7.  The applicants live in the village of Tsa-Vedeno, the Vedeno District, in the Chechen Republic. The first applicant was married to Mr Ramzan Kukuyev, born in 1966. They are the parents of the second, third and fourth applicants. 8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 9.  The Kukuyev family lived, along with Ramzan Kukuyev’s parents and his four brothers and their families, in a household comprising several houses in Tsa-Vedeno. Ramzan Kukuyev had worked as a construction worker; the first applicant was a housewife. On 16 April 2000 Ramzan Kukuyev joined the Chechen home guard organised by the Russian authorities. On 30 March 2001 he left the service on medical grounds. At the material time Ramzan Kukuyev was unemployed. 10.  In the morning of 3 May 2001 the federal military commenced a “sweeping” operation in the village of Tsa-Vedeno. 11.  Between 5 and 6 a.m. on 3 May 2001, when the first applicant and her husband were asleep at home, a group of about forty servicemen entered their house. Two or three of them were wearing masks. The servicemen did not introduce themselves and ordered Ramzan Kukuyev to show his identity papers. The latter produced his papers and a medical certificate confirming that he was unwell and was not fit for work. 12.  The military then forced all male members of the Kukuyev family into the courtyard while keeping the women inside. The Kukuyev men were ordered to take off their shirts and were body searched. The military also searched the household. According to the first applicant, they broke things belonging to the house and took away a TV set, some clothes and a blanket. 13.  Thereafter the servicemen forced Ramzan Kukuyev, his brother and two cousins into armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and took them away. The first applicant attempted to follow them but the servicemen threatened her with firearms. The then four-year-old fourth applicant ran after her father, but one of the soldiers threw her aside with the result that she fell and broke her collar bone. 14.  Ramzan Kukuyev, along with other residents of Tsa-Vedeno arrested during the “sweeping” operation, was taken to a federal military base on the outskirts of the village. 15.  According to a resident of Tsa-Vedeno detained on 3 May 2001, in the evening the military ordered detainees to stand in a row. Some of the detainees, including Ramzan Kukuyev, were ordered out of the line. They were blindfolded and taken to a military helicopter. The helicopter and the servicemen then left in the direction of the town of Shali. Since then Ramzan Kukuyev’s whereabouts have been unknown. 16.  In the applicants’ submission, fifteen men from Tsa-Vedeno were apprehended during the “sweeping” operation on 3 May 2001. Some of them were released later the same day; several others were released and delivered by a military helicopter to the outskirts of Tsa-Vedeno four days later. Ramzan Kukuyev, his cousin and another resident of Tsa-Vedeno disappeared following their detention. 17.  The events of 3 May 2001, including the detention and disappearance of Ramzan Kukuyev, were reported by a number of human rights NGOs, and in particular by Human Rights Watch in its report “Last seen...: continued ‘disappearances’ in Chechnya” (April 2002) and by the Memorial Human Rights Centre in June 2003. 18.  According to the Government, at about 11 a.m. on 3 May 2001 unidentified persons in masks and camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns arrived in armoured vehicles in the village of Tsa-Vedeno. They detained fourteen residents of the village and took them away to an unknown destination. Subsequently, all the detainees except for the applicants’ relative and two others were released. The latter three residents of Tsa-Vedeno went missing. 19.  On 3 May 2001 the federal military sealed off the village of Tsa-Vedeno. 20.  On 4 May 2001, after restrictions had been lifted, the first applicant went to a military commander’s office in Vedeno to find out about her husband’s whereabouts. According to her, Mr Sh., the military commander, refused to speak to her that day, as well as on 5 and 6 May 2001. 21.  On 7 May 2001 Mr Sh. met the first applicant and told her that he knew where the Kukuyev brothers were being held but would not tell her, as the Kukuyev brothers were bandits. Later, however, Mr Sh. told the first applicant that the “sweeping” operation of 3 May 2001 had been conducted by the Samara special police unit and that the Kukuyev brothers were being held at the federal military base in Khankala. 22.  The first applicant attempted to speak to officials of the prosecutor’s office of the Vedeno District (“the district prosecutor’s office”), but in vain. 23.  The first applicant managed to speak to two residents of Tsa-Vedeno detained on 3 May 2001 and released four days later. They had been severely beaten and one of them had burns on his chest, back and legs and his arms were swollen. The men told the first applicant that they must have been detained at the military base between Shali and Serzhen-Yurt, since that was the only base, apart from the military base in Khankala, where military helicopters could land. They had been kept in a basement and severely beaten and tortured with electricity. One of them told the first applicant that he had seen her husband on 4 or 5 May 2001 when the latter had been taken for interrogation. He had also seen Ramzan Kukuyev in the basement. The released men refused to make written statements as they feared for their security. 24.  Since 4 May 2001 the first applicant applied repeatedly to various public bodies, including the military commander’s office, the prosecutor’s office of the Vedeno District (“the district prosecutor’s office”), other prosecutors’ offices at different levels, the Office of the President of Russia and the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic. She referred to how her husband had been detained and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. In most cases the enquiries remained unanswered or only formal replies were given indicating that her requests had been forwarded to various prosecutors’ offices. 25.  The first applicant also visited the federal military bases in Shali and Khankala, but received no information concerning her husband. 26.  The first applicant was not informed promptly of the decision to institute criminal proceedings in relation to her husband’s abduction. Later the criminal proceedings were suspended on several occasions, but she never received the respective decisions. The investigating authorities questioned the first applicant on several occasions, but no other members of the Kukuyev family or neighbours were ever questioned. 27.  At some point in December 2001 the first applicant was informed that Ramzan Kukuyev had been detained at the Khankala federal military base. The investigator declined her request to verify that hypothesis. 28.  On 22 January 2002 the head of the Temporary Office of the Interior of the Vedeno District (“VOVD”) issued the first applicant with a progress report confirming that on 3 May 2001 unidentified servicemen armed with machine guns had broken into the household of the Kukuyev family and that Ramzan Kukuyev had been taken in an APC to an unknown destination and his location had not been established. The report further stated that an investigation of the crime had been instituted. 29.  By a letter of 7 June 2002 the VOVD notified the first applicant that the investigation of her husband’s kidnapping in case no. 37061 had been transferred to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”). 30.  By letters of 25 July and 9 August 2002 the military prosecutor’s office of the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit (“the circuit prosecutor’s office”) transmitted the first applicant’s queries concerning the investigation of her husband’s abduction to the unit prosecutor’s office and to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 for a thorough examination. 31.  On 29 July 2002 the Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian President in the Southern Federal Circuit forwarded the first applicant’s application to the circuit prosecutor’s office and the Department of the Interior of the Chechen Republic for investigation. The latter transmitted the first applicant’s application to the VOVD on 19 August 2002. 32.  On 19 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office issued a progress report for the unit prosecutor’s office, stating that the investigation in case no. 37061 had been suspended for failure to identify those responsible. 33.  By a letter of 5 January 2003 the circuit prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that any further correspondence should be addressed to the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”). 34.  On 22 February 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s application to the district prosecutor’s office for investigation. In the same letter the first applicant was advised to apply to the police. 35.  On 28 April 2003 the first applicant requested the UGA prosecutor’s office to inform her which prosecutor’s office was in charge of the investigation of the kidnapping of her husband, to notify her of the latest developments in the case and to grant her victim status. 36.  On 23 May 2003 the first applicant arrived at the district prosecutor’s office and was told that the criminal proceedings had been suspended. 37.  On 25 November 2001 the district prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the disappearance of Ramzan Kukuyev and two other residents of Tsa-Vedeno under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The file was assigned number 37061. 38.  The investigation in case no. 37061 was suspended on 25 January 2002. 39.  On 17 December 2002 the investigation file in case no. 37061 was destroyed in a fire as a result of an attack by rebel fighters on the district prosecutor’s office. 40.  On 25 August 2004 the district prosecutor’s office ordered that the file in case no. 37061 be restored. 41.  On 28 August 2004 the district prosecutor’s office ordered the unit prosecutor’s office to carry out certain investigative measures and requested the police to establish the place of residence of Ramzan Kukuyev’s relatives, as well as those of the witnesses to the events of 3 May 2001. 42.  On 14 September 2004 Ramzan Kukuyev’s mother was granted victim status in case no. 37061; she was questioned the following day. 43.  On 24 September 2004 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status and questioned her. During the interview the first applicant did not allege that her husband had been kept at the Khankala military base, that her property had been stolen or that the military commander’s office had ignored her requests for information. 44.  The district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation on 25 September 2004 and then resumed it on 10 August 2005. The investigation was again suspended on 10 October 2005 and resumed on 20 October 2005. 45.  In August 2005 the district prosecutor’s office questioned a number of witnesses of the events of 3 May 2001. 46.  On unspecified dates the investigators questioned several residents of Tsa-Vedeno who had been detained on 3 May 2001 and released later. The latter stated that they were unable to identify the persons who had detained them. 47.  On 13 August 2005 the district prosecutor’s office requested the military commander’s office of the Vedeno District, the VOVD and the Department of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”) of the Vedeno District to inform them whether any special operations had been carried out in the village of Tsa-Vedeno on 3 May 2001. On 15 and 16 August 2005 the district prosecutor’s office received negative replies. 48.  The investigating authorities sent a number of queries to various State bodies on 28 August, 15 September 2004 and 24 August 2005. The bodies in question replied that no criminal proceedings had ever been brought, nor any special measures ever been taken against Ramzan Kukuyev and that he had never been arrested or detained by any of them. 49.  On 24 August 2005 the district prosecutor’s office requested the police to find out whether Ramzan Kukuyev and other missing residents of Tsa-Vedeno had been kept in any detention facilities of the Chechen Republic and adjacent regions. According to the replies received, the applicants’ relative had not been listed among detainees of any detention centres in Chechnya. 50.  On 20 October 2005 the district prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation in case no. 37061. 51.  On an unspecified date the district prosecutor’s office questioned Mr D., who submitted the following. At about 5 a.m. on 3 May 2001 ten armed and masked men had broken into his home in Tsa-Vedeno, taken him outside and put him into a Ural vehicle. There had been six other villagers and one man unknown to Mr D. in the Ural vehicle. They had been driven in the direction of the town of Shali. Near the turn to the village of Elistanzhi the vehicle had stopped. Mr D. and other men had been taken out of the vehicle; the armed men had tied their arms, blindfolded them with adhesive tape and again put them into the Ural vehicle. Mr D. had been kept for the next two days in an unknown place and then taken, with other villagers, to a forest near the village of Agishty and released. 52.  Five other villagers detained on 3 May 2001 were also questioned and made statements similar to those of Mr D. None of them had seen Ramzan Kukuyev in the Ural vehicle. 53.  A son of Mr M. who had been detained on 3 May 2001 and had not been seen since was granted victim status in case no. 37061 and questioned. 54.  The applicants’ house was examined as a crime scene and photographed. 55.  On 8 October 2006 the investigation in case no. 37061 was suspended for failure to identify those responsible. 56.  On 5 September 2007 the district prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation and informed the victims accordingly. 57.  In the course of the investigation the hypothesis of involvement of the Russian military in the crimes was not proven. 58.  The investigation did not identify the alleged perpetrators or establish Ramzan Kukuyev’s whereabouts. The case was investigated by the district prosecutor’s office under the supervision of the Prosecutor General’s Office. 59.  Despite specific requests made by the Court on two occasions, the Government refused to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in case no. 37061, stating with reference to the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office 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 the witnesses. 60.  The Government only submitted a list of documents in the file of case no. 37061, from which it can be ascertained that there were at least 186 pages in the file and several documents. These included:
(a) a copy of a procedural decision of 25 November 2001 instituting criminal proceedings in connection with the disappearance of the applicants’ relative and two other residents of Tsa-Vedeno on 3 May 2001;
(b) copies of procedural decisions of 18 December 2002 and 18 February 2003 on institution and suspension of criminal proceedings in connection with an explosion at the VOVD premises leading to the destruction of property;
(c) copies of decisions granting victim status in case no. 37061 to the first applicant and a relative of another missing person;
(d) copies of decisions of 25 August 2004 and 10 August and 19 September 2005 of investigators of the district prosecutor’s office to take up case no. 37061;
(e) a letter of September 2004 (the date is unclear) informing the first applicant of the suspension of the investigation on 24 September 2004;
(f) a letter of 2005 (the date is unclear) notifying the first applicant that the investigation had been resumed;
(g) letters dated 10 October 2005 notifying the relatives of the other missing men, but not the first applicant, of the suspension of the investigation on the same date.