7.  The first applicant was born in 1942, the second applicant was born in 1944 and the third applicant was born in 2002. They live in the village of Chechen-Aul, the Groznenskiy District, in the Chechen Republic. 8.  The first and second applicants are spouses and the parents of Mr Kazbek Taysumov, born in 1972. Kazbek Taysumov was married to Ms Zulpat Eskirkhanova, born in 1978; the couple had two daughters – Ms Ayshat Eskirkhanova, born in 1999, and the third applicant. They all lived in a private house at Molodezhnaya Street, Chechen-Aul. 9.  At about 10.10 p.m. on 7 September 2002 Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and their elder daughter Ayshat were having dinner in the courtyard of the Taysumovs’ house. Their neighbour, Mr D., who had come to visit Kazbek Taysumov, was also in the courtyard and was about to leave. The first applicant was with the then six-month-old third applicant inside the house. The second applicant was not at home. 10.  At about 10.20 p.m. artillery fire commenced from three directions – from the federal military base of Khankala, from the village of Starye Atagi, in which a detachment of the Shali regiment was stationed, and from zone no. 56. 11.  The first applicant heard a shell fall and burst near the house. The electricity was cut off. The first applicant took hold of the third applicant, rushed outside and hid in a ditch in the courtyard. Immediately thereafter he saw another shell hit the house and one of the walls collapsed. Part of the house, including the room which the first and third applicants had left a moment before, was ruined. 12.  In total 15 to 18 shells were fired; three of them hit the applicants’ house. The attack lasted some 20 minutes. When the gunfire ceased, the first applicant started moving slowly across the wreckage-strewn courtyard and stumbled on his daughter-in-law’s dead body. She had been hit in the head. The first applicant saw his son nearby. The latter was seriously wounded and died half an hour later. The first applicant did not manage to find his elder granddaughter and shouted to his neighbours for help. 13.  When the neighbours arrived, they and the first applicant started searching for other victims. They carefully examined the courtyard using torches. Ayshat Eskirkhanova was found under the ruins not far away from her parents. The three-year-old girl was lethally wounded with several pieces of shrapnel in the abdomen. She died on her way to hospital. Mr D. was found seriously wounded and admitted to hospital. Eventually he survived, but lost his eyesight. 14.  As a result of the attack of 7 September 2002 the applicants’ house and a KavZ 685 minibus belonging to the first applicant were severely damaged. The applicants submitted a valuation report which had been drawn up by the head of the administration of Chechen-Aul and reflected the poor state of the applicants’ property. The applicants further presented a hand-drawn plan of their house indicating the three directions from which the village had been shelled, and photographs of the destroyed house, the minibus and several shell craters around their house. The first applicant examined the shell craters and found several shell fuses. He wrote down the serial numbers of the fuse housings and delivered them to the prosecutor’s office. One of the numbers was RGM-216-82. 15.  On 8 September 2002 investigators from the prosecutor’s office of the Groznenskiy District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) arrived at Molodezhnaya Street and inspected the scene of the incident and the dead bodies. However, no forensic medical examination of the bodies was performed. Instead the investigators suggested that they should take the bodies with them. The applicants refused and buried Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and Ayshat Eskirkhanova that same day. 16.  On 26 September 2002 medical death certificates were drawn up in respect of Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and Ayshat Eskirkhanova. The documents stated that they had been killed on 7 September 2002 in the village of Chechen-Aul. 17.  On 11 December 2002 the civil registry office of the Groznenskiy District certified the death of the applicants’ relatives. The date and place of death were recorded as 7 September 2002, Chechen-Aul. 18.  The Government submitted that the Prosecutor General’s Office had established that at about 9.30 p.m. on 7 September 2002 explosive devices had been detonated in the immediate vicinity of the first applicant’s house at Molodezhnaya Street, in the village of Chechen-Aul. The explosion had led to the deaths of Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova, and Ayshat Eskirkhanova. Mr D. had sustained serious bodily injuries while Ms and Mr Yu. had received minor injuries. The explosion had also caused the partial destruction of the first applicant’s house. 19.  After the killing of their relatives the applicants repeatedly complained both in person and in writing to prosecutor’s offices at different levels. They were supported in their efforts by the SRJI. In their letters to the authorities the applicants referred to the facts of their relatives’ deaths and asked for assistance and details of an investigation. These enquiries mostly remained unanswered, or only met with formal responses to the effect that the applicants’ requests were being forwarded to various prosecutor’s offices. 20.  At some point the first applicant was informed that he had been granted victim status in case no. 56136. 21.  On 16 December 2002 the first applicant requested the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic and the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”) to inform him of developments in the case. 22.  On 15 January 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s request to the unit prosecutor’s office “for inclusion in the file of criminal case no. 34/33/0621-02 instituted under Article 109 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code”. 23.  On 22 January 2003 the first applicant asked the district prosecutor’s office about the results of the investigation. 24.  By letter of 13 March 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s query, described as “erroneously transmitted to them”, to the unit prosecutor’s office. The letter also stated that criminal case no. 34/33/0621-02 received by the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic on 9 December 2002 had been returned to the unit prosecutor’s office for “an additional investigation” on 11 December 2002. 25.  On 25 March 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office forwarded the first applicant’s letter concerning the death of his family and destruction of his property to the South Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office. 26.  On 31 March 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office notified the first applicant that on 8 September 2002 the district prosecutor’s office had initiated criminal proceedings in connection with the deaths of his family members on 7 September 2002. They further noted that on 14 February 2003 the case file had been received by the unit prosecutor’s office and given the number 34/33/0621-02, and that currently various investigative measures were being taken in order to establish who was responsible. 27.  On 4 April 2003 the first applicant requested an update on progress in the investigation from the unit prosecutor’s office. He also requested to be granted victim status, stating that since the date on which the criminal proceedings had been brought he had received no news regarding the course of the investigation. 28.  By letter of 6 May 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that on 8 September 2002 the district prosecutor’s office had instituted criminal proceedings under Article 105 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated murder) in connection with “a series of explosions” in Chechen-Aul on 7 September 2002, and that on 28 September 2002 the case file had been transferred to the unit prosecutor’s office and given the number 34/33/0621-02 D. The reason for the transfer was the assumption that “the series of explosions” had been caused by the shelling of the village of Chechen-Aul by the federal troops. The letter then referred to the results of expert examination no. 615-C conducted on 12 September 2002 and stated that the above hypothesis had proved to be unfounded. The experts had found fragments of detonating devices for artillery shells of 122-mm calibre in the shell craters, but it had been established that those shells had been transformed into home-made explosive devices and dug into the ground by members of illegal armed groups rather then launched from artillery ordnance. Moreover, the federal troops stationed in Khankala had not conducted any artillery shelling on 7 September 2002 and, in any event, they had no shells of 122-mm calibre. The letter concluded that “the series of explosions” in Chechen-Aul was due to “terrorist activities of members of illegal armed groups, who had buried and then blown up the explosive devices”, but not to artillery shelling by the federal military forces. In the absence of any evidence of the involvement of military personnel in the crime, the case file had been transmitted to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic on 27 May 2003. The letter also informed the first applicant about the decision of 9 September 2002 by which he had been granted victim status, and enclosed a copy of that decision. 29.  According to the first applicant, he first became aware of the expert examination of 12 September 2002 upon receipt of the above letter but had no access to the results of that examination. 30.  On 4 June 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the unit prosecutor’s office. 31.  On 9 July 2003 the SRJI, acting on the first applicant’s behalf, requested an update on progress in the investigation into the killing of the Taysumov family from the unit prosecutor’s office. They also requested that the first applicant be admitted to the proceedings as a victim. 32.  On 14 August 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office replied that by decision of the district prosecutor’s office of 9 September 2002 the first applicant had been granted victim status and then questioned. 33.  On 24 October 2003 the SRJI applied on the first applicant’s behalf to the district prosecutor’s office arguing that the expert examination of 12 September 2002 had been improperly conducted and its results were rather controversial. In that connection, the SRJI requested the investigating authorities to carry out a new expert examination in the presence of the first applicant, his representative and an independent expert. 34.  According to the first applicant, at some point a group of investigators visited his house and examined the destroyed minibus, but did not explain their actions. 35.  On 20 November 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant and the SRJI that the investigation into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives had been instituted on 8 September 2002 and that case file no. 56136 had been referred to the unit prosecutor’s office on 15 October 2002. 36.  On 3 October 2005 the SRJI requested the unit prosecutor’s office and the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to carry out a new expert examination in the presence of the first applicant, his representative and an independent expert. 37.  On 17 October 2005 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the SRJI’s letter of 3 October 2005 to the UGA prosecutor’s office, which in turn forwarded it to the unit prosecutor’s office. 38.  On 19 January 2007 the SRJI requested the unit prosecutor’s office to carry out a new expert examination and to reply to their previous letter. 39.  On 15 March 2007 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the SRJI that the case file was provisionally with the UGA prosecutor’s office. 40.  On 8 September 2002 the district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into the deaths of Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and Ayshat Eskirkhanova under Article 109 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (manslaughter by improper performance of one’s professional duties). The case file was assigned the number 56136. In so far as relevant, the decision read as follows:
“At 9.25 p.m. on 7 September 2002 17 or 18 shots were fired from the village of Khankala [aiming] at the outskirts of the village of Chechen-Aul in the Groznenskiy District of the Chechen Republic. As a result of the direct hit [of a shell] on the unnumbered house at Molodezhnaya Street that belonged to the Taysumov family three persons died: K. Taysumov, his wife Z. Eskirkhanova and their daughter Ayshat.” 41.  On 8 September 2002 the applicants requested the district prosecutor’s office not to carry out an autopsy on the dead bodies of their relatives for religious reasons. 42.  On 9 September 2002 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status in case no. 56136 and questioned him. 43.  On the same date the district prosecutor’s office granted victim status to two of Kazbek Taysumov’s neighbours, Ms B. and Mr Yu., and questioned them. Ms B. stated that at 9.30 p.m. on 7 September 2002 an artillery bombardment had begun and that during the attack she had had the impression that shells had been falling from every direction. Mr Yu. stated that at 9.30 p.m. on 7 September 2002 he had heard the noise of artillery shots and a few seconds later the sound of explosions. He further noted that two shells had fallen into his kitchen garden and that a hole had been punched in the roof of his house. 44.  On 10 September 2002 the district prosecutor’s office decided to transfer the case file to the unit prosecutor’s office pursuant to the subject-matter jurisdiction rules. In so far as relevant, the decision read as follows:
“The case materials collected in the course of the preliminary investigation fully proved that the crime had been committed by servicemen of the federal military forces. The witnesses ... submitted that the shellfire had come from the village of Khankala and the location of the guard-post at the crossroads of the route Baku-Rostov-Grozny-Shatoy and from the direction of the village of Starye Atagy of the Groznenskiy District. Units of the federal troops that were stationed there had artillery pieces and mortars. All witnesses questioned submitted that flashes at the time of the shelling had been seen exactly where the military units had been located.
Identical fragments of shell fuse housings marked “RMG-2 16-82” found at the scene of the incident confirm in full the fact that Chechen-Aul was shelled by the military. Only military units are equipped with shells bearing such marks.
Shell craters at the scene of the incident indicated that the shells had been fired exactly from the places where the above-mentioned military units of the Russian Federation had been located. Units of the Ministry of the Interior located in the vicinity of Chechen-Aul had no artillery pieces or mortars.” 45.  On receipt by the unit prosecutor’s office, the case file was assigned the number 14/33/0621-02. At some point the number was changed to 34/33/0621-02. 46.  On an unspecified date in 2002 a commission composed of senior officers of the United Group Alignment and officers of the Ministry of the Interior carried out an inquiry into the explosions in Chechen-Aul. The commission established that no aeroplanes, artillery ordnance or engineering weapons had been used there. It further concluded that the explosions had presumably been caused by spontaneous detonation of several landmines, which had been placed by illegal armed groups in the Chechen-Aul area in order to damage the federal troops. The explosive devices had been home-made and probably radio-controlled. 47.  On 26 November 2002 the unit prosecutor’s office decided that the explosions of 7 September 2002 had been caused by spontaneous detonation of landmines laid by members of illegal armed groups and suspended the investigation in case no. 34/33/0621-02 for failure to identify those responsible. 48.  At some point the case file was transferred to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 49.  On 11 December 2002 the case was transferred to the prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”). 50.  On 15 May 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation in case no. 34/33/0621-02 in order to establish precisely the nature and origin of the explosive devices. 51.  On 16 May 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation. 52.  In June 2003 the UGA prosecutor’s office studied the case file and recommended measures to be taken to solve the crime. 53.  On 1 July 2003 the UGA prosecutor’s office returned the case file to the unit prosecutor’s office for the reason that the investigation had been suspended prematurely. 54.  On 14 August 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation as the relevant time-limits had expired, and indicated that the Groznenskiy department of the interior (“the ROVD”) should take investigative measures to find the perpetrators. The decision described the circumstances of the case as follows:
“Between 9 and 11 p.m. on 7 September 2002 seventeen or eighteen shots were fired by an unidentified artillery system [located] in the direction of Khankala on Molodezhnaya Street in the village of Chechen-Aul in the Groznenskiy District of the Chechen Republic. Shrapnel hit the house belonging to the Taysumov family; as a result K. Taysumov, Z. Eskirkhanova and A. Taysumova were killed.” 55.  On 6 October 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 14 August 2003 and resumed the investigation. On the following day it was again suspended. 56.  On 14 October 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office granted victim status in case no. 34/33/0621-02 to the Taysumovs’ neighbours, Mr and Ms Yu., and questioned their two minor children. 57.  On 17 November 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office granted Mr D. victim status and questioned him. 58.  On 6 December 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 34/33/0621-03 because the time allowed for a preliminary investigation had lapsed, and ordered the ROVD and the Groznenskiy district department of the Federal Security Service to take investigative measures to find the perpetrators. The description of the circumstances of the crime reproduced verbatim the one given in the decision of 14 August 2003. 59.  On 27 April 2005 the UGA prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 6 December 2003 because not all requisite investigative measures had been taken and forwarded the case file to the unit prosecutor’s office. They also mentioned that on 11 December 2002 the case file had been transferred to the UGA prosecutor’s office because of “the lopsided assessment by the investigator of the collected evidence aimed at elimination of [a hypothesis of] federal military involvement in the artillery shelling”. They also listed the measures that had not been taken, in particular the fact that the investigators had not studied documentation of artillery units of the United Group Alignment, had not questioned officers of the artillery of those units, had not established which units could have sent the shells in question and had not determined whether any RGM-2 had been received by the military units of the United Group Alignment. 60.  On 21 June 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office resumed the proceedings. 61.  On 21 July 2005 the unit prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 34/33/0621-02D for failure to identify those responsible. 62.  On 28 December 2005 the UGA prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 21 July 2005 because not all requisite investigative measures had been taken and forwarded the case file to the unit prosecutor’s office. They referred to the same deficiencies in the investigation that had been mentioned in their decision of 27 April 2005. 63.  On 15 February 2006 the unit prosecutor’s office received the case file. 64.  From February 2006 onwards the investigators took a number of investigative measures. In particular, they questioned two witnesses, Mr D. and the first applicant, seized a videotape with a record showing the scene of the incident after the events in question, ordered an expert examination of that videotape and requested information on military orders and other documents from the military hierarchy. They further ordered and obtained an additional examination by an explosives expert and allowed the victims of the crime to study the decision ordering the examination. The investigators also collected documents confirming the amount of pecuniary damage sustained by the victims. 65.  The investigation in case no. 34/33/0621-02 was ongoing and investigative measures were being taken to establish all the circumstances of the incident.