5.  The applicant was born in 1951. She is the mother of Said-Magamed (also spelled as Said-Magomed) Tovsultanov, who was born in 1970. At the material time she lived in Sleptsovskaya (also known as Ordzhenikidzovskaya), Ingushetia. Currently she lives in Katar-Yurt (also spelled as Katyr-Yurt), Chechnya. 6.  The applicant did not witness the disappearance of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov. The account below is based on the anonymous statements of third persons summarised by the applicant and submitted by her to the Court. 7.  In September 1999, before the beginning of the large-scale military operations in Chechnya, the applicant and Said-Magamed Tovsultanov moved from Katar-Yurt, Chechnya, to the village of Sleptsovskaya in Ingushetia. The applicant and her son, who were registered as forced migrants in the village, stayed with their relatives, the family of Ms Zh.S. In 2002 the applicant returned to Katar-Yurt, whereas her son Said-Magamed Tovsultanov stayed on in Sleptsovskaya with their relatives. 8.  On 14 June 2004 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 13 June 2004) the applicant was at home in Katar-Yurt. At about 3 p.m. a woman came to her house and told her that her son had been abducted in Sleptsovskaya. The applicant immediately went to her relative's home in that village. The applicant and Mrs Zh.S. were in the yard when a woman named Roza, who was from Roshni-Chu in Chechnya, stopped by. She told the women that on 14 June 2004 she had been in the forced migrants' tent camp when one of her female acquaintances had told her that at about 1 p.m. on the same day a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms in five VAZ and UAZ cars had apprehended a young Chechen man in a white VAZ-2107 car with registration number C897 ME. The incident had taken place in the centre of Sleptsovskaya, on the corner of Pobeda and Rabochaya Streets. During the apprehension, right before he had been put in one of the cars, the man, who had been dressed in a white shirt, had managed to shout out to the bystanders that his name was Said‑Magamed Tovsultanov and that he was from Katar-Yurt. After that the group of armed men had driven away with him and his car. 9.  The applicant immediately went to the centre of Sleptsovskaya to obtain information about her son, but to no avail. On the following day she left for Katar-Yurt. A day later she went to Sleptsovskaya again. On the way there she got out of the vehicle at the crossroads in the vicinity of the village of Assinovskaya in Chechnya, next to the “Kavkaz” motorway. The applicant was standing there when she saw a convoy of five VAZ cars of different colours driving quickly on the motorway from the direction of the “Kavkaz” checkpoint located on the border of Chechnya and Ingushetia. A white VAZ-2107 car without a registration number was in the middle of it. 10.  When the convoy was passing by the applicant, she saw that in one of the cars a man in white shirt moved towards the car window. The applicant recognised the man as her son Said-Magamed Tovsultanov. 11.  Immediately after that the applicant boarded a bus and went to Sleptsovskaya through the “Kavkaz” checkpoint. On her way there, before the checkpoint, she saw a black velvet pillow on the ground. The applicant recognised it at once as the pillow that had belonged to her son Said‑Magamed Tovsultanov, who had used it as a seat cushion in his car. The applicant thought that the men who had driven by her in the convoy must have thrown the cushion out of her son's car. 12.  The Government did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicant. At the same time they submitted that she had not witnessed the events and had obtained the information from third persons, that the body of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov had not been found and that the involvement of State representatives in his abduction and death had not been established. 13.  With the help of her relatives, the applicant contacted, both in person and in writing, various official bodies, such as the Russian President, the Chechen administration, departments of the interior and prosecutors' offices at different levels, asking for help in establishing the whereabouts of Said‑Magamed Tovsultanov. She retained copies of a number of those complaints and submitted them to the Court. An official investigation was opened by the local prosecutor's office. The relevant information is summarised below. 14.  The applicant did not retain copies of her written complaints lodged with various State authorities from the middle of June 2004 to the beginning of April 2005. 15.  On 22, 25 April 2005 and 27 January 2007 the Chechnya prosecutor's office forwarded the applicant's complaints about her son's abduction to the Ingushetia prosecutor's office for examination. 16.  On 2 June 2005 the Sunzhenskiy district prosecutor's office (the district prosecutor's office) instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov under Article 126 § 1 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). The case file was assigned the number 05600034. 17.  On 27 June 2005 the district prosecutor's office granted the applicant victim status in the criminal case. 18.  On 2 November 2005 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators. The decision stated that the investigators had: questioned three neighbours of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov, as well as several salespersons from the kiosks located next to the place of his abduction; put Said-Magamed Tovsultanov's VAZ-2107 car on the search list; checked the registration log of the “Volga‑20” border police checkpoint concerning the passage of vehicles on the day of the abduction; and forwarded information requests to various law‑enforcement agencies in various regions of the Northern Caucasus. The applicant was informed about the suspension of the investigation on the same date. 19.  On 29 January 2007 the Chechnya prosecutor's office informed the applicant that they had forwarded her complaint about the abduction to the Ingushetia prosecutor's office for examination. 20.  On 7 February 2007 the Ingushetia prosecutor's office forwarded the applicant's complaint about her son's abduction to the district prosecutor's office. 21.  On 14 February 2007 the district prosecutor's office informed the applicant that on 2 November 2005 they had suspended the investigation of her son's abduction. 22.  On 12 February 2008 the applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office about the ineffectiveness of the investigation of the abduction and requested to be provided with access to the investigation file. 23.  On 28 February 2008 the district prosecutor's office rejected the applicant's complaint, stating that under Articles 215 and 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code a victim in a criminal case could be provided with access to an investigation file only upon completion of the investigation. 24.  On 15 April 2008 the applicant complained to the district prosecutor's office about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into her son's abduction and requested to be provided with access to the investigation file. She received no reply. 25.  The Government submitted that on 14 February 2005 the applicant had complained about the abduction to the Russian President and not the competent law-enforcement authorities. 26.  On 6 May 2005 the district prosecutor's office requested the Sunzhenskiy district department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and the Ingushetia FSB to inform them whether they had arrested or detained the applicant's son. According to their replies of 16 and 18 May 2005 no special operations in respect of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov had been conducted and no criminal proceedings had been pending against him. 27.  On the same date the district prosecutor's office requested the Information Centre of the Ministry of the Interior (the MVD) to inform them whether Said-Magamed Tovsultanov was on the authorities' search list and whether they had information concerning his whereabouts. 28.  On 1 June 2005 the applicant complained about her son's abduction to the district prosecutor's office. 29.  On 2 June 2005 the district prosecutor's office initiated a criminal investigation of the abduction. 30.  On 27 June 2005 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She stated that on 14 June 2004 a boy had come by her house in Katar-Yurt and handed her a note. According to the boy, this note had been given to him by someone from a passing bus who had asked him to pass it on to the relatives of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov. The applicant had gone straight to her son's flat in Sleptsovskaya and then to the scene of the incident, where she had learnt from eyewitnesses, who had been primarily teenagers and salespersons from the nearby kiosks, that her son, who had been driving a VAZ-2107 car, had been blocked by two UAZ vehicles and a VAZ-21099 car and been taken away by armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks. During the abduction he had managed to shout out his name, asking the onlookers to inform his family about the abduction. The applicant further stated that at the time she had not thought of writing down the names and addresses of the eyewitnesses, as she was illiterate. She had informed her relatives about the events and it appears that they complained to various law-enforcement bodies in Chechnya in their search for Said-Magamed Tovsultanov. 31.  The Government pointed out that the applicant had not mentioned to the investigators any of the events which had taken place after her son's abduction in the vicinity of the “Kavkaz” checkpoint (see paragraphs 9-11 above). 32.  On 15 June 2005 the investigators requested the Northern Ossetia FSB and the Chechnya FSB to inform them whether these agencies had arrested the applicant's son or opened criminal proceedings against him. On 28 June the Chechnya FSB replied that they had neither detained the applicant's son nor initiated criminal proceedings against him. 33.  On 30 June 2005 the Sunzhenskiy district department of the interior (the ROVD) informed the investigators that they had not arrested or detained the applicant's son. 34.  On an unspecified date in July 2005 the deputy Ingushetia prosecutor issued orders for the investigators in the criminal case. The relevant part of the document stated:
“... No investigation plan was prepared by the investigators who, in addition, also failed to examine a number of factual circumstances of the crime.
In order to conduct a full investigation of the criminal case I order the investigators to take the following measures:
– identify the woman who, according to L. Tovsultanova [the applicant], had eye witnessed the abduction and had told the boy about it ... and question her about the events;
– identify and question the employees of the nearby kiosks who, according to the applicant, had witnessed the unidentified men in two UAZ cars and a VAZ-21099 detain S.-M. Tovsultanov, who had been driving a VAZ-2107, and take him away to an unknown destination;
– establish the registration numbers of the VAZ-2107 which had belonged to the abducted man and put this information on the search list;
– identify those who had been on duty on 14 June 2004 at the 'Volga-20' checkpoint located on the border with Chechnya and question them about the circumstances of the case. In particular, it is necessary to find out whether a UAZ and VAZ-2107 carrying State officials had passed through the checkpoint on that date;
– examine the registration log of vehicles passing through the 'Volga‑20'checkpoint;
– inspect the household ... where the abducted man had lived;
– in order to establish the whereabouts of S.-M. Tovsultanov, ... forward requests to various prosecutors' offices in [various regions] in the Northern Caucasus;
– forward information requests to [various...] detention centres in the Northern Caucasus and the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 04062;
– forward information requests to various medical institutions in order to find out whether S.-M. Tovsultanov had applied for medical help and/or whether his body had been discovered;
– establish whether S.-M. Tovsultanov had purchased train or airplane tickets;
– receive replies from [various departments of the interior and the FSB];
– reply to the applicant's complaint of 5 June 2005;
– take other investigative measures, when necessary ...” 35.  On 7 July 2005 the investigators requested the Ingushetia Ministry of the Interior (the MVD) to provide them with the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the officers who had been on duty at the “Volga-20” checkpoint on 13 and 14 June 2004. 36.  On various dates in July and August 2005 the investigators requested that various prosecutors' offices in the Northern Caucasus provide them with information as to whether the applicant's son had been arrested, detained or taken to hospital or had obtained temporary residential registration in their regions and whether his car had been registered or confiscated by local law-enforcement agencies. 37.  On 12 July 2005 the investigators questioned Ms L.Kh., a neighbour of S.-M. Tovsultanov, who stated that on 13 June 2004 she had been at home when at about 1 p.m. a Chechen woman had arrived at her house looking for the relatives of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov. She had explained that Said-Magamed had been apprehended and taken away by men in masks and camouflage uniforms and that the abduction had taken place on the corner of Pobeda and Rabochaya Streets, not far away from the district hospital. Then both women had gone to the house where Said-Magamed Tovsultanov had lived with his relatives. In the house the women had found a boy who was at home alone and asked him to inform his relatives about the abduction of S.-M. Tovsultanov. The boy had immediately gone to the local bus station and through passengers of a bus going from Sleptsovskaya to Katar-Yurt had passed on a note to his relatives in the village informing them about the abduction. 38.  On 13 July 2005 the investigators forwarded a number of information requests to various airports and train stations in the Northern Caucasus asking whether Said-Magamed Tovsultanov had purchased airplane or train tickets. In August 2005 three regional airplane companies replied in the negative. 39.  On 14 July 2005 the investigators requested that the ROVD establish the identity of the Chechen woman who had informed Ms L.Kh. about the abduction and the identities of the teenagers and the kiosk employees who had witnessed the abduction, as well as of the driver of the bus/taxi by which the note about the abduction had been delivered to Katar-Yurt. 40.  On the same date the investigators forwarded information requests to a number of detention centres in the Northern Caucasus asking whether Said-Magamed Tovsultanov was detained on their premises and whether criminal proceedings had been brought against him. On the same date the investigators forwarded requests to a number of Information Centres of the MVD in the Northern Caucasus asking whether they had any information as to whether Said-Magamed Tovsultanov's body had been found. On various dates in August 2005 the Dagestan MVD, the UVD of the Stavropol region, and the Kabardino-Balkaria MVD replied that they had no information concerning Said-Magamed Tovsultanov. 41.  On various dates in August 2005 the investigators requested a number of departments of the interior in the Northern Caucasus, including the Northern Ossetia MVD, the UVD of the Rostov Region and the Kabardino-Balkaria MVD, to take operational-search measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of the applicant's son, his car and the perpetrators of his abduction. They also asked to be informed whether the corpse of a man with features similar to Said-Magamed Tovsultanov had been found, whether his car had been registered in their regions or had been involved in any road accidents, whether he had applied for medical assistance; whether he had stayed in local hotels as of 14 June 2004, whether he had been arrested by the local law-enforcement bodies and whether any charges had been brought against him. Between July and September 2005 a number of law-enforcement agencies replied that they had no information concerning either the applicant's son or his car. 42.  On 8 August 2005 the investigators conducted a crime scene examination at the place of the abduction. No evidence was collected from the scene. 43.  On 8 August 2005 the investigators questioned Ms P.M. who stated that at the material time she had been working in a kiosk located on the corner of Pobeda and Rabochaya Streets. However, she had not witnessed the abduction, but from her customers she had learnt that on 14 June 2004 a Chechen man, Tovsultanov, who had been an alleged member of illegal armed groups, had been arrested and taken away either by representatives of the ROVD or the representatives of the Security Service of the Chechen President and that the abductors had been wearing camouflage uniforms and had been driving two VAZ cars and a UAZ car. 44.  On the same date the investigators questioned Ms A.A. and Mr I.A, employees from kiosks on the corner Pobeda and Rabochaya Streets, who stated that they had not witnessed the events. 45.  On 10 August 2005 the ROVD informed the investigators that they had established that between 14 June 2004 and the present Said-Magamed Tovsultanov had not applied for medical help in the area and that his car had not been stopped at the local traffic police stations, and also that they had summoned the employees of the kiosks located in the vicinity of the place of the incident to be questioned by the investigators. 46.  On 15 August 2005 the investigators requested the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor's office in Chechnya to take investigative steps to question relatives and neighbours of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov about the following: the reasons for his move from Chechnya to Ingushetia, how often he had visited Katar-Yurt, how he had earned his living, who his friends and enemies had been, whether his relatives had any theories concerning the reasons for his abduction and his possible whereabouts, whether they had been asked to pay a ransom for his release and what the results of their search for him had been. 47.  On 16 August 2005 the investigators requested that the Ingushetia MVD inform them whether on 14 June 2004 a white VAZ car with registration number C897 ME06, or VAZ-21099 and UAZ cars carrying representatives of law-enforcement bodies had been registered in the registration logs as having passed through the “Volga-20” police checkpoint or any traffic police stations in Ingushetia. They also requested that the officers who had been on duty at the checkpoint on that date report to the district prosecutor's office for questioning. 48.  On the same date the investigators examined the registration log of the vehicles passing through the “Volga-20” police checkpoint. The document was dated “from 4 June to 18 June 2004” and comprised 99 pages. As a result of the examination it was established that pages 70 to 74 contained information concerning the passage of cars through the checkpoint on 14 June 2004:
“... page 70 contains a handwritten note about the passage of a UAZ car with registration number A717 BK95, whose driver, Mr V.K., had produced his service identity document no. 121884 ... the note concerning this car is linked with a [note recording the] passage of a VAZ-21099 vehicle ... no information about the latter car was recorded. This link provides grounds to presume that the two vehicles had moved through the checkpoint as a convoy and that therefore only the UAZ driver's name was noted ...” 49.  On 9 September 2005 the investigators wrote to the Achkhoy‑Martan district prosecutor's office stating the following:
“... the preliminary investigation established that the abductors of S.‑M. Tovsultanov had been driving a UAZ and a VAZ-21099 car.
During the examination of the registration log of the 'Volga-20' checkpoint it was established that on 14 June 2004 at 7.16 two cars – a VAZ-21099 and a UAZ with registration number A717 B.../95 had passed through the checkpoint; the driver had been captain V.K., who had produced service identification document no. 121884; the cars had been travelling in the direction of Achkhoy-Martan-Nazran ...
[in the light of this information] we ask you [to take the following measures]: 1. Establish whether Mr V.K. is an employee of a law-enforcement agency in the Achkhoy-Martan district and whether he has service identification document no. 121884. 2. Question Mr V.K. as a witness about the following:
– the purpose of his trip to Ingushetia on 14 June 2004;
– who accompanied him on this trip and their names;
– whether he knows S.-M. Tovsultanov;
– whether he participated in operational-search measures against S.‑M. Tovsultanov and if so, what the reasons for S.-M. Tovsultanov's arrest were and what his current whereabouts are. 3. Question the persons who accompanied Mr V.K. on his trip [on 14 June 2004] and ask them the same questions ...”
It is unclear whether any reply was given to this request. 50.  On 17 August 2005 the investigators questioned Ms P.T. who stated that she owned a kiosk located on the corner of Pobeda and Rabochaya Streets, that she had not witnessed the abduction and that at some point in the summer of 2004 a Chechen woman had arrived at her kiosk and asked her for help in establishing the circumstances of the abduction. 51.  On 19 August 2005 the investigators forwarded a number of additional information requests concerning the possible detention of Said‑Magamed Tovsultanov, discovery of his body or registration of his car to various law-enforcement agencies in Kabardino-Balkaria. 52.  On 8 September 2005 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who provided a statement similar to the one given on 27 June 2005 and added that Said-Magamed Tovsultanov had not been a member of illegal armed groups, that he had not had enemies and that she had not been asked to pay a ransom. 53.  On various dates in September and October 2005 the investigators questioned four neighbours of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov, Ms Kh.D., Mr. S.Kh., Mr Z.A. and Mr I.Dzh., who gave positive character references for the applicant's son and stated that they had no knowledge pertaining to the circumstances of his abduction. 54.  On 2 November 2005 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about it on the same date. 55.  On 28 April 2009 the investigation in the criminal case was resumed by a decision of the head of the investigations department. The document stated:
“... on 2 November 2005 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators.
As it follows from the investigation file, the above decision was taken prematurely and should be overruled for the following reasons.
For instance, the investigation failed to establish [the identity of] the person who had informed S.-M. Tovsultanov's neighbours about his abduction and the person who had informed his relatives in Katar-Yurt about it;
In addition, the investigators failed to question the aunt of S.-M. Tovsultanov and her husband [in whose house he had lived] about the abduction ...
... it is necessary to request information from military units in Chechnya and Ingushetia asking them whether they had arrested or detained S.-M. Tovsultanov ...” 56.  The Government submitted that even though the investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov, it was still in progress and all measures envisaged under the domestic law were being taken. The investigation had not established the involvement of law‑enforcement agencies in the abduction; no special operations had been carried out against the applicant's son. The law enforcement authorities had never arrested or detained Said-Magamed Tovsultanov on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in connection with him. 57.  Despite specific requests by the Court for a copy of the entire contents of the investigation file in criminal case no. 05600034, the Government disclosed only part of the documents from the file, running up to 170 pages. 58.  On 11 March 2008 the applicant complained to the Sunzhenskiy district court of Ingushetia (the district court) about the ineffectiveness of the investigation in the criminal case. She stated that her son had been abducted by representatives of the Russian federal forces and pointed out that the lack of information about the investigation precluded her from appealing against the investigators' actions. 59.  On 28 March 2008 the applicant visited the district prosecutor's office where she was provided with copies of a number of procedural decisions. According to the applicant, upon receipt of these documents, she was asked to sign a document the contents of which she did not understand owing to her illiteracy. 60.  On 28 March 2008 the district court rejected the applicant's complaint. The court stated that the applicant “had lodged a written request to have the examination of her complaint discontinued ...” According to the applicant, she did not lodge such a request. However, the Government furnished the Court with a copy of the applicant's handwritten receipt to this effect.