5.  The applicants are:
(1) Ms Aset Umarova, who was born in 1959;
(2) Ms Laura Alkhastova, who was born in 1981;
(3) Ms Luiza Umarova, who was born in 1983;
(4) Mr Ibragim Umarov, who was born in 1987;
(5) Mr Said-Ibragim (also spelled as Sayd-Ibragim) Umarov, who was born in 1991; and
(6) Ms Larisa Umarova, who was born in 1985.
The applicants live in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. The first applicant is the wife of Khamzat Umarov, who was born in 1956; the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are his children. 6.  At the material time Achkhoy-Martan was under the full control of federal military forces. Checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The area was under curfew. Military units of the 58th Russian army were stationed in the fields next to Achkhoy-Martan. At the time, Khamzat Umarov was working as the head of the State Roads Administration in Achkhoy-Martan. 7.  On the night of 29 July 2001 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 30 July and 31 July 2001) the applicants and Khamzat Umarov were at home, at 29 Sadovaya Street in Achkhoy-Martan. That night the applicants’ friend, Mr S.I., who worked for the Danish Refugee Council, also stayed at the house. 8.  At about 4 a.m. on 30 July 2001 the first applicant was woken up by a noise coming from outside. She heard what sounded like someone trying to quietly open the gates to their yard. When the applicant asked in Chechen: ‘Who’s there?’ she heard no response. Then her husband, Khamzat Umarov, looked out from the window and told her that there were Russians with flashlights. 9.  The men outside demanded that the applicants open the gates. The first applicant told them that they would wake up the children and asked them to return in the morning. In response, the men forced the gates open and a group of about twenty to twenty-five men in camouflage uniforms rushed into the yard. Approximately fifteen men ran into the house. The rest remained outside. Some of them went into the yard of the applicants’ neighbours, the family of Ms R.Z., and ordered the neighbours to stay inside. Some men remained in the street and kept ordering other neighbours to get back inside. 10.  All of the intruders were equipped with flashlights and armed with automatic weapons (винторез). They forced the applicants into different rooms; two of them guarded the first applicant. Some of the men were wearing masks; those without masks were of Slavic appearance. The men spoke unaccented Russian. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen. 11.  After breaking into the house the intruders talked amongst themselves about their search for ‘two men’. The first applicant thought that the officers were talking about her husband and Mr S.I. After the servicemen found the room which the two men were in, they rushed into it and searched it for five or six minutes. After that the servicemen took Khamzat Umarov and Mr S.I. outside. The first applicant followed them. Two UAZ vehicles were parked in the street. One of the vehicles had an antenna and a portable radio transmitter on the roof. The officers put Khamzat Umarov in one of the cars, but left Mr S.I. behind. Immediately afterward both cars drove away in the direction of Lenina Street, where the Achkhoy-Martan District Department of the Interior (“the ROVD”), the Achkhoy-Martan Temporary District Department of the Interior (“the VOVD”) and the Achkhoy-Martan Department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) were situated at the time. 12.  Mr S.I., who had been left by the abductors in the street, returned to the house and told the applicants that the abductors had threatened to shoot him if he followed them.
(b)  The subsequent events 13.  Immediately after the abductors were gone, the first applicant managed to call the VOVD. An officer there told her to call the ROVD and gave her their number. Then the first applicant called the ROVD and informed the officers there of the abduction. The officers told her that there was no need to worry, as Khamzat Umarov was not the only man who had been detained that night. After that, the applicant was told to come to the ROVD in the morning as the area was under curfew at night. 14.  In the morning the first applicant told her husband’s relatives about what had happened and they went together to the ROVD, where they were told that Khamzat Umarov had not been arrested by their officers and that he was not detained on their premises. On the same day, 30 July 2001, the applicants lodged written complaints about the abduction of Khamzat Umarov to a number of local law-enforcement agencies, including the ROVD, the FSB and the Achkhoy-Martan Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office (“the district prosecutor’s office”). 15.  On 31 July 2001 a number of residents of Achkhoy-Martan gathered in front of the FSB’s office. They blocked the road and demanded to speak with the officials. At some point the head of the office came out from the building and spoke with the crowd. He told the applicants and their fellow villagers that Khamzat Umarov must have been taken away by officers of the 58th Russian army, whose units were stationed in the fields next to the settlement. The officer promised the crowd that he would find out Khamzat Umarov’s whereabouts. 16.  After that, the head of the Achkhoy-Martan District administration, Mr B., and the head of the ROVD, officer K., arrived at the FSB’s premises and asked the residents to go home. Having spent two days next to the FSB building, the crowd left on 1 August 2001. 17.  About a month later a group of employees of the Danish Refugee Council visited the applicants’ home together with a number of journalists. 18.  Within a certain period of time, starting from the end of August 2001, military servicemen searched the applicants’ house on several occasions. 19.  On 22 November 2001 military servicemen took away Khamzat Umarov’s brother, Mr Ramzan Umarov, who has not been seen since. 20.  In support of their application the applicants submitted the following documents: a statement by the first applicant dated 16 September 2008; three statements by the applicants’ neighbours, Ms L. Kh., Ms R. Zh. and Ms R. G., all dated 28 July 2008; and copies of the documents received from the authorities. 21.  The Government did not challenge the version of events presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that no special operations had been carried out in Achkhoy-Martan between 29 and 30 July 2001. 22.  On 30 July 2001 the first applicant complained about the abduction to the district prosecutor’s office. In her complaint she stated that the abductors had been in camouflage uniforms and masks, that they had spoken unaccented Russian and had threatened her and her children with firearms. 23.  On 10 August 2001 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that their inquiry had established that Khamzat Umarov had not been arrested by local law-enforcement agencies and that he was not detained in the local temporary detention centre. 24.  On 28 August and 10 September 2001 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicants’ complaint about the abduction to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 25.  On 4 and 14 September 2001 the district prosecutor’s office instructed the VOVD to take operational-search measures to establish the whereabouts of Khamzat Umarov. 26.  On 9 September 2001 investigators from the VOVD questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Mr A., who stated that on the morning of 30 July 2001 he had found out that Khamzat Umarov had been abducted by military servicemen earlier the same morning. 27.  On 9 September 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who described the circumstances of her husband’s abduction by military servicemen. 28.  On 25 January 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 2 and 28 January 2002) the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Khamzat Umarov under Article 127 § 2 of the Criminal Code (unlawful deprivation of liberty). From 27 April 2002 onwards, the investigation was based on Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction). The case file was given the number 63008. 29.  On 25 January and then on 8 February 2002 the investigators again questioned the first applicant, who provided a detailed description of the abduction and stated that the abductors had been armed with machine guns, had spoken unaccented Russian and that some of them had worn masks. 30.  On 28 January 2002 the investigators questioned another of Khamzat Umarov’s brothers, Mr Ru. Umarov, who stated that he had not witnessed the abduction and had learnt about it from his relatives. 31.  On 26 February 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 32.  On 6 March 2002 the Zavodskoy and the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in Grozny and the Grozny ROVD informed the investigators that they did not have information concerning either Khamzat Umarov’s whereabouts or his detention on their premises. 33.  On 25 March 2002 the investigators suspended the investigation of the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were not informed thereof. 34.  Between March 2002 and March 2005 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended. 35.  On 28 March 2005 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed as the investigators had failed to take basic steps, including verification of the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction, identification of the abductors’ vehicles and questioning of witnesses to the events. The applicants were not informed of this decision. 36.  On 29 March 2005 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 37.  Between the end of March and the end of April 2005 the investigators questioned twenty of the applicants’ neighbours and relatives, all of whom gave similar statements to the effect that in the summer of 2001 Khamzat Umarov had been abducted by armed masked men and that later, in the autumn of 2001, his brother Ramzan had been also taken away by unidentified perpetrators; neither of them had returned home. 38.  On 28 April 2005 the investigators suspended the investigation of the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof. 39.  On 10 September 2007 the supervising prosecutor criticised the investigation, stating that it was incomplete, and ordered that it be resumed owing to the need to take investigative steps. On 19 September 2007 the investigation was resumed. 40.  On 24 September 2007 the investigators again granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case and questioned her. A copy of her statement was not furnished by the Government. 41.  On 17 October 2007 the investigators again questioned the brother of Khamzat Umarov, Mr Ru. Umarov, who reiterated his previously given statement. 42.  On 19 October 2007 the investigation was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof. 43.  On 17 March 2008 the supervising prosecutor criticised the investigation, stating that it was incomplete, and ordered its resumption owing to the need to take investigative steps. 44.  On 20 April 2008 the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof. 45.  On 1 June 2008 the supervising prosecutor criticised the investigation, stating that it was incomplete, and ordered that it be resumed owing to the need to take investigative steps. 46.  On 20 June 2008 the investigators again questioned the brother of Khamzat Umarov, Mr Ru. Umarov, who reiterated his previously given statements. 47.  On the same date the investigators asked the Chechnya FSB to inform them whether they had any information about Khamzat Umarov and whether he had been suspected of membership in illegal armed groups. A reply in the negative was received. 48.   On 25 June 2008 the investigators questioned the head of the criminal search division of the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD, Mr S.-M. Sh., who stated that he had no information about the whereabouts of Khamzat Umarov and that the latter had not been involved in a blood feud or suspected of illegal activities. 49.  On 1 July 2008 the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof. 50.  On 21 January 2009 the supervising prosecutor criticised the investigation, stating that it was incomplete, and ordered that it be resumed owing to the need to take investigative steps. 51.  On 10 February 2009 the investigators questioned Mr S.Kh., who stated that in 2001 he had been the head of the Achkhoy-Martan village administration. The witness denied that in 2001 the head of the Achkhoy‑Martan VOVD had confirmed to him that Khamzat Umarov had been detained on their premises for questioning. 52.  On 17 February 2009 the investigators again questioned the brother of Khamzat Umarov, Mr Ru. Umarov, who reiterated his previously given statements. 53.  On 21 February 2009 the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof. 54.  On various dates between 2002 and 2008 the investigators forwarded a number of information requests to various law-enforcement agencies and hospitals, asking whether Khamzat Umarov had sought medical help, whether his corpse had been discovered in their districts, whether he had crossed state borders and whether the agencies had information about his whereabouts or detention on their premises. Replies in the negative were received. 55.  The materials submitted indicate that the investigation of Khamzat Umarov’s disappearance has been suspended on at least six occasions and subsequently resumed due to the investigators’ failure to take necessary steps. It has not been completed to date. The applicants have not been informed of the progress of the criminal proceedings other than of their suspension and reopening. 56.  In reply to a request made by the Court, the Government furnished the partial contents of criminal case no. 63008, running to 534 pages. The copies of the documents provided had double numbering. According to the applicants, the Government failed to submit a copy of a number of important witness statements proving their allegations. The applicants also expressed their doubts as to the authenticity of the witness statements allegedly made by their neighbours and fellow villagers, submitting that those individuals had not resided at the addresses indicated by the investigators (see paragraph 37 above). The Government did not comment on this part of the applicants’ submissions. 57.  On 1 April 2008 the applicants complained to the Achkhoy-Martan District Court (“the district court”) of a lack of effective investigation of the criminal case. They argued that Khamzat Umarov had been abducted by federal military servicemen and that the six-year investigation of his kidnapping had failed to produce any results. The applicants asked the court to order an effective and thorough investigation, and to order the resumption of the proceedings and the taking of necessary investigative measures. 58.  On 10 April 2008 the district court refused to examine the applicants’ complaint, stating that on 17 March 2008 the district prosecutor’s office had resumed the investigation of the criminal case.