6.  The applicants in application no. 45081/06 are: 7.  Ms Taus Temergeriyeva, born in 1957, 8.  Ms Eset Timirgereyeva, born in 1923, 9.  Ms Luiza Temirgeriyeva, born in 1961, 10.  Ms Aminat Temirgeriyeva, born in 1983, 11.  Ms Khava Temirgeriyeva, born in 1985, 12.  Mr Magomed Temirgeriyev, born in 1988, 13.  Ms Selima Temirgeriyeva, born in 2002 and 14.  Ms Perdous Temergeriyeva, born in 1957. 9.  The applicants belong to two families. Two of their male relatives, Lema Khakiyev and Musa Temergeriyev, were detained in 2002 in two separate incidents in Mikhaylika Street (also referred to as Visaitova Street) in the settlement of Michurina in the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny, Chechnya, and subsequently disappeared. The third, sixth to ninth, thirteenth and fourteenth applicants were present during the abduction of their relatives. The other applicants were not eyewitnesses to the events and based their accounts on testimonies collected by them in the aftermath of their relatives’ disappearance. 10.  The first and the second applicants are sisters of Lema Khakiyev, born in 1960. The third applicant is his wife. The fourth to sixth applicants are their children.
(a)  Events prior to the abduction 11.  From 1995 to 1996 Lema Khakiyev worked at a local military commander’s office near Khankala. From 24 May 1996 to 12 December 1996, during the first counterterrorist campaign in Chechnya, he served in the Russian military. 12.  On 20 June 2002 Mr E.B., the head of the Oktyabrskiy district administration, wrote a complaint to the head of the Grozny town administration, accusing Lema Khakiyev of having been a sniper for illegal armed groups from 1995 to 1996. 13.  According to the first applicant, at some time between 18 and 20 August 2002 a white VAZ-2106 car without registration numbers had been parked for several hours in the vicinity of Lema Khakiyev’s house. Several men were sitting in the car and watching the house. The applicants’ neighbours, who lived across the street, saw one of the men clearly. A man got out of the car, climbed onto a nearby pile of rubbish and looked over the fence into the applicants’ yard. The third applicant and Lema Khakiyev also saw the men in the car. The very same car was seen along with an APC on the night of Lema Khakiyev’s abduction. 14.  On 20 August 2002 the Oktyabrskiy district department of the Federal Security Service (“the district FSB department”) requested that Lema Khakiyev visit its office and provide explanations for the accusations against him. After interviewing him, the FSB officers told him that nothing incriminating had been found against him.
(b)  Abduction of Lema Khakiyev 15.  On the night between 20 and 21 of August 2002 the third and sixth applicants, together with Lema Khakiyev, were sleeping in the family house at no. 59 Mikhaylika Street in the settlement of Michurina. The settlement was under curfew. The first applicant was in Nazran. 16.  At about 4 a.m. a group of six or seven masked men armed with machine guns broke into the house. The intruders spoke unaccented Russian. The applicants thought that they were Russian servicemen. 17.  The servicemen neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They ordered Lema Khakiyev to follow them, threatening to kill his son. In the meantime, they conducted a quick search of the house. The servicemen ordered the third applicant to stay in the house and not to make any noise. When they were about to leave, Lema Khakiyev told the third applicant that she should look for him at the Oktyabrskiy district department of the interior of Grozny (“the ROVD”) and that the intruders were from the ROVD. The servicemen then took Lema Khakiyev away to an unknown destination. 18.  According to the applicants, their neighbours saw that Lema Khakiyev had been taken in the direction of the Oktyabrskiy district military commander’s office (“the district military commander’s office”). 19.  One of the applicants’ neighbours, Mr S.S., told the applicants that at dawn on 21 August 2002 another neighbour of theirs, Mr N.T., had seen a group of servicemen and a half-naked man running by his house; shortly afterwards he had heard the noise of military vehicles. Some time later the neighbour had gone to the scene and found traces of machine oil and tyre marks. 20.  The first applicant learnt of her brother’s disappearance from Mr S.S. and Mr D.U. on her way back to Michurina. 21.  The first six applicants have had no news of Lema Khakiyev since 21 August 2002. 22.  The applicants’ description of the circumstances surrounding Lema Khakiyev’s abduction is based on witness accounts provided to the applicants’ representatives: a statement by the first applicant, dated 30 November 2004; two statements by the neighbour Mr S.S., both dated 4 September 2006; a statement by the second applicant, dated 6 November 2006; and a statement by the neighbour Mr G.B., dated 7 November 2006. The applicants’ representatives also produced copies of the following statements: a statement provided by Mr L.Ch. to an officer of the ROVD, dated 21 August 2002; a statement by the third applicant provided to the Grozny town prosecutor’s office (“the town prosecutor’s office”) on 11 September 2002; and statements by Mr E.B. and Mr D.U., given to the town prosecutor’s office on 8 and 10 October 2002 respectively. Finally, the applicants submitted the following documents: a copy of the contract between Lema Khakiyev and the Ministry of Defence, dated 5 June 1996; a copy of the order for Lema Khakiyev’s dismissal from the military service in Chechnya, dated 31 December 1996; and a copy of the military order concerning his registration at the Chechnya military commander’s office in Grozny, dated 20 January 1997. 23.  The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They submitted that at night on 21 August 2002 “armed unidentified persons wearing masks and camouflage uniforms” had entered Lema Khakiyev’s house at no. 59 Mikhaylika Street in the settlement of Michurina in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny, and subsequently taken him to an unknown destination. The Government denied any involvement of State agents in Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance. 24.  The seventh to fourteenth applicants are relatives of Musa Temergeriyev, born in 1952. The seventh and fourteenth applicants are his sisters, the eighth applicant is his mother and the ninth applicant is his wife. The tenth to thirteenth applicants are their children. 25.  At the material time the seventh to fourteenth applicants and Musa Temergeriyev resided at no. 55 Mikhaylika Street in the settlement of Michurina. They occupied two houses connected by a covered area, with a shared courtyard. 26.  In the morning of 27 December 2002 Musa Temergeriyev left his home to take his sister to the Grozny train station. The seventh, eighth, ninth, thirteenth and fourteenth applicants, as well as Ms M.T., the seventh and fourteenth applicants’ sister, stayed at home. 27.  Between 10.20 and 10.30 a.m. two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) with the registration numbers E-546 and E-548 stopped by the applicants’ house. The vehicles carried around twenty tall armed men in khaki and white camouflage uniforms. They were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian. The armed men secured the entry to the courtyard, which made the applicants think that they were carrying out a “sweeping-up” operation. Two armed men broke into the house, pointed their submachine guns at the applicants and asked them whether there were any men in the house. The applicants answered that the only man in the household, Musa Temergeriyev, had left for the train station. The intruders ordered the applicants not to leave the house and went outside. 28.  Through a window the seventh applicant saw one of the armed men stop under the covered area and take out of his belt an object which looked like a mallet. Subsequently she learnt that it was an anti-tank hand grenade. The fourteenth applicant, who was in another room, also saw the man take something out from his belt. 29.  When the fourteenth applicant approached the armed man, he showed her the object and explained that it was a grenade, which he had found in the applicants’ refrigerator. The fourteenth applicant told him that she had seen him plant the grenade. Other applicants also confirmed that they had seen it and the man abandoned his accusations. 30.  Twenty minutes later Musa Temergeriyev returned from the train station and entered the courtyard. The intruders stopped him and ordered him to show his passport. After that check they searched the house but did not find anything. Then the servicemen took Musa Temergeriyev outside the courtyard and put him in an APC. 31.  The applicants followed the intruders. The seventh applicant asked them why they were taking her brother away. They replied that he would have to write an explanation on the spot and would then be free to leave. The ninth applicant caught hold of an APC. The men hit her hands with the butts of their guns. She fell on the ground and was dragged by the moving vehicle for a while. 32.  The seventh applicant, together with Ms A., a neighbour, followed the APCs on their way through the village. The seventh applicant also ran to the local police station and told the police officers about the apprehension of her brother. Subsequently, the women stopped a car and followed the APCs until they entered the grounds of military unit no. 3186 in the east end of Grozny. Thinking that she had found the place where her brother was being detained, the seventh applicant left. 33.  The applicants have had no news of Musa Temergeriyev since 27 December 2002. 34.  The description of the events of the morning of 27 December 2002 is based on witness accounts provided to the applicants’ representatives: a statement by the seventh applicant, dated 3 August 2006; statements by the ninth and fourteenth applicants, as well as by Ms R.S. and Mr I.D., dated 15 July 2006; an account by Ms A.I., given on 16 July 2006; and an account by Ms Estamirova (also referred to as Ms Estemirova and Ms Estimirova), dated 22 August 2006. 35.  The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They submitted that in the morning of 27 December 2002 “armed unidentified persons had abducted Musa Temergeriyev”. The Government denied the involvement of State agents in the disappearance. 36.  The applicants contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the Russian President, the Chechen administration, military commanders’ offices, departments of the interior and prosecutors’ offices at different levels, describing in detail the circumstances of their relatives’ abduction and asking for help in establishing their whereabouts. The applicants kept copies of a number of those letters and submitted them to the Court. An official investigation was opened by the local prosecutor’s office in both cases. The applicants received hardly any substantive information from the official bodies about the investigation into the disappearances. Their letters to the relevant authorities were mostly forwarded to the district prosecutor’s office and the ROVD. The relevant information is summarised below. 37.  On 21 August 2002 the third applicant complained about her husband’s abduction to the town prosecutor’s office. She asked the town prosecutor to appoint an investigation team and immediately send the team to the scene. 38.  On 21 August 2002 the ROVD questioned Mr L.Ch., a neighbour, who had known about Lema Khakiyev’s abduction from the third applicant. 39.  On 23 August 2002 the first and the third applicants, together with their neighbours Mr S.S., Mrs Ya.A., Mrs T.T. and Mr G.B., and other residents of the Oktyabrskiy district, went to the district military commander’s office. The district military commander went outside to speak with the crowd. He introduced himself as Sergey. The applicants explained to him that they were looking for Lema Khakiyev. At first the military commander told the applicants that their relative was not being detained on the premises. Then the gate opened and a white VAZ-2106 car with the registration number 648 drove away from the office’s yard, together with an APC. The third applicant and the neighbours recognised the car and told the commander that Lema Khakiyev had been taken away in that car in the direction of the district military commander’s office. At first, the military commander promised to find the missing man but several days later he retracted his promise. 40.  On 24 August 2002 the town prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into Lema Khakiyev’s abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (“aggravated kidnapping”). The case file was assigned no. 52098. The applicants were informed of the decision in due time. 41.  On 30 August 2002 the first and the third applicants complained to the town prosecutor’s office about Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance. They emphasised that he had disappeared as a result of Mr E.B.’s report of 20 June 2002 and asked for the investigation to take that factor into account. 42.  On 2 and 13 September 2002 the town prosecutor’s office replied that the investigation in case no. 52098 was pending and promised to keep the applicants informed of its progress. It also assured the first applicant that her arguments would be thoroughly examined. 43.  On 11 September 2002 the town prosecutor’s office questioned the third applicant, who related the circumstances of her husband’s abduction. 44.  On 17 September 2002 the deputy head of the ROVD drew up a report concerning Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance. The report was based on the third applicant’s testimonies. The document stated that he had been abducted by armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms and that, despite the inquiry, his whereabouts remained unknown. In view of the foregoing, the deputy head of the ROVD ordered the discontinuation of the search for Lema Khakiyev and declared him a missing person as of 21 August 2002. 45.  On 8 October 2002 the investigators questioned the head of the Oktyabrskiy district administration, Mr E.B., who stated that he did not have any personal animosity towards Lema Khakiyev, that the complaint of 20 June 2002 had been written as a routine working document and that he had no information as to the identities of Lema Khakiyev’s abductors. 46.  On 9 October 2002 the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in criminal case no. 52098. It does not appear that the second to sixth applicants were granted victim status. 47.  On 10 October 2002 the investigators questioned a former colleague of Lema Khakiyev, Mr D.U., who stated that he had been in Moscow at the time of the abduction. He did not know whether Lema Khakiyev had been a sniper for illegal armed groups from 1995 to 1996 and confirmed that Lema Khakiyev had been on bad terms with Mr E.B. 48.  On 24 October 2002 the town prosecutor’s office stayed the investigation in criminal case no. 52098 owing to the failure to identify the perpetrators and ordered the ROVD to continue the search. The first applicant was informed of that decision in writing on 31 March 2003. 49.  On 18 December 2002 the first applicant complained about her brother’s disappearance to the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms (“the Envoy”). She underlined that Mr S.P., Mr E.B., the head of the Chechnya Department of the Interior (“the Chechnya MVD”), and Mr D.U., her brother’s former ROVD colleague, had information on Lema Khakiyev’s abduction. 50.  On 30 December 2002 the Envoy wrote to the town prosecutor’s office and the ROVD and suggested that Lema Khakiyev’s abduction had been a result of the complaint by the head of the Oktyabrskiy district administration. 51.  On 10 January 2003 residents of the settlement of Michurina complained to the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office (“the district prosecutor’s office”). Their collective letter stated, inter alia, that their district had been subjected to “targeted sweeping-up operations” (адресные «зачистки») and that four residents had disappeared after the night raids at the end of 2002. Lema Khakiyev’s name was listed as no. 2. 52.  On 5 February 2003 the first applicant complained about her brother’s abduction to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA”). The applicant provided a detailed description of the circumstances of Lema Khakiyev’s apprehension and pointed out that he had told his wife to search for him at the ROVD. The first applicant further stated that on 20 August 2002 Lema Khakiyev had been interviewed about his past activities at the local FSB office, as a result of Mr E.B.’s complaint. The applicant requested to be provided with information about the charges brought against her brother and asked for assistance in establishing his whereabouts. 53.  On 15 February 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the first applicant that the inquiry had not confirmed the involvement of any servicemen in the crime and forwarded her complaint to the town prosecutor’s office for examination. 54.  On 28 April 2003 the investigator Mr V.D. from the town prosecutor’s office summoned the first applicant for questioning as a victim. He told her that Lema Khakiyev was dead and that there was no point in searching for him but did not disclose his source of information. He promised to tell the applicant everything the following day. However, she was subsequently told that Mr V.D.’s assignment had come to an end and that he had left Grozny. The first applicant has never seen Mr V.D. since. 55.  On 14 August 2003 the town prosecutor’s office requested the ROVD to identify the officers of the Ministry of the Interior assigned to the ROVD in August 2002 and summon Mr E.B. for questioning. 56.  On 18 August 2003 the ROVD replied that the information about the officers was available at the UGA and the headquarters of the Russian military in Khankala, Chechnya. 57.  It appears that at some point in 2003 the town prosecutor’s office entrusted the district prosecutor’s office with the investigation in criminal case no. 52098. 58.  On 24 August and 30 August 2003 respectively the Chechnya FSB department and the Operational Search Bureau (“ORB”) informed the district prosecutor’s office that they did not have any incriminating information about Lema Khakiyev, who was not listed in their databases. 59.  At some point in 2003 the first applicant received a letter from a certain Mr R.Z., then detained in remand prison IZ-20/1 in Grozny. Mr R.Z. alleged that he had met Lema Khakiyev in the remand prison (СИЗО) in Pyatigorsk. The applicant wrote to the district prosecutor’s office, requesting clarification of that information. Mr R.Z.’s and the applicant’s letters were not submitted to the Court. 60.  On 1 December 2003 the FSB department of military counter‑intelligence informed the district prosecutor’s office that it had not detained Lema Khakiyev and did not have any information concerning his whereabouts. 61.  On 14 April 2004 the interim Chechnya military commander reported that the military commanders’ offices had not been manned in Chechnya until 1 July 2003. Consequently, they had no information as to Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance, which had occurred on 21 August 2002. 62.  On 21 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the first applicant that its inquiry had failed to establish the involvement of any federal servicemen in her brother’s abduction. The military prosecutor’s office forwarded its inquiry file to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, which then transmitted it to the district prosecutor’s office. 63.  On 8 December 2004 the first applicant complained to the district prosecutor’s office. In her letter she requested the authorities to take the following steps: resume the investigation in criminal case no. 52098; question Mr U.I., a resident of Michurina, who had asserted that Lema Khakiyev had been detained on FSB premises; establish the law‑enforcement units which had been assigned to the ROVD in August 2002; question Mr N.T., who had seen Lema Khakiyev’s abductors on the night of the events; inform her about the progress of the investigation and conduct it in an effective and thorough manner. 64.  On 17 August 2005 the applicants’ representatives wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor, the town prosecutor and the district prosecutor. They requested the following information: whether any progress had been made in the investigation into the abduction; what measures had been taken to establish the whereabouts of Lema Khakiyev and identify his abductors; what had been the results of the measures taken by the ROVD in connection with the letter of 14 August 2003; whether the ROVD officers had been questioned; whether the investigators had identified and questioned the servicemen who had manned the checkpoints in the vicinity of the settlement; whether the investigators had identified the vehicles which had passed through the checkpoints on the night of the abduction; whether any special operation had been conducted against the members of illegal armed groups between 20 and 21 August 2002 in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny; and whether anyone had been detained. 65.  It does not appear that any response was given to these requests. 66.  On 10 May and 30 June 2006 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicants’ representatives that on an unspecified date it had stayed the investigation in criminal case no. 52098 on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The investigators had failed to establish which units had conducted special operations against members of illegal armed groups in the settlement of Michurina between 20 and 21 August 2002. 67.  On 23 August 2006 the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor’s office. In her letter she stated that Mr D.U., her brother’s former colleague, Mr U.I., a former official of the Michurina settlement administration, and Mr M.D., Mr U.I.’s neighbour, had known that Lema Khakiyev had been detained on the local FSB premises. The applicant suspected them of having organised her brother’s abduction and regretted that they had not even been questioned by the investigation. 68.  On 11 September 2006 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to inform her about the progress of the investigation into her brother’s abduction. She stated that she had already provided the authorities with the names of the witnesses to be questioned, including Mr N.T., Mr U.I., Mr M.D., Mr D.U., Mr E.B. and Mr V.D. However, the investigating authorities had failed to question them. She reiterated that her brother’s abduction had been consequent upon Mr E.B.’s report. The applicant also requested the authorities to establish the source of the investigator Mr V.D.’s allegations of Lema Khakiyev’s death (see paragraph 54 above). 69.  It does not appear that the first applicant has ever received a reply to this letter. 70.  On 6 August 2007 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny (“the district court”) granted the third applicant’s request to declare Lema Khakiyev a missing person as of 30 August 2002. It noted that his whereabouts had remained unknown since the launch of criminal investigation file no. 52098 on 24 August 2002. 71.  In addition, the applicants regularly applied in writing to various prosecutor’s offices, complaining about the ineffective nature of the investigation. Their letters were routinely forwarded to the town prosecutor’s office, and then to the district prosecutor’s office. 72.  In the evening of 27 December 2002, local police officers questioned the seventh to fourteenth applicants about the abduction of Musa Temergeriyev. They inspected the crime scene and collected the machine gun cartridges left after the abduction. 73.  In the morning of 28 December 2002 the seventh applicant came to the military unit to enquire about Musa Temergeriyev. At the checkpoint she met relatives of other apprehended persons. The servicemen at the checkpoint denied having admitted any detainees. 74.  According to the applicants, in the morning Ms Estamirova, a member of the NGO Memorial, managed to speak to the commander of the regiment over the phone. The man confirmed that Musa Temergeriyev had been brought to and registered at the grounds of the military unit. In the evening Ms Estamirova passed through the checkpoint and spoke to two servicemen. They explained that Musa Temergeriyev had been arrested by servicemen from Khankala temporarily assigned to the military unit. Since those servicemen were absent on an assignment, Ms Estamirova left. The applicants’ attempts to meet the servicemen proved futile. 75.  On 29 December 2002 at 11 a.m. the seventh applicant noticed two APCs leaving the grounds of the military unit. She recognised them as the vehicles which had been used during her brother’s abduction. 76.  On the same day Mr Boyarintsev, an assistant to the military prosecutor, spoke to the commanding officer of the military unit. The officer asserted that Musa Temergeriyev had been charged with unlawful storage of a grenade and taken to Khankala. 77.  On 13 January 2003 the town prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Musa Temergeriyev under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (“aggravated kidnapping”). The case was assigned no. 40060. It is unclear whether the applicants were notified of that decision in due time. 78.  On an unspecified date the abduction case was assigned no. 40007. 79.  On 17 July 2003 the town prosecutor’s office stayed the investigation in case no. 40007 on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators. The decision stated as follows:
“... The preliminary investigation established that on 27 December 2002 at about 10.20 a.m. unidentified armed and camouflaged servicemen of the 2nd battalion of military unit no. 3186 had unlawfully entered the Temergeriyevs’ house, searched it and discovered a grenade in the refrigerator... Meanwhile Musa Temergeriyev, born in 1952, returned home. [He] was arrested and brought in an APC to the military unit located on the grounds of the former 15th military base in Gudermesskaya Street in the Oktyabrskiy District in Grozny. [Thereafter] his whereabouts have remained unknown.” 80.  By a letter of 8 January 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the seventh applicant that the whereabouts of her brother had not been established and that operational-search measures were under way. The Chechnya prosecutor’s office invited the applicant to address her questions and concerns to the district prosecutor’s office. By a similar letter dated 27 February 2004 the seventh applicant was invited to address her queries to the town prosecutor’s office. 81.  On an unspecified date the investigation in case no. 40007 was entrusted to the district prosecutor’s office. It is unclear whether the applicants were notified of that fact. 82.  On 2 April 2004 a military prosecutor of the UGA requested military unit no. 20102 to conduct an additional inquiry in connection with the seventh applicant’s complaint about her brother’s disappearance. 83.  On 15 May and 7 June 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA and the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicant that nothing in her complaint pointed to the involvement of any federal servicemen in the crime. 84.  On 21 February 2005 the Chechnya military commander forwarded the seventh applicant’s complaint about her brother’s abduction to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. The military commander stated that:
“... On December 2002 officers of the Ministry of the Interior using two APCs without registration plates took him [Musa Temergeriyev] from his house to Khankala. At present, his whereabouts remain unknown”. 85.  On 6 September 2005 the Chechnya FSB department informed the seventh applicant that FSB officials had not arrested Musa Temergeriyev and had no information on his whereabouts. 86.  On 10 September 2005 the criminal police department of the Ministry of the Interior in Khankala notified the seventh applicant that it had no information as to Musa Temergeriyev’s arrest by agents of law-enforcement authorities and federal forces deployed in Chechnya. 87.  By a letter of 11 October 2005 the FSB department of military counter-intelligence notified the seventh applicant that the operational‑search measures conducted by its branches in the Southern Federal Circuit had failed to establish Musa Temergeriyev’s whereabouts. 88.  By letters of 28 February and 20 March 2006 the branches of the Main Prisons Directorate of the Ministry of Justice (“the prisons directorates”) in the Rostov and Volgograd Regions informed the seventh applicant that Musa Temergeriyev was not being detained in any prisons in those regions and was not registered in the database of the Ministry of the Interior. 89.  On 13 October 2006 the main military prosecutor’s office transmitted the seventh applicant’s request for assistance in the search for her brother to the military prosecutor of the UGA. The letter stated in particular that:
“... on 27 December 2002 federal servicemen arrested Musa Temergeriyev on suspicion of storing weapons and ammunition. The man subsequently disappeared.” 90.  In addition, on several occasions the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the seventh applicant’s complaints to the district prosecutor’s office. In response, the seventh applicant was informed, without any further details, that the investigation was pending or had been suspended and that measures aimed at finding her brother were being taken. 91.  On an unspecified date the ROVD issued a certificate, stating that Musa Temergeriyev had no criminal record and that the ROVD had no “discrediting” information about him. 92.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose the entire contents of the criminal investigation files. Thus, they submitted some 210 pages from criminal investigation file no. 52098 and around 290 pages from criminal investigation file no. 40007, accompanied by 108 pages from a case file compiled by the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA further to Musa Temergeriyev’s disappearance. The Government produced witness statements, decisions to open, stay and resume the investigation or to grant victim status, letters to the relatives, and correspondence between different State authorities on the progress of the investigation in relation to both cases. They also appended copies of expert reports, records of some investigative steps and investigation plans in relation to case no. 40007. 93.  With reference to criminal case no. 52098, 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 criminal proceedings. 94.  The Government did not dispute the information concerning the investigation into the abduction of Lema Khakiyev and Musa Temergeriyev, as submitted by the applicants. They referred to a number of other procedural steps taken by the investigating authorities, in particular decisions to stay and resume the investigation, which had not been mentioned by the applicants. Their submissions and documents can be summarised in the following manner. 95.  On 21 August 2002 an investigator inspected Lema Khakiyev’s house, but found nothing pertinent to the case. 96.  On 24 August 2002 the town prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation (file no. 52098) into the abduction of Lema Khakiyev by “unidentified armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms”. The Government submitted that the third applicant had been notified of the decision on the same day. 97.  On 3 September 2002 the deputy town prosecutor asked the investigator in case no. 52098, inter alia, to question Lema Khakiyev’s relatives and Mr E.B., and to send queries to different authorities in order to carry out research into Lema Khakiyev’s personality. 98.  On 5 September 2002 the investigator sent queries to the ROVD and the military commander’s office, requesting Lema Khakiyev’s work contracts, performance appraisals, records of disciplinary sanctions and rewards, information on his relationship with colleagues and ROVD officials, or any community complaint against him. The investigator also wrote to the Chechnya MVD, asking it to produce Mr E.B.’s complaint of 20 June 2002 and to inform him whether his accusations regarding Lema Khakiyev had been confirmed. 99.  On the same date the investigation retrieved Mr E.B.’s original complaint from the administration of Grozny and appended it to case file no. 52098. 100.  In September 2002 the military commander’s office reported that it had no relevant information. 101.  On 23 September 2002 the Chechnya MVD transmitted to the town prosecutor’s office a twenty-five-page file compiled in respect of Lema Khakiyev further to Mr E.B.’s accusations. The Government submitted only one document from that file, according to which on 17 August 2002 the public safety department of the Chechnya MVD stated that their inquiry had not confirmed Lema Khakiyev’s alleged involvement in illegal armed groups as a sniper from 1995 to 1996. 102.  It follows from the documents submitted by the Government that between 2002 and 2009 the investigation was suspended and resumed on seven occasions. It appears that the first applicant was regularly informed of the decisions. 103.  On 14 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office ordered the ROVD to check which regional military units had been deployed in the Oktyabrskiy district on 20 and 21 August 2002 and who had supervised them, and to summon Mr E.B. for questioning. 104.  On 6 September 2007 the investigation unit of the Zavodskoy district of Grozny (“the district investigation unit”), a branch of the investigation department of the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, was entrusted with the task of pursuing the investigation in case no. 52098 instead of the district prosecutor’s office. 105.  On 22 November 2007 a deputy town prosecutor criticised the progress of the investigation, in particular the failure to question Mr R.Z. and to send queries to all the authorities concerned as to Lema Khakiyev’s arrest, detention and admission to medical institutions, any criminal proceedings brought against him or the discovery of a body resembling him. The deputy town prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed. 106.  On 9 February 2009 the head of the Procedural Control Unit, a branch of the investigation department of the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, ordered the district investigation unit to: resume the investigation; question the first applicant, Mr E.B., Mr A.I., Mr R.Z. and a number of officials on duty from 21 August 2002, such as the district military commander, the head of the district ROVD and the ROVD officer in charge of the criminal police; check whether Mr A.M. could have been involved in Lema Khakiyev’s abduction; inquire whether Lema Khakiyev had been held in the remand prison in Pyatigorsk; and ask the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of the Defence and the district military prosecutor’s office to provide information concerning the district military commander and the ROVD staff at the relevant time, any special operation conducted in the night of 21 August 2002 or any person detained in that connection. 107.  According to the Government, on 10 June 2009 the investigation in case no. 52098 was again resumed. That same day the Special Investigation Unit no. 2 (Отдел по расследованию особо важных дел № 2), a branch of the investigation department of the Chechnya’s prosecutor’s office, took over the investigation into Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance. The Government submitted that the first applicant had been informed accordingly.
(b)  Witness statements 108.  From the Government’s submissions and documents appended, it follows that the investigators questioned the first and the third applicants as well as several other persons. 109.  The third applicant was questioned on 21 August and 11 September 2002. She testified that on 20 August 2002 Lema Khakiyev had been called to the Chechnya MVD in order to be questioned further to Mr E.B.’s allegations that he had been a sniper from 1995 to 1996. Upon his return, Lema Khakiyev had told his wife that the authorities had cleared him of all suspicion. On the following day a group of armed and camouflaged servicemen had burst into the family house through the courtyard and taken him away. They had spoken unaccented Russian. Lema Khakiyev had told the applicant to look for him at the ROVD since the intruders worked there. The servicemen had left on foot and there had been no car around. 110.  The first applicant was questioned on 10 September 2002 and 19 February 2009. On 9 October 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status. She corroborated the third applicant’s statements and added that on 21 August 2002 she had been in Nazran and learnt of Lema Khakiyev’s kidnapping from the third applicant. They had conducted their own investigation into the disappearance and established that Lema Khakiyev had been on bad terms with Mr E.B. The first applicant considered that their animosity had developed in 2001, when her brother had headed the administration of the Michurina settlement and often disagreed with Mr E.B.’s policy. Mr E.B. had obstructed Lema Khakiyev’s work, which had made the latter quit. During the investigation, Mr A.I., an officer of the Oktyabrskiy district administration, had told the applicant that Lema Khakiyev had been detained on the premises of the Chechnya FSB. The applicant explained that, before the disappearance, her brother had owed 2,500 United States dollars (USD) to Mr A.M. Thereafter Lema Khakiyev’s relatives had reimbursed Mr A.M. The applicant did not suspect Mr A.M. of the abduction. 111.  On 8 October 2002 Mr E.B. testified that he did not have any personal animosity towards Lema Khakiyev but had received a number of complaints against the Michurina subdivision of the ROVD, where the latter had worked. Mr E.B. had written the report of 20 June 2002 in reaction to such complaints. That report had been a routine document totally unrelated to Lema Khakiyev’s disappearance. Mr E.B. was unaware who could have abducted him. When questioned further on 2 March 2009, Mr E.B. added that the report meant that Lema Khakiyev had been trained as a sniper. 112.  On 10 October 2002 Mr D.U., Lema Khakiyev’s former colleague from the ROVD, stated that he had known him since 1970. He had been in Moscow on holiday when the kidnapping had occurred and learnt about it from relatives on 23 October 2002. Mr D.U. characterised Lema Khakiyev as a law-abiding citizen. He was unaware whether Lema Khakiyev had been a sniper from 1995 to 1996 and would not have believed it of him. During that period Lema Khakiyev had worked at the military commander’s office. He had previously been trained as a sniper during his military service in Afghanistan. Mr D.U. confirmed that the Michurina subdivision of the ROVD had been on bad terms with the head of the Oktyabrskiy district administration, who had sent a number of complaints against their subdivision to different authorities. Lastly, Mr D.U. denied all knowledge of Lema Khakiyev’s abductors and his involvement in a blood feud. 113.  On 16 October 2002 and 24 February 2009 Mr A.M. testified that in 1996 he had lent Lema Khakiyev USD 3,000, which had subsequently been refunded by his relatives. Mr A.M. had learnt of Lema Khakiyev’s abduction on 21 August 2002. He did not know who could have kidnapped him. It had been rumoured that the abduction had resulted from a complaint by the head of the Oktyabrskiy district administration. 114.  Between October 2003 and March 2009 the investigation questioned four other witnesses, including Ms Kh.D., the third applicant’s sister, and Mr A.I., an officer of the Oktyabrskiy district administration. Ms Kh.D. and Mr A.I. had learnt of the abduction from the local residents. Mr A.I. denied having said that the disappeared man had been detained on FSB premises.
(c)  Attempts to find Mr R.Z. 115.  It follows from the documents submitted by the Government that since 2003 the investigating authorities had unsuccessfully tried to establish Mr R.Z.’s whereabouts and to question him. 116.  On 10 November 2003 the district prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation with reference to the first applicant’s information that Mr R.Z. had met Lema Khakiyev in the remand prison (SIZO) in Pyatigorsk (see paragraph 59 above). 117.  On an unspecified date the Chechnya prisons directorate reported that Mr R.Z. had been found guilty of handling weapons and released from detention in remand prison SIZO-1 in Grozny on 4 November 2003. 118.  On 19 February 2009 the first applicant testified that she was unaware of Mr R.Z.’s whereabouts. 119.  In March 2009 the investigating authorities questioned Mr R.Z.’s wife and sister. Both denied having his telephone number and were unaware of his whereabouts.
(d)  Requests for information on Lema Khakiyev’s abduction and whereabouts 120.  The Government stated that the investigating authorities had sent queries to various State bodies, asking them to provide information concerning Lema Khakiyev’s abduction and any special operations which might have been conducted in the settlement of Michurina on the night of 21 August 2002. In their letters different district departments of the interior stated that “on the night of 21 August 2002 Lema Khakiyev had been abducted from his house at no. 59 Mikhaylika Street in Grozny”. The Government produced some copies of the replies to such requests, which can be summarised as follows. 121.  On 24 August 2003 the Chechnya FSB department denied having any data about Lema Khakiyev or any incriminating information about him. On 30 August 2003 the ORB replied that he was not registered in its database. 122.  On 18 August 2003 the ROVD denied any knowledge of military units deployed in the Oktyabrskiy district at the relevant time. On 1 December 2003 the FSB department of military counter-intelligence stated that no special operation entailing Lema Khakiyev’s apprehension had been conducted by the FSB forces. The department denied all knowledge of any special operations conducted by other structures. On 4 December 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA replied that all documents relating to special operations and checks conducted in 2002, and the military units and personnel who had participated in them, were stored in Rostov-on-Don. 123.  On 30 March 2004 the head of military unit no. 54844 submitted that motor rifle division no. 42 had participated in a special operation conducted on 21 August 2001, while two other motor rifle divisions had blocked Grozny that day. He further underlined that motor rifle division no. 42 had been deployed exclusively to block settlements during special operations. He denied all knowledge of anyone who might have been detained as a result of those events. The Government added that Lema Khakiyev had not been mentioned on the list of detainees, but they did not submit the relevant detention records. 124.  In November and December 2003 regional departments of the Main Prisons Directorate in the Southern Federal Circuit informed the investigation that Lema Khakiyev had not been detained in their remand facilities or prisons. 125.  In January, February and May 2008 local bodies of the Ministry of the Interior reported that they had no information about Lema Khakiyev. 126.  In December 2007 and January 2008 district investigation departments of the Chechnya prosecutor’s office submitted that the district law-enforcement authorities had not brought criminal proceedings against Lema Khakiyev. 127.  On 27 December 2002 an investigator of the ROVD inspected the applicants’ house at no. 55 Mikhaylika Street. Although no transcript was appended to the Government’s observations, it appears that four machine gun cartridges were collected. 128. On 13 January 2003 the town prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Musa Temergeriyev by “unidentified men in camouflage uniforms and masks, using APCs”, under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (“aggravated kidnapping”). The case was assigned no. 40007. 129.  It follows from the Government’s submissions that between 2003 and 2009 the investigation was suspended on nine occasions and resumed on eight occasions. The seventh applicant was informed of the decisions. 130.  On 12 May 2003 the town prosecutor’s office referred the case to the military prosecutor’s office for examination. With reference to witness statements given by the seventh applicant, Ms Estamirova and Mr Boyarintsev, the investigator stated as follows:
“... the investigation established that Mr Temergeriyev had been apprehended in his house ... and taken to an unknown destination by servicemen of military unit no. 3186. After the end of their posting in Grozny, the servicemen had left for the town of Reutov in the Moscow Region, where they have been deployed on a permanent basis. Mr Temergeriyev’s whereabouts have remained unknown ever since.
The evidence collected in the present case forms a sufficient basis for considering the criminal responsibility of the servicemen who arrested Mr Temergeriyev and took him to the criminal police department of the Ministry of the Interior in Khankala.” 131.  On 22 May 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor quashed the referral as premature and returned the case to the town prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor relied on the statement given by Mr Zhizhin, the head of the criminal police, who denied that Musa Temergeriyev had been delivered to the grounds of the criminal police department in Khankala. 132.  On 14 December 2004 the district prosecutor’s office took over the investigation in case no. 40007. He ordered the investigation to take the following steps: to draw up an investigation plan; to question eyewitnesses and Musa Temergeriyev’s relatives in order to clarify the alleged involvement of the servicemen in the crime; to question the assistant to the military prosecutor in order to clarify the circumstances of Musa Temergeriyev’s apprehension and delivery to Khankala; to identify the head of the criminal police in Khankala at the material time; to check whether Mr Temergeriyev had been detained in any remand facilities or prisons; and to consider the possible referral of the investigation to the military prosecutor’s office. 133.  On 27 April 2007 the decision of the district prosecutor’s office to suspend the investigation stated as follows:
“On 27 December 2002 at around 10.20 a.m. unidentified servicemen of the law‑enforcement authorities entered the private house at no. 55 Mikhaylika Street ... [They] arrested Musa Temergeriyev and drove him in two APCs with registration numbers E-546 and E-548 to the grounds of the former 15th military base in the Oktyabrskiy district in Grozny, where military unit no. 3186 was deployed. Thereafter Mr Temergeriyev’s whereabouts have remained unknown.” 134.  All subsequent decisions to resume or stay the investigation stated the facts in the same manner. 135.  On various occasions the supervising prosecutors criticised the investigation in case no. 40007. They emphasised, in particular, that no measures had been taken to establish the provenance of the two APCs used by the abductors, to identify the servicemen who had arrested Mr Temergeriyev and to question his former colleagues.
(b)  Witness statements 136. On 30 December 2002 the investigator submitted to the town prosecutor’s office the account given by the seventh applicant on 27 December 2002, and the accounts by the seventh and fourteenth applicants, Ms M.T. and Ms K.M., collected on an unspecified date. All of them had observed Musa Temergeriyev’s disappearance. They had asserted that he had been abducted by Russian servicemen in APCs. The servicemen had also planted a grenade in the Temergeriyevs’ refrigerator. 137.  On 31 January 2003 and 9 October 2008 the seventh and ninth applicants were granted victim status in case no. 40007. 138.  On 17 January 2003 the seventh applicant was questioned as a witness. After the acknowledgment of her victim status on 31 January 2003, she was questioned at least four times: on 21 April 2003, 14 April 2007, 9 October and 1 December 2008. The seventh applicant testified that before the abduction her brother had worked at the Main Prisons Directorate in Khankala. In the morning of 27 December 2002 a group of Russian servicemen, some of them with chevrons of the Ministry of the Interior, had taken him away in one of two APCs. They had Slavic features and had spoken unaccented Russian. The seventh and fourteenth applicants had seen the APCs enter the grounds of military unit no. 3186. The seventh applicant had immediately related the events to an on-duty police officer at the Michurina subdivision of the ROVD. The following day, a serviceman at the checkpoint and Ms Estamirova had told the applicant that Musa Temergeriyev had been taken to and registered at the grounds of the military unit. On 29 December 2002 Mr Boyarintsev had informed the applicant that her brother had subsequently been taken to the criminal police department in Khankala on suspicion of unlawful storage of a grenade. 139.  The ninth applicant was questioned as a witness on two occasions: on 29 May 2003 and 20 December 2004. After the acknowledgment of her victim status on 9 October 2008, she was questioned twice: on 9 October and 22 December 2008. She gave the same account of the events as the seventh applicant. The applicant further submitted that Musa Temergeriyev had been detained at the military unit deployed on the grounds of the military base in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny. The military unit had occupied a five-storey half-destroyed building with a checkpoint. 140.  The fourteenth applicant was questioned on 28 May 2003, 17 December 2004 and 14 April 2007. She made similar submissions to those of the seventh and ninth applicants, recalling that the intruders had Slavic features and had worn uniforms with chevrons of the Ministry of the Interior. She added that a large number of other military vehicles had been parked in the vicinity of their house on the day of the abduction. When the APCs with Musa Temergeriyev had taken off, the seventh applicant and Ms M.T. had run after them, while the fourteenth applicant had rushed to the ROVD. 141.  On 29 May 2003 and 16 December 2004 the investigating authorities had questioned Ms M.T. She gave a similar account of the events to those given by the seventh, ninth and fourteenth applicants and submitted a number of additional details. On 28 December 2002 Ms M.T., the applicants, their neighbours and Ms Estamirova had got together in the vicinity of the military unit. While Ms Estamirova had entered the checkpoint building, Ms M.T. had had a conversation with an on-duty officer, who had confirmed that on 27 December 2002 at around 4 p.m. servicemen had driven Musa and another Chechen man from the grounds of the military unit in the direction of the military base in Khankala. Those servicemen had worked in Khankala and had been temporarily assigned to the military unit. That information had been further confirmed by “Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich”, an officer at the military unit, with whom Ms M.T. had talked later in December 2002. Lastly, Ms M.T. submitted that a Russian serviceman from the Khankala military base had informed her that Musa Temergeriyev had been detained at the central commander’s office on terrorism charges. He had seen the man and provided a detailed description of him. However, fearing for his own safety, the serviceman had refused to assist Ms M.T. any further. 142.  On 6 March 2003 and 28 April 2005 Ms Estamirova gave the following account of the events. On 28 December 2002 she had entered the grounds of the first battalion of the second regiment, where she had had two telephone conversations about Musa Temergeriyev with the battalion commander and another serviceman. The battalion commander had confirmed that Musa Temergeriyev had been arrested by the servicemen deployed on the grounds of the military unit. They had taken him to the military unit and registered him there. Mr Boyarintsev had subsequently informed the applicants and Ms Estamirova that Musa Temergeriyev had been held at the criminal police department in Khankala. The applicants had searched for him in Khankala but the authorities had denied that he had ever been brought there. 143.  The Government also submitted copies of the accounts given in May 2003, December 2004, April 2007 and November 2008 by seven of Musa Temergeriyev’s neighbours residing in Mikhaylika Street, namely Ms K.I., Mr Z.U., Mr A.I., Ms A.D., Ms R.S., Mr Sh.T. and Ms M.U., and three of his former colleagues, Mr M.V., Mr B.M. and Mr M.K. Six of them had observed the events. Ms R.S. and Ms M.U. had also seen the servicemen put Musa Temergeriyev in one of the APCs. The neighbours and colleagues characterised him as a law-abiding, polite and outgoing person. Nobody had ever complained about him. He had never been involved in any illegal matters or armed groups. 144.  Lastly, the Government submitted a number of references concerning Musa Temergeriyev given in May 2003 by the ROVD, the Oktyabrskiy district administration, the Chechnya prisons directorate and a number of residents of the settlement of Michurina. They emphasised that Musa Temergeriyev had been a hardworking and highly esteemed person responsive to others. He had no criminal record and the authorities had no “discrediting” information about him.
(c)  Attempts to identify and question servicemen involved in the kidnapping 145.  In July 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 sent a query to the headquarters of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior, seeking to identify the commander of military unit no. 3186 and the commander of a police department then deployed on the grounds of that unit. 146.  In July 2003 different departments of the interior submitted that they had no relevant information. 147.  On 20 July 2006 the district prosecutor’s office ordered the investigating authorities to check which military units had been deployed on the grounds of the former 15th military base at the time and to see if the servicemen and commanding officers of military unit no. 3186 could be questioned. 148.  In May 2007 the investigating authorities questioned three servicemen. From early November to the end of February 2003 these middle-ranking officers had been temporarily assigned to the first special battalion (батальон оперативного назначения) of military unit no. 3186 deployed on the grounds of the former 15th military base in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny. They testified that at the material time at least two subdivisions of the Special Purpose Police Unit (Отдел милиции особого назначения – OMON) had been deployed on the grounds of the military base along with the first special battalion and the military commander’s office. The battalion staff had not been involved in special operations or allowed to detain anyone on their premises. The servicemen denied all knowledge of Musa Temergeriyev’s detention and of any police officer named Mr Nikolenko or Nikolayenko. 149.  In December 2008 the district investigation unit asked the head of the investigation committee to order his subordinates to establish the whereabouts of Mr P.Ch. and Mr I.Kh., two former servicemen of military unit no. 3186, who had subsequently been dispatched to the Yaroslavl Region, and question them about the circumstances surrounding the abduction. 150.  It does not appear that any response was given to the above request.
(d)  Attempts to establish Mr Nikolenko’s whereabouts 151.  On 20 January 2003 the investigating authorities questioned Mr Boyarintsev, then an assistant to the military prosecutor at military unit no. 20102. He submitted that on 29 December 2002 the military prosecutor of the UGA had directed him to visit the second battalion. Mr Boyarintsev had met the commander of the second battalion, whose name he had forgotten, and Mr Nikolenko, a middle-ranking police officer from Saratov, who, together with his subordinates, had been temporarily deployed on the grounds of the military unit. Both men had asserted that Musa Temergeriyev had been arrested at home on suspicion of unlawful storage of a grenade. He had been arrested by Mr Nikolenko’s subordinates, who had subsequently delivered him to the military unit. On the same day those subordinates had taken Musa Temergeriyev to the criminal police department in Khankala. Mr Nikolenko had identified Musa Temergeriyev on a photograph. After the meeting Mr Boyarintsev had explained to the applicants that their relative had been taken to the criminal police department in Khankala, and had reported this to the military prosecutor. 152.  In July 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office requested a copy of Mr Boyarintsev’s report. In October 2008 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 replied that the report might have been destroyed as part of its archives collected in 2002 or 2003. 153.  It follows from the Government’s submissions that the investigation made several attempts to establish Mr Nikolenko’s whereabouts. However, in all queries the investigating authorities wrongly referred to him as Mr Nikolayenko. 154.  On 8 July 2003 the town prosecutor’s office submitted a request to the military prosecutor of the UGA with a view to identifying Mr Nikolayenko and his colleague who had spoken to Mr Boyarintsev during his visit to military unit no. 3186 on 29 December 2002. 155.  In January 2005 the deputy prosecutor of the Frunzenskiy district of Saratov and the main department of the Ministry of the Interior in the Saratov Region informed the investigation that Mr Nikolayenko had not served as a police officer there and had not been dispatched to the North-Caucasian Region.
(e)  Expert reports 156.  On 22 April 2003 the town prosecutor’s office ordered a ballistic expert evaluation of the machine gun cartridges found at the applicants’ house. 157.  On 24 April 2003 the expert stated that the cartridges had been fired from one Kalashnikov-type machine gun and their individual characteristics made it possible to identify the weapon used. 158.  On 4 July 2008 the Forensic Centre of the Chechnya MVD informed the investigating authorities that its database contained no mention of machine gun cartridges resembling those found on the crime scene and no mention of the gun from which they could have been fired. 159.  On 3 July and 14 October 2008 the district investigation unit requested a forensic assessment of the ninth applicant’s injuries sustained during her husband’s arrest. On 17 November 2008 a forensic expert concluded that there were no visible injuries to report.
(f)  Requests for information on Musa Temergeriyev’s disappearance and whereabouts 160.  According to the Government, the investigators requested information about Musa Temergeriyev’s disappearance from various State authorities, stating that “on 22 December 2002 unidentified persons in two APCs had abducted Musa Temergeriyev from his house at no. 55 Mikhaylika Street in Grozny”. Certain requests issued in 2003, 2004 and 2008 stated that “after kidnapping Musa Temergeriyev, the servicemen had brought him to the grounds of military unit no. 3186 and then transported him to the criminal police department in Khankala”. The Government produced copies of the replies to such requests, which can be summarised as follows. 161.  Further to a query from the International Committee of the Red Cross Mission in the Northern Caucasus concerning the abduction of over sixty men by federal servicemen in Chechnya, the deputy commander of the UGA replied in April 2003 that he had no information concerning most of those persons, including Musa Temergeriyev. 162.  In April 2003 and May 2007 the Chechnya FSB informed the investigating authorities that it had no information as to Musa Temergeriyev’s involvement in illegal armed groups. In May 2007 the ORB-2 and district departments of the criminal police submitted that they had no “discrediting” information about him. 163.  In May 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the town prosecutor that it had no information about special operations carried out in Chechnya at the time and referred to the North Caucasus department of the interior in Rostov-on-Don. It is unclear whether any query was ever sent there. 164.  In 2003 and 2004 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 submitted that its inquiries had not established the involvement of any servicemen in Musa Temergeriyev’s abduction. In August 2008 the military prosecutor of the UGA gave a similar reply. 165.  In February 2003 the head of the criminal police department in Khankala, Mr Zhizhin, informed the town prosecutor’s office that Mr Temergeriyev had not been taken to the criminal police department in Khankala, since there were no detention facilities there. In February 2003 the head of the operational group for the prison system of the Ministry of Justice in the Northern Caucasus reported that there were no detention facilities on the premises of the operational group in Khankala. In July 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA and the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 denied all knowledge of Musa Temergeriyev’s detention on the grounds of military unit no. 3186. 166.  On 29 April 2003 the ROVD submitted that it had no information as to Musa Temergeriyev’s whereabouts. It added that house-to-house enquiries by its staff had revealed that “on 27 December 2002 camouflaged men armed with machine guns had taken Mr Temergeriyev to the 15th military base in two APCs with the registration numbers E-546 and E-548”. 167.  In August 2006 regional departments of the prisons directorate in the Southern Federal Circuit informed the investigation that Musa Temergeriyev had not been detained in their remand facilities or prisons. 168.  In 2007 and 2008 district departments of the criminal police reported that they had neither detained Musa Temergeriyev on criminal or administrative charges, nor carried out any investigation in respect of him. Musa Temergeriyev had not been registered in any internal database, admitted to medical facilities or granted victim status in criminal proceedings. The district departments of the criminal police had informed their staff, subordinates and the public about the disappearance. They had conducted house-to-house enquiries, disseminated search briefings concerning the disappeared man and had pursued search measures to establish his whereabouts and those of his abductors.