6.  The applicants are:
1) Ms Zara Khasanovna Nasukhanova, born in 1954;
2) Mr Magomed Dulayevich Kasumov, born in 1936;
3) Ms Razet Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1976;
4) Ms Luiza Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1981;
5) Ms Kristina Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1984; and
6) Ms Kamila Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1982.
They live in the village of Pervomayskaya of the Grozny District of the Chechen Republic. 7.  The first and second applicants are parents of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants and of Mr Ruslan Magomedovich Kasumov, born in 1974. 8.  On the night of 2 to 3 February 2003 Ruslan Kasumov stayed overnight at the house of his relative, Mr Sh.D., at 4 Proletarskiy Alley, the village of Pervomayskaya. At about 2 a.m. on 3 February 2003 four armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and four Ural vehicles pulled up in front of that house and around thirty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms broke inside it. Some of them wore masks. The men did not identify themselves; they shouted at the inhabitants in Russian. Then they took Mr Sh.D. and Ruslan Kasumov to the courtyard and demanded their names. Having heard the reply, they let Mr Sh.D. go back in the house and loaded Ruslan Kasumov into one of the APCs. Then the vehicles drove away in the direction of the village of Ken-Yurt. Mr Sh.D.’s wife, Ms Tamara Kh., noticed that one of the APCs had registration number 907. 9.  The applicants have had no further news of Ruslan Kasumov.
(b)  Apprehension of Mr A.D. 10.  At about 2 a.m. on 3 February 2003 a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms broke into the house of Mr Sh.D.’s brother, Mr A.D., at 3 Proletarskiy Alley, the village of Pervomayskaya. They took Mr A.D., handcuffed him, asked his family name and dragged him out of the house. Then they put a T-shirt on his head so that Mr A.D. could not see their faces. One of the servicemen again asked Mr A.D.’s last name, said that they would clear things up later and put Mr A.D. into an APC. The vehicle travelled for about thirty minutes and then stopped. Mr A.D. heard a man asking someone if he could identify Mr A.D., who had a torch shone in his face. The reply was negative. The men questioned Mr A.D., asking him whether he had participated in illegal armed groups or assisted rebels. Some twenty to thirty minutes later one of the men unlocked the handcuffs and left Mr A.D. lying on the ground. The men got into the vehicles and drove in the direction of the village of Ken-Yurt. Mr A.D. waited for a few moments and ran home. 11.  At about 3 a.m. on 3 February 2003 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine guns arrived in the village of Pervomayskaya and kidnapped Ruslan Kasumov from the house at 3 Proletarskiy Alley. 12.  In the morning of 3 February 2003 the applicants learned of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction and complained about it to several military commanders’ offices and to the prosecutor’s office of the Grozny District (“the district prosecutor’s office”). Further, they continued to search for their relative and repeatedly contacted the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms (“the Special Envoy”), the Russian President, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office, the military prosecutors’ offices, the Administration of the Chechen Republic and the Ombudsman of the Chechen Republic. In the applications they described the circumstances of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction and asked for assistance in establishing his whereabouts and fate. Most of the complaints were lodged by the first applicant on behalf of the whole family. The applicants were assisted in their efforts by the SRJI. They retained copies of some of those complaints and submitted them to the Court. The official bodies forwarded most of the complaints to prosecutors’ offices at different levels. 13.  On 17 February 2003 the Special Envoy forwarded the first applicant’s letter to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic, which in its turn sent it to the district prosecutor’s office on 12 March 2003. 14.  On 17 March 2003 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into Ruslan Kasumov’s disappearance under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 42050. 15.  On 7 April 2003 the first applicant asked the district prosecutor’s office whether the investigation into the event had been opened and requested victim status. 16.  On 28 April 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that on 17 March 2003 the district prosecutor’s office had opened an investigation into her son’s kidnapping in case no. 42050 and that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 17.  On 21 July 2003 the first applicant asked the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to help to establish her son’s whereabouts. 18.  On 29 July 2003 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to update her on progress in the investigation and to grant her victim status. She received no reply and repeated her request in a letter of 8 August 2003. 19.  On 27 August 2003 the Southern Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 20.  On 5 September 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office. 21.  On 8 October 2003 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status. 22.  On 13 November 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”) informed the first applicant that the inquiry had established no traces of the implication of military personnel in her son’s kidnapping. On 9 December 2003 the first applicant received a similar letter from the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”). 23.  On 9 December 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office and requested it to provide detailed information on the investigation by 20 October 2003. 24.  On 25 December 2003 the military commander of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the military commander of the Grozny District. 25.  On 5 January 2004 the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that investigative measures necessary to establish her son’s whereabouts and to identify those responsible were being taken. 26.  On 14 February 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the unit prosecutor’s office and indicated that a new inquiry should be carried out in order to verify the facts complained of, to check any implication of the federal servicemen in Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction and to find the APC and to which authority it had belonged. 27.  On 2 March 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son’s kidnapping was under way and invited her to send further queries to the district prosecutor’s office. 28.  On 9 March 2004 the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son’s kidnapping by “unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine guns” was pending, that those responsible had not been identified and that a plan of further investigative measures had been adopted. 29.  On 27 March and 9 April 2004 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaints to the unit prosecutor’s office. 30.  On 9 April 2004 the military commander’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the military commander’s office of the Grozny District, noted that Ruslan Kasumov had been apprehended by “armed men in military uniforms” and demanded that the facts complained of be verified and detailed information on progress in the investigation be provided by 15 April 2004. 31.  On 14 April 2004 the military commander’s office of the Grozny District informed the first applicant that the investigation into her son’s kidnapping was pending before the district prosecutor’s office. 32.  On 21 April 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office. 33.  On 21 May 2004 the Deputy Prosecutor General in the Southern Federal Circuit informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 34.  On 20 December 2004 the first applicant requested the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to inform her of the outcome of the investigation in case no. 42050. On the same date she wrote to the military commander of the Chechen Republic asking that the investigation be rendered more effective. 35.  On 24 December 2004 the military commander of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the military commander’s office of the Staropromyslovskiy District of the Chechen Republic and requested that the facts complained of be verified. 36.  On 29 December 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the district prosecutor’s office. 37.  On 17 February 2005 the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office in the Southern Circuit informed the first applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 38.  On 18 February 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that, although the investigation in case no. 42050 had been suspended for failure to identify those responsible, investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. It was not specified which body had decided to suspend the investigation or when that decision had been taken. The first applicant was advised of an opportunity to appeal against the suspension to a higher prosecutor or to a court. 39.  On 21 February 2005 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to provide her with detailed information on progress in the investigation in case no. 42050 and on measures taken and their outcome and to resume the investigation should it be stayed. 40.  On 18 December 2006 the department of the interior of the Grozny District informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 42050 was under way. 41.  On 17 February 2007 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that, despite the suspension of investigation in case no. 42050, investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 42.  On 5 March 2007 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that the investigation had been suspended. 43.  On 31 July 2007 the district prosecutor’s office notified the first applicant of the resumption of the investigation. 44.  On 14 February 2003 the first applicant reported her son’s kidnapping to the authorities. 45.  On 3 March 2003 the authorities visited the house at 3 Proletarskiy Alley and inspected the crime scene. 46.  On 17 March 2003 the district prosecutor’s office acting on the basis of the first applicant’s complaint of 14 February 2003 instituted an investigation of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The decision stated that Ruslan Kasumov had been kidnapped from the house at 3 Korotkaya Street in the village of Pervomayskaya. The case file was assigned the number 42050. 47.  On 12 May 2003 the district prosecutor’s office extended the term of preliminary investigation in case no. 42050 until 17 June 2003. The decision stated that at 3 a.m. on 3 February 2003 Ruslan Kasumov had been kidnapped from the house at 3 Korotkaya Street in the village of Pervomayskaya by “unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms and masks driving four APCs and four Ural vehicles”. 48.  On 17 June 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation for failure to identify those responsible. 49.  On 2 October 2003 the investigation in case no. 42050 was resumed. 50.  On 8 October 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She submitted that at about 7 p.m. on 2 February 2003 her son had gone to visit his friend Mr Sh.D. On the following morning the first applicant had learned of his abduction. 51.  On 8 October 2003 Mr Sh.D. was questioned and submitted that at about 10.30 p.m. on 2 February 2003 Ruslan Kasumov had come to his place to watch television. At some point Mr Sh.D. had fallen asleep. He woke and saw several armed and masked men inside his house. The armed men took away Ruslan Kasumov and Mr. A.D. An hour later Mr A.D. returned home. 52.  On 10 October 2003 Mr A.D. was questioned and submitted that in the evening of 2 February 2003 Ruslan Kasumov had come to their place to watch television. At about 2 a.m. several armed men in masks had entered Mr A.D.’s bedroom, taken him outside and out him into an APC. The APC travelled for a while and then he was looked at. An unknown man said “No, this is not him”. When Mr A.D. returned home, he learned of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction, but he had not seen the latter inside the APC. Mr A.D. was unable to identify the perpetrators. 53.  On 3 November 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation. 54.  On 2 March 2004 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 9 April 2004. 55.  On 9 June 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic quashed the decision of 9 April 2004 and resumed the proceedings. 56.  On 21 June 2004 the first applicant was again questioned and submitted that on the night of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction her neighbour named “Tamara” had seen an APC with registration number 907. She also described her son’s distinctive features and the clothes that he had been wearing on the night of the kidnapping. 57.  On 17 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 42050 and notified the first applicant accordingly. 58.  On 15 December 2004 the district prosecutor’s office resumed the proceedings and informed the first applicant accordingly. 59.  On 17 January 2005 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The first applicant was informed that, despite the suspension of the proceedings, the police were taking investigative measures to solve the crime. 60.  On 18 January 2005 the district prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation for an unexplained reason and notified the first applicant accordingly. It was also decided to carry out a significant number of unspecified investigative measures in the shortest possible time span. 61.  On 18 February 2005 the investigation was suspended and the first applicant was informed accordingly. 62.  On 31 July 2007 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 18 February 2005 because it was necessary to take unspecified investigative measures. 63.  On the same date the district prosecutor’s office noted that the investigation file erroneously mentioned the place of kidnapping as the house at 3 Korotkaya Street, whereas the crime had been committed at 3 Proletarskiy Alley, and decided to correct the error. 64.  According to the Government, on unspecified dates the investigation questioned a number of the applicants’ fellow villagers as witnesses. They submitted that one night in February 2003 they had heard military vehicles and seen APCs on the street; they had not noticed the APCs’ numbers. On the following day they had learned of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction. They had not seen the missing man being placed in one of the APCs. 65.  The investigation requested information on Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction from various law enforcement agencies. The branches of the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Chechen Republic and the prosecutors’ offices of different districts and towns of the Chechen Republic replied that they had not arrested Ruslan Kasumov and that no special operations had been carried out in the village of Pervomayskaya on the night of 3 February 2003. Ruslan Kasumov had not been kept in any remand prisons or temporary detention facilities in the North Caucasus area. 66.  The investigation, which so far had failed to establish the whereabouts of Ruslan Kasumov or to find any evidence to support involvement of the Russian federal military in the crime, was under way. The first applicant was being kept duly informed of all procedural decisions. 67.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the contents of the investigation file in case no. 42050, providing only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation, several notifications to the first applicant of the suspension and resumption of the proceedings and copies of the minutes of the first applicant’s interviews. Relying on the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s Office, 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 the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings.