5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in various districts of the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared, allegedly after having been unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. In each of the applications the events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since the alleged arrests. 6.  The applicants complained of the abductions to law‑enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. However, the proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without having achieved any tangible results. The investigations have mainly consisted of requests for information and formal requests for operational search measures to be carried out by counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and other regions of the North Caucasus. The requests received either negative responses or no reply at all. 7.  From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions. 8.  In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. However, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the incidents. 9.  Summaries of the facts in respect of each individual application are set out below. Each account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and to the domestic investigative authorities. The personal details of the applicants and their missing relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in the attached table (Appendix I). 10.  The applicants are:
(1)  Ms Malika Yusupova, who was born in 1957,
(2)  Mr Ilman Yusupov, who was born in 1983, and
(3)  Ms Remisa Ependiyeva, who was born in 1978.
The applicants live in Gudermes, Chechnya. They were represented before the Court by lawyers from the SRJI/Astreya. 11.  The first applicant is the mother, the second applicant is the brother and the third applicant is the sister of Mr Arbi Yusupov, who was born in 1973. 12.  At about 8 a.m. on 23 March 2002 Mr Arbi Yusupov and the second applicant were driving in a Niva car in the center of Gudermes, Chechnya. The brothers were stopped at a bridge in the town centre by a group of about ten armed military servicemen, some of whom were wearing masks. Those without masks were of Slavic appearance. The brothers were ordered to get out of the car and taken to an armoured personnel carrier (APC) parked nearby. The servicemen blindfolded the brothers and took them for a short ride in the APC to a checkpoint located about 500 metres away from the bridge. At that time the checkpoint was manned by a police unit from the Ivanovo Region of Russia. About ten minutes later, the brothers were taken from the checkpoint to an unidentified location in the centre of Gudermes; from there, they were taken by UAZ minivan to a basement. 13.  In the basement the brothers were put in separate cells. The second applicant spent four days handcuffed to a metal pipe. He was not fed for several days and was questioned about members of illegal armed groups. On the fifth day the second applicant was taken to another basement where he was detained for one day and again questioned about members of illegal armed groups. On 27 March 2002, late at night, he was taken in a UAZ vehicle to the countryside near Isti-Su in the Gudermes district and released. The abductors, who throughout the detention had spoken unaccented Russian, returned his passport and ordered him not to complain about the incident. 14.  The second applicant walked to the checkpoint located at the entrance to Gudermes where he was detained by servicemen. The latter called the Gudermes district department of the interior (“the Gudermes ROVD”). At about 7 p.m. on 27 March 2002 police officers arrived at the checkpoint and took the applicant to the ROVD, where he was questioned about the abduction. The second applicant returned home on 28 March 2002. 15.  The applicants’ relative, Mr Arbi Yusupov, has not been seen since 23 March 2002. 16.  The Government submitted a few copies of documents from the criminal case file (no. 57041) concerning the abduction of Mr Arbi Yusupov and the second applicant. The relevant information may be summarised as follows. 17.  On 27 March 2002 the second applicant and his relatives were questioned by investigators. They gave statements similar to the account the applicants submitted before the Court. 18.  On 3 June 2002 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 57041 on Mr Arbi Yusupov’s abduction. 19.  On 29 July 2002 the investigators requested the Ivanovo Region prosecutor’s office to question the commanding officer of the police unit which had been manning the checkpoint and other police officers who had witnessed the abduction. The relevant parts of the request read as follows:
“... The preliminary investigation established the following:
On 23 March 2002 at about 8.30 a.m. at the checkpoint [manned by] the composite police unit of the UVD [department of the interior] of the Ivanovo Region ... stopped a Niva car driven by [Mr Arbi Yusupov]. The driver and the passenger [the second applicant], were forced into an APC without a registration number and taken to an unknown destination ... The abduction took place in the presence of police officers from «Zmeyka-1» unit ...” 20.  On 31 July 2002 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 21.  On 17 September 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Ivanovo Region informed the investigators about the results of the inquiry carried out by the Ivanovo Region police department following their request of 29 July 2002. The relevant part of the document reads as follows:
“... [Mr A.S.] acting deputy commanding officer of [the composite police unit] stated that on 23 March 2002 officers on duty at the checkpoint ... had reported that servicemen from the intelligence [branch] of the Gudermes district military commander’s office who had driven around in an APC, had stopped a red Niva car about a hundred metres from the bridge ... The men [from the Niva car] were put in the APC and taken away ...
... The officers on duty [at the checkpoint] had no reason to interfere with the actions of the servicemen from the Gudermes district military commander’s office as [the composite police unit] was under the operational authority of that military commander’s office ...”. 22.  On 6 November 2002 the investigators resumed the proceedings and forwarded the investigation file to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 in Gudermes (“the military prosecutor’s office”) for further investigation in accordance with the rules of jurisdiction. The decision stated, amongst other things:
“... as [it has been established that] the Yusupov brothers had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty by military servicemen from the Gudermes military commander’s office, a further investigation into the crime should be conducted by investigators from the military prosecutor’s office ...”.
The applicants were informed of that decision on 11 November 2002. 23.  On 5 December 2002 investigators from the military prosecutor’s office questioned four servicemen from the Gudermes district military commander’s office: Mr V.L., Mr M.G., Mr A.Sh. and Mr Yu.K. One of the officers, Mr V.L., stated that on 23 March 2002 their office had received information concerning explosives allegedly hidden in a red Niva car parked next to the bridge. Upon arrival at the site they had found the car without passengers; they had checked the vehicle and then brought it to the premises of the military commander’s office. The other three servicemen stated that on that day they had neither stopped a Niva car nor arrested any men. 24.  On 6 December 2002 the military investigators suspended the investigation and returned the criminal case to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, stating “the alleged involvement of military servicemen has not been confirmed”. The applicants were not informed thereof. 25.  On 26 December 2002 the Chechhnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the investigation file to the Gudermes distict prosecutor’s office for investigation. The applicants were not informed thereof. 26.  From the documents submitted it appears that between January 2003 and February 2008, that is, for five years and one month, the investigation was suspended and no steps were taken. According to the applicants, they were not informed of the suspension of the investigation. They stated that during that period the International Committee of the Red Cross had contacted the authorities on their behalf on fourteen occasions requesting assistance in establishing the whereabouts of Mr Arbi Yusupov. For instance, on 30 September 2004 the organisation contacted the Chechnya Mininstry of the Interior and the Department for the Execution of Sentences and on various dates in 2005 it contacted the Federal Security Service and the Russian Ministry of the Interior. 27.  On 21 May 2005 the first applicant obtained a character reference of Arbi Yusupov from the Gudermes Religious Board of Muslims and submitted it with her information requests to the State authorities. 28.  On 6 February 2008 the first applicant requested that the Gudermes investigations department grant her victim status in the criminal case. 29.  On 11 February 2008, following the first applicant’s request, the investigation was resumed and she was granted victim status. 30.  On 11 March 2008 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof. 31.  On 1 April 2008 the investigation was resumed again. 32.  On 30 April 2008 the investigators questioned another of the applicants’ relatives, the cousin of Mr Arbi Yusupov, Mr A.T., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the account the applicants submitted to the Court. In addition, he stated that the Yusupovs’ Niva car, which had been left at the checkpoint by the abductors, had been subsequently impounded on the premises of the Gudermes military commander’s office for about two weeks; a certain Mr A.Ya. who had worked at the military commander’s office at the time, had taken the car and had refused to return it to the applicants. 33.  On 3 May 2008 the investigation was suspended and the applicants were informed thereof. 34.  On 8 May 2008 the first applicant complained to the Chechnya Minister of the Interior and requested assistance in the search for her son. She also stated that in spite of its resumption, the investigation had not produced any tangible results, and offered to assist the investigators in the criminal case. 35.  On 22 May 2008 the investigation was resumed. The applicants were informed thereof. 36.  On 11 June 2008 the investigators again questioned the applicants’ relative, Mr A.T., who reiterated his previous statement. He added that at some point in 2004 he and the applicants had obtained information that Mr Arbi Yusupov was allegedly being detained in a correctional facility in the Komi Republic of Russia. 37.  On 12 June 2008 the investigators questioned the second applicant, who reiterated his previous statements. 38.  On 16 June 2008 the investigators requested the Komi Department for the Execution of Sentences to inform them whether Mr Arbi Yusupov was being detained in one of their facilities. No reply was received to that request. 39.  On 23 June 2008 the investigation was suspended again. The applicants were informed thereof. 40.  On 13 October 2008 the first applicant’s request for assistance in the search for her son, which she had submitted to the State Civic Chamber on 30 May 2008, was forwarded to the Gudermes prosecutor’s office. 41.  On 13 October 2008 the supervising prosecutor criticised the investigation’s shortcomings and ordered that it be resumed. On 22 October 2008 the investigation was resumed and the applicants were informed thereof. 42.  On 6 December 2008 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof. 43.  From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending. 44.  The applicants are:
(1)  Ms Rauza Khadzhiyeva, who was born in 1957,
(2)  Ms Marina Idrisova, who was born in 1968,
(3)  Ms Madina Khadzhiyeva, who was born in 1995, and
(4)  Ms Kheda Khadzhiyeva, who was born in 1997.
The first applicant lives in Goyty in the Urus-Martan district, and the second, third and fourth applicants live in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. They were represented before the Court by Mr Dokka Itslayev. 45.  The first applicant is the sister of Mr Khasan Khadzhiyev, who was born in 1969 (in the documents submitted his date of birth is also referred to as 1959), the second applicant is his wife and the third and fourth applicants are his daughters. 46.  At the material time the village of Goyty was under curfew. Checkpoints had been set up by the federal forces on the roads leading to and from the settlement. At about 4 a.m. on 30 October 2001 a group of ten masked and armed men in camouflage uniforms and bullet-proof vests broke into the applicants’ house. The men, who spoke unaccented Russian, had arrived in two APCs, a Ural lorry and two UAZ cars. They handcuffed Mr Khasan Khadzhiyev, checked his documents, took him to one of UAZ cars and forced him inside. Then one of the abductors reported via portable radio to someone with the code name “Vostok” that the operation was over, and the abductors drove away in the direction of Urus-Martan. 47.  About seven days after the abduction the first applicant was informed that her brother was being detained on the premises of the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office and that he would be released after a check. However, he was never released. 48.  The applicants have not seen Mr Khasan Khadzhiyev since 30 October 2001. 49.  The Government submitted copies of the documents from the second volume of the investigation file reflecting the proceedings only as of May 2008. The information concerning the proceedings as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows. 50.  On 6 January 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 25191 into the abduction of Mr Khasan Khadzhiyev. 51.  From the documents submitted it appears that on various dates in 2002 the applicants complained of the abduction to various law‑enforcement agencies and military prosecutors’ offices. 52.  On 6 March 2002 the investigation was suspended and the applicants were informed thereof. 53.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the investigation was resumed. The investigators examined the crime scene and questioned the first applicant, her sister and their neighbours. Their statements were similar to the account the applicants submitted to the Court. 54.  On 1 April 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. 55.  On 30 April 2003 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof in August 2003. 56.  On 26 August 2003 and again on 29 April 2004 the applicants complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor, stating that the investigation had been ineffective and requesting that it be resumed. 57.  On an unspecified date in August 2004 the investigation was resumed and on 20 September 2004 it was again suspended. The applicants were informed thereof. 58.  On 28 April 2005 the applicants again complained to the Urus‑Martan district prosecutor, stating that the investigation had been ineffective and requesting that it be resumed. In reply, on 1 June 2005 they were informed that the investigation had been suspended but that operational search measures were under way. 59.  On 7 July 2005 the applicants complained of their relative’s abduction to the Chechnya Minister of the Interior and asked for assistance in establishing his whereabouts. 60.  On 20 December 2005 the applicants complained of their relative’s abduction to the Urus-Martan district military commander and asked for assistance in establishing his whereabouts. 61.  On an unspecified date in January or February 2006 the applicants complained to the Chechnya prosecutor that the investigation of the abduction had been ineffective. 62.  On 7 March 2006, following the applicants’ complaint the investigation was resumed. It was then suspended on 23 April 2006. 63.  On 20 June 2006 and 25 January 2007 the applicants again complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor of the lack of information concerning the investigation and requested permission to access the investigation file. 64.  On 28 January 2007 the applicants’ request was partially allowed and they were provided with a copy of the last decision to suspend the investigation. 65.  From the documents furnished by the Government it transpires that on various dates between 2004 and 2008 the investigators questioned the first and second applicants, their relatives and neighbours. Their statements were similar to the account the applicants submitted to the Court. 66.  On an unspecified date in April or May 2008 the applicants again complained to the investigators that the investigation into the abduction had been ineffective. 67.  On 27 June 2008 the investigators replied to the applicants that on an unspecified date in 2008 the investigation had been resumed. It was then suspended on 27 June 2008. 68.  On 17 July 2008 the investigators questioned Mr Khasan Khadzhiyev’s sister, Ms N.Kh., whose statement was similar to the account the applicants submitted to the Court. 69.  On 19 July 2008 the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative, Mr K.M., whose statement was similar to the account the applicants submitted to the Court. 70.  On an unspecified date in March 2009 the applicants again complained to the investigators, requesting that the investigation be resumed. 71.  On 6 June 2009 the applicants were informed that the investigation into the abduction was still in progress. 72.  On various dates in October 2008 and then in February 2009 the investigators questioned a few of the applicants’ neighbours and fellow villagers. No new information was obtained. 73.  On 26 February 2009 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who stated that she had already been questioned on several occasions about the circumstances of the abduction, that she wanted to reiterate her previous statements and that she had no new information. 74.  On various dates in March 2009 the investigators again questioned several of the applicants’ neighbours, all of whom reiterated their previous statements confirming the account the applicants submitted to the Court. No new information was received. 75.  On 21 February 2011 the investigators refused to allow the first applicant’s request that the investigation be resumed. The applicant appealed against the refusal to the Urus-Martan District Court. On 27 April 2011 the latter granted the applicant’s request. 76.  On 16 May 2011, following the District Court’s decision, the investigators provided the first applicant with access to the investigation file. 77.  On various dates in December 2011 the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ relatives. No new information was received. 78.  From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending. 79.  The applicant, Ms Larisa Dadayeva, was born in 1976 and lives in Geraardsbergen, Belgium. She is the wife of Mr Mayrbek Shavanov, who was born in 1976, and the sister-in-law of Mr Aslambek Shavanov, who was born in 1977. 80.  The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr Didier Bogaert. 81.  On 24 September 2001 armed servicemen of the Russian federal forces carried out a special operation in Alkhazurovo. The applicant lived in the settlement on Sheripova Street with her husband, Mr Mayrbek Shavanov, their two minor sons and other relatives, including her brother‑in-law, Mr Aslambek Shavanov, and their parents. 82.  At around 4 a.m. on that date a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into the Shavanovs’ family house, beat up family members, including the applicant, and took away the applicant’s husband, Mr Mayrbek Shavanov, and his brother, Mr Aslambek Shavanov. The intruders used an APC, a UAZ minivan, a Ural lorry and two Kamaz lorries from the local police station. 83.  At some point, the Urus-Martan district military commander, Mr Gadzhiyev, unofficially acknowledged that the missing brothers were being held on the premises of the Urus-Martan district office of the Federal Security Service situated on the third floor of the military commander’s office. 84.  The applicant and her relatives have not seen Mr Mayrbek Shavanov and Mr Aslambek Shavanov since 24 September 2001. 85.  At some point prior to 2010 the applicant moved to Belgium. She maintained contact with her relatives in Chechnya, who handled the correspondence with the authorities. 86.  The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case no. 25192 concerning the abduction of Mr Mayrbek Shavanov and Mr Aslambek Shavanov. The relevant information may be summarised as follows. 87.  On 24 September 2001 the mother of the Shavanov brothers, Ms A.Sh., complained to the Urus-Martan ROVD that her sons had been abducted by military servicemen and taken away in a military vehicle. 88.  On 24 September 2001 the investigator questioned the applicant, Ms A.Sh. and Aslambek’s wife, Ms Z.A., all of whom stated that earlier that day, at about 4 a.m., armed masked men in camouflage uniforms arrived in an APC, a Ural lorry and a UAZ minivan, broke into their house and abducted Mr Mayrbek Shavanov and Mr Aslambek Shavanov. 89.  On 24 September 2001 the investigators also questioned the applicant’s neighbour (his initials were illegible in the documents submitted to the Court), whose statement was similar to the account the applicants submitted to the Court. 90.  On 7 January 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 25192. 91.  On 17, 18 and 29 January 2002 the applicant, Ms A.Sh. and Ms Z.A. respectively were granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. 92.  On 10 January 2002 the investigators requested the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (the Urus-Martan ROVD) to assist them with the identification of eyewitnesses, the examination of the crime scene and establishing which military units were stationed in Alkhazurovo. In reply the police department informed the investigators that the witnesses had refused to give statements as they had been afraid to give evidence against servicemen of the federal forces and that it was impossible to identify the military units stationed in Alkhazurovo. 93.  On 7 March 2002 the investigation was suspended and then resumed several weeks later. 94.  On 29 March 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant’s relatives, Ms L.D. and Mr M.Sh., whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the account the applicants furnished to the Court. 95.  The investigation was suspended between April 2002 and June 2006. 96.  On an unspecified date in June 2006 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again in July 2006. 97.  On 17 June 2007 the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbours, Ms T.Kh., Mr N.A. and Ms A.S., whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the account the applicant submitted before the Court. 98.  On 18 January 2010 the mother of the abducted brothers, Ms A.Sh., complained to the investigators that the proceedings had been protracted and asked for access to the investigation file. Her request was refused. On 26 March 2010, following the complaint of Ms A.Sh, the Urus-Martan District Court ordered the investigators to allow her request. 99.  On 14 December 2010 Ms A.Sh. complained to the Urus-Martan Town Court, requesting that the criminal proceedings be resumed and the investigation be carried out effectively. 100.  On 23 December 2010 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on the following day. 101.  On 27 January 2011 the court dismissed the complaint of 14 December 2010 as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed to the Chechnya Supreme Court and on 9 March 2011 the latter forwarded the complaint for a fresh examination. 102.  On 29 March 2011 the investigation was resumed again and then suspended on 29 April 2011. 103.  From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending. 104.  The applicants are:
(1)  Ms Kisa Dzhabrailova, who was born in 1951,
(2)  Mr Adlan Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1987, and
(3)  Mr Suleyman Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1974.
The applicants live in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ibragim Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1976; the second and third applicants are his brothers. 105.  The applicants were represented before the Court by the NGO Materi Chechni. 106.  Between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. on 5 November 2002 a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into the applicants’ house in Achkhoy‑Martan. Those who were unmasked were of Slavic appearance. They spoke Russian. The men locked the first applicant, her husband and their relatives in one room. Then, after searching the house, they dragged Mr Ibragim Dzhabrailov outside in his underwear, put him in an APC and drove away. The APC was accompanied by a UAZ minivan and a Ural lorry. 107.  Later that morning the applicants informed the Achkhoy-Martan district military commander’s office, the local administration and the police of the abduction. The military commander’s office acknowledged that they had detained Mr Ibragim Dzhabrailov and promised to release him later the same day. However, he was not released. 108.  The applicants were later told that Mr Ibragim Dzhabrailov had been taken away by servicemen from Grozny. 109.  The applicants have not seen Mr Ibragim Dzhabrailov since 5 November 2002. 110.  The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case no. 63090 concerning the abduction of Mr Ibragim Dzhabrailov. The relevant information may be summarised as follows. 111.  On 11 November 2002 the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 63090 and examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 112.  On 12 November 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 113.  On 20 November 2002 Mr T.A., a police officer from the Achkhoy‑Martan ROVD, reported to the investigators, amongst others, as follows:
“... as a result of the operative search steps taken to investigate the abduction of Mr Ibragim Dzhabrailov ... it was established that between 1999 and 2000 Mr Ibragim Dzhabrailov and his brother [I. Dzh.] ... had been members of illegal armed groups ... in the night between 13 and 14 January 2000 the Dzhabrailov brothers ... launched a grenade at an APC-80 of the federal forces in Achkhoy-Martan; on 24 November 2000 criminal case no. 26213 was opened to investigate the incident ...” 114.  On 11 January 2003 the investigation was suspended. 115.  On 2 June 2005 the first applicant complained to the Chechnya prosecutor of her son’s abduction by military servicemen and asked for assistance in the search for him. 116.  On 10 June 2008 the investigation was resumed following the supervising prosecutor’s criticism of the investigation and his order to that effect. 117.  On 7 July 2008 the first applicant asked the investigators to grant her the status of civil plaintiff in the criminal proceedings. Her request was granted on the same date. 118.  On 10 July 2008 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof. 119.  On 28 April 2009 the first applicant complained to a number of authorities, including the Chechnya investigations department, of the abduction and the absence of results in the authorities’ search. On 28 May 2009 the investigators replied to the applicants that the investigation was in progress. 120.  On 5 June 2009 and again on 16 February 2010 the first applicant requested that the investigators, amongst other things, resume the proceedings and inform her of their progress. In reply she was informed that operational search measures were under way. 121.  On 21 June 2010 the investigation was resumed. 122.  On 23 June 2010 the applicants’ relative, Ms R. Dzh., was questioned about the circumstances of the abduction of her nephew, Mr Ibragim Dzhabrailov. Her statement was similar to the account the applicants submitted to the Court. 123.  On 24 June 2010 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Mr I.A., whose statement did not yield any new information. 124.  On 1 July 2010 the proceedings were suspended. 125.  From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending. 126.  The applicants are:
(1)  Ms Madina Minayeva, who was born in 1974,
(2)  Mr Suleyman Minayev, who was born in 1993, and
(3)  Ms Zaira Minayeva, who was born in 1994.
The applicants live in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. They were represented before the Court by Mr Dokka Itslayev. 127.  The first applicant is the wife of Mr Mayrbek (also spelt as Mairbek) Minayev, who was born in 1972. The second and third applicants are their children. 128.  In September 2002 the town of Urus-Martan was under curfew and surrounded by Russian military checkpoints. A number of law-enforcement and administrative authorities, including a military commander’s office, were situated in the town. 129.  Between 2 and 3 a.m. on 5 September 2002 an APC and two Ural lorries arrived at the applicants’ block of flats. Some forty men in masks and camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles. Up to fifteen of them entered the applicants’ flat. They spoke unaccented Russian. After locking Mr Mayrbek Minayev’s father, Mr A.M., in the kitchen and threatening his brother with a machinegun, the men checked the identity documents of the other family members. They searched Mr Mayrbek Minayev, asked for his passport and told his relatives that they were taking him to the military commander’s office. 130.  Through the windows the applicants saw the men beating Mr Mayrbek Minayev while dragging him, with a plastic bag over his head, to Lenina Street, where they forced him into one of the vehicles and drove away. 131.  On the same morning the first applicant went to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office and the Urus-Martan ROVD to complain about the abduction. Mr Mayrbek Minayev’s parents contacted the local administration. 132.  The applicants have not seen Mr Mayrbek Minayev since 5 September 2002. 133.  The Government submitted copies of the documents from the criminal case file (no. 61138) concerning the abduction of Mr Mayrbek Minayev. The relevant information may be summarised as follows. 134.  On 5 September 2002 Mr A.M. complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office about his son’s abduction by military servicemen. 135.  In October 2002 the investigators questioned Mr A.M., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the account the applicants submitted to the Court. 136.  On 7 November 2002 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 61138. 137.  On 8 November 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 138.  On 7 January 2003 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 139.  On 21 November 2003 at the first applicant’s request the Urus‑Martan District Court declared Mr Mayrbek Minayev a missing person. 140.  It appears that on an unspecified date in June 2007 the proceedings were resumed, as on 14 June 2007 the investigators again questioned Mr A.M., who reiterated his previous statement concerning his son’s abduction. In addition, he stated that for some time after the abduction he and his wife had visited the military commander’s office daily searching for information on their son’s whereabouts, but to no avail. 141.  On an unspecified date in 2007 the investigation was again suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 142.  On 1 February 2010 the first applicant requested that the investigators grant her permission to access the investigation file. On 2 February 2010 her request was rejected. 143.  On 2 February 2010 the investigation was resumed. 144.  On 5 and 8 February 2010 the investigators questioned two of the applicants’ neighbours, Ms Kh.K. and Ms S.M., whose statements corroborated the applicants’ account. 145.  On 10 February 2010 the investigators again questioned Mr A.M., who reiterated his previous statements. 146.  On 15 February 2010 the investigators questioned the brother of Mr Mayrbek Minayev, Mr Akh.M. His statement was similar to the account the applicants submitted before the Court. 147.  On 16 February 2010 the first applicant was again granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. Her statement was similar to the account submitted to the Court. 148.  On an unspecified date in 2010 the investigation was again suspended. 149.  On 14 December 2011 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 12 January 2012. 150.  From the documents submitted it appears that the investigation is still pending.