Khas-Magomed Zhanalayev were granted victim status. 60.  On 15 December 2002 the first applicant was questioned as a witness and stated that on 24 November 2002 around twelve armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks had arrived in two UAZ-469 vehicles at her house; one of the vehicles had been khaki with an aerial on its roof and a dent on its right door. The armed men had beaten the first applicant's husband, the second applicant and two other relatives. They had demanded that the Benuyevs produce identity papers; while Sayd-Selim Benuyev had been trying to reach for his papers, they had captured him and dragged him outside, put a plastic bag over his head and taken him away. Sayd-Selim Benuyev had not participated in illegal armed groups. 61.  On 16 December 2002 Mumad Benuyev was questioned and made a statement identical to that of the first applicant. He noted that the UAZ vehicles had been grey and khaki. 62.  On 16 December 2002 Khas-Magomed Zhanalayev was questioned as a witness and stated that on 24 November 2002 Abu Zhanalayev had stepped out of his house and encountered armed men who had demanded to see his identity papers. Abu Zhanalayev had asked Khas-Magomed Zhanalayev to bring the papers from his house. While Khas-Magomed Zhanalayev had been absent, Abu Zhanalayev had been taken away by the armed men in a UAZ-469 vehicle. Abu Zhanalayev had not participated in illegal armed groups. 63.  On an unspecified date the first applicant was again questioned. She stated that the armed men in camouflage uniforms had beaten her guests who had arrived to attend a neighbour's wedding. There had been around twelve armed men, they had all been tall. Four of them had not been masked and one armed man had had red hair and a beard. 64.  On 24 January 2003 the department of the interior of the Vedenskiy District established that Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd-Selim Benuyev had not been kept in temporary detention facilities and that their dead bodies had not been found. 65.  On 22 May 2003 the investigators requested information on vehicles used by the ROVD between 10 November 2002 and 25 May 2003 from the head of the ROVD. According to the reply received, the ROVD owned twenty-eight vehicles, none of which was an UAZ-469. 66.  On 8 July 2003 an ROVD officer questioned the second applicant and Mr U., a relative of the Benuyevs. They both stated that at about 11 p.m. on 24 November 2002 armed men speaking Russian had arrived at their house in two UAZ vehicles – one grey and one khaki – and had taken away Sayd-Selim Benuyev. 67.  On 14 September 2003 ROVD officers presented seven UAZ vehicles used by the ROVD for the first applicant to identify. She did not recognise any of those as the vehicle used by her son's kidnappers. 68.  On 20 September 2003 the investigation into the kidnapping was suspended for failure to identify those responsible. 69.  The investigation into the kidnapping of Abu Zhanalayev and Sayd‑Selim Benuyev was repeatedly suspended and then resumed. The proceedings were pending and the required investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 70.  Despite specific requests from the Court, the Government refrained from disclosing most of the documents from the investigation file in case no. 61161, except for copies of the decision to institute the investigation, transcripts of witness interviews, a record of the first and tenth applicants' identification of UAZ vehicles and the court judgments of 18 March and 6 April 2005. Relying on information obtained from the Prosecutor General'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 Code of Criminal Procedure since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings. 71.  On 14 April 2003 the first applicant complained to the Urus-Martan District Court that the district prosecutor's office was taking no action in case no. 61161. It is unclear whether the complaint has been examined. 72.  On 28 December 2004 the first and tenth applicants challenged the lawfulness of the decision on suspension of the proceedings of 20 September 2003 before the Urus-Martan District Court. 73.  On 27 January 2005 the Urus-Martan District Court upheld the decision arguing that the district prosecutor's office had taken all the required investigative measures. The applicants appealed. 74.  On 16 February 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic allowed the first and tenth applicants' appeal, quashed the judgment of 27 January 2005 and remitted the case for fresh examination at the first instance. 75.  On 18 March 2005 the Urus-Martan District Court again dismissed the first and tenth applicants' complaint reproducing the reasoning of the judgment of 27 January 2005 verbatim. 76.  On 6 April 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the judgment of 18 March 2005.