5.  The applicants are:
(1)  Ms Roza Kharayeva (also known as Bugayeva), who was born in 1968,
(2)  Mr Ayndi Bugayev, who was born in 1972, and
(3)  Ms Zayna (also spelt as Zaynap) Maluyeva (also known as Bugayeva), who was born in 1961.
The first applicant lives in Goyty and the second and third applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. 6.  The applicants are the siblings of Mr Andarbek Bugayev, who was born in 1977. 7.  At the material time Mr Andarbek Bugayev and his family resided in Khankala, in the Grozny District. As the main military base of the Russian federal forces was located nearby, Khankala residents used special passes to enter and leave the town. 8.  On the night of the incident, 27 July 2004, Mr Andarbek Bugayev was at home alone as his family was visiting their relatives who lived in the same settlement. At around 3 a.m. or 4 a.m., a group of masked men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns arrived at Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s house and searched the premises. Then they put Mr Bugayev in one of their two UAZ vehicles and drove away. No witnesses were present during the abduction. On the following morning Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s relatives found his passport on the floor in the house. 9.  According to the applicants’ neighbour Ms R.M., on that night, at about 4 a.m. the same group of men broke into her house. They introduced themselves as military officers conducting an identity check. After having searched the house, the men left. Sometime later the witness heard noise from the house of Mr Andarbek Bugayev and someone asking in Russian “Are there any drugs or guns here?”  On the following morning she asked the men who worked on the rail road contruction site and who were walking by her house to work, to have a look inside of Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s house. The men returned shortly and told her that the house was empty, that everything there was upside down and that Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s passport was on floor at the door. 10.  The applicants have had no news of Mr Andarbek Bugayev since 27 July 2004. Their submission to the Court was based on the accounts of their neighbour Ms R.M. and Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s wife Ms Z.I.S. none of whom were present during the abduction. 11.  In their submission concerning the facts of the case the Government did not dispute the circumstances of the abduction as presented by the applicants. At the same time they stated that Mr Andarbek Bugayev “...had been abducted by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms who had driven in UAZ vehicles”. 12.  On 30 July 2004 the third applicant complained about her brother’s abduction to the Grozny district department of the interior (the Grozny ROVD). She stated that Mr Andarbek Bugayev had been abducted from home “between 3 and 4 a.m. on 27 July 2004 by unidentified armed men”. 13. On the same date, 30 July 2004, the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. They also questioned the applicants’ relatives Ms L.Ar. and Ms M.E. and the wife of Mr Andarbek Bugayev, Ms Z.I.S. All of them stated that they did not witness the abduction and had no information as to who could have been involved in the incident. 14.  On 5 August 2004 the Chechnya Federal Security Service (the Chechnya FSB) informed the police that Mr Andarbek Bugayev was an active member of illegal armed groups. 15.  On 27 August 2004 the senior operational search officer Mr M.A. reported to the head of the Grozny ROVD of the following:
“... upon the orders given by the investigator Mr M.T. from the Grozny town prosecutor’s office in connection with the investigation of the abduction of Mr A.Bugyaev in Khankala, I took operational search measures as a result of which it was established that Mr A. Bugayev had been released and currently is outside of the Chechen Republic. ... I have spoken to a number of his neighbours ...who had confirmed that Mr Bugayev had been released and left [the area]. It was impossible to question the relatives of Mr Andarbek Bugayev due to their absence ...” 16.  On 28 August 2004 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office refused to initiate a criminal investigation for the lack of corpus delicti. The applicants were informed of the decision on the same date. 17.  On 10 August 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office overruled that decision and ordered the Grozny district prosecutor’s office to open criminal case no. 44206. 18.  On 6 September 2005 Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s wife, Ms Z.I.S., was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned (see paragraph 27 below). 19.  On various dates between August 2005 and October 2005 the investigators forwarded a number of requests to various law enforcement agencies and detention centres asking whether they arrested or detained Mr Andarbek Bugayev. No replies in the positive were received. 20.  On 18 November 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators and the applicants were informed thereof. 21.  On 25 May 2009 the investigation was resumed and the first applicant was also granted victim status in the criminal case. 22.  On 30 May 2009 the investigation was again suspended and the applicants were informed thereof. 23.  On 16 July 2010 the first applicant lodged a court complaint alleging that the investigation was ineffective; as a result, on 4 August 2010 the proceedings were resumed. 24.  On 8 September 2010 the Chechnya Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the grounds that the investigation had been resumed. 25.  On 3 September 2010 the investigation was again suspended and the applicants were informed thereof. 26.  The criminal investigation is still pending. 27.  On 17 September 2004 the investigators questioned the third applicant who stated that she had not witnessed the abduction, that she and her relatives had tried to find witnesses to the incident but to no avail. She had learnt from “the rumours and the neighbours” that the abduction had been perpetrated by armed servicemen in masks and camouflage uniforms. 28.  On 22 September 2004 the investigators questioned Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s brother Mr K.B. who stated that he had not witnessed the events but learnt of them from his relatives and neighbours. 29.  On 6 September 2005 the investigators questioned Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s wife, Ms Z.I.S, who stated that she had not been at home during the abduction, but had learnt about it from her neighbours. 30.  On 16 September 2005 the investigators questioned Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s neighbour, Ms R.M., who stated that on the night of Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s abduction two men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at her house and quickly checked it. They had introduced themselves as servicemen from the military commander’s office. The men, who had spoken Russian, had been masked and had no distinguishing features on their uniforms. The witness further stated that she had no information as to who could have abducted Mr Andarbek Bugayev. The witness did not state that she had heard the same men visiting the Bugayevs’ house that night. 31.  On 16 September 2005 the investigators also questioned the second applicant who stated that he had leant of the incident from the third applicant and that he had no information concerning the reasons for the abduction. 32.  On 23 October 2005 the investigators questioned again the applicants’ wife Ms Z.I.S. who stated that she had not witnessed the abduction but learnt of them from her relatives and neighbours. She also stated that she and her relatives had tried to find witnesses to the incident but to no avail. 33.  On 25 October 2005 the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative Ms Z.Kh. who stated she had found out of the abduction from her relatives. According to the witness, the abduction had been perpetrated by a group of eight or nine armed men. 34.  On 25 May 2009 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who stated she had learnt of the abduction from her relatives and that that night her brother Andarbek Bugayev had been at home alone.