4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Urus-Martan. She is the mother of Ruslanbek (also spelled as Rustambek) Vakhayev, who was born in 1974. 5.  At the material time the Urus-Martan district was under the full control of the Russian federal forces. A strict curfew was enforced in the area. Military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from the town of Urus-Martan and other settlements in the district. One of the checkpoints, called “Roshnya” (“Рошня”) (from the documents submitted it follows that it was also known as KPP-206 (контрольно-пропускной пункт 206)), was located on the south-west outskirts of Urus-Martan, on the road leading from Urus‑Martan to the village of Roshni-Chu. 6.  On 5 October 2001 Ruslanbek Vakhayev and his friend Mr M.D. drove in the latter’s white VAZ-2106 car with registration number K674XT95 from Urus-Martan to Roshni-Chu. The young men were going to visit Mr M.D.’s fiancé to discuss wedding plans. On the way to Roshni‑Chu they picked up a woman with an ill child to give them a lift. The woman was returning to the village after seeing a doctor at the Urus‑Martan central district hospital. 7.  At about 4 p.m. the car was stopped by military servicemen at the “Roshnya” checkpoint for an identity check. After the check the officers told the passengers that they were detaining the driver, Mr M.D., and ordered everyone to get out of the car. 8.  After that the servicemen started to beat Mr M.D. Ruslanbek Vakhayev tried to talk to the officers, but one of them pulled the cap off his head and threw it on the ground. Then Ruslanbek hit the officer in the face. Next the servicemen started to beat him with rifle-butts and kicks and closed the passage through the checkpoint. As a result, a large crowd of local residents gathered at the roadblock awaiting the opening of the passage and witnessing the beating of Ruslanbek Vakhayev and Mr M.D. The servicemen did not allow anybody to approach and opened gunfire to keep the crowd away. 9.  One of the officers called someone via his portable radio set. Shortly afterwards an APC (armoured personnel carrier) arrived at the checkpoint. The servicemen forced Ruslanbek Vakhayev into the APC and Mr M.D. into the boot of his white VAZ-2106 car. The latter managed to shout his name and address into the crowd and asked the witnesses to inform his relatives about the arrest. 10.  After that the APC and the white VAZ-2106 car drove away in the direction of the town centre of Urus-Martan.
(b)  Subsequent events 11.  On 6 October 2001 the applicant’s daughter, Ms M.V., went to Mr M.D.’s relatives to find out the whereabouts of her brother Ruslanbek, who had not returned home the night before. 12.  The mother of Mr M.D. told her that she had heard about the arrest of two young Chechen men in a white VAZ-2106 car on 5 October 2001 at the checkpoint located on the road leading from Urus-Martan to Roshni‑Chu. 13.  The applicant’s daughter returned home and informed the family about the events at the checkpoint. Then the applicant and her relatives went to the building of the Urus-Martan temporary district department of the interior (the VOVD) in the town centre to find out whether the State authorities had any information about their relative. The applicant joined the crowd of local residents which had gathered outside the building. The applicant asked around whether anyone had heard about the arrest of two men at the checkpoint. Several women confirmed that they had witnessed the arrest of two Chechen men at the checkpoint on 5 October 2001 and suggested that the applicant talk to local taxi drivers who had closely witnessed the events. 14.  After that the applicant went to the taxi stand where she spoke to taxi drivers working on the route between Urus-Martan and Roshni-Chu. One of them confirmed that he had seen the servicemen at the checkpoint stopping a white VAZ car with two young men and a woman with a child in it, and the subsequent apprehension of the two men. The woman with the child had been taken from the checkpoint to Roshni-Chu by another taxi driver. 15.  Meanwhile, a man visited the house of Mr M.D. and informed his relatives that he had witnessed Mr M.D.’s arrest at the checkpoint. The man had been able to find Mr M.D.’s relatives as the latter had managed to shout out his name and address before being forced into the boot of the car. 16.  In the evening of 6 October 2001 the woman with the child visited the applicant’s home. She told the applicant that on 5 October 2001 she had visited a doctor in Urus-Martan and was looking for a lift back home to Roshni-Chu. Mr M.D. and Ruslanbek Vakhayev had picked her up to give her a lift to the village. At the “Roshnya” checkpoint the car had been stopped by military servicemen and the two men had been arrested and taken away. The applicant did not note the woman’s name and address. 17.  Several days later the applicant spoke to Mr L.M., the deputy head of the Urus-Martan district administration. The latter confirmed that Ruslanbek Vakhayev and Mr M.D. had been arrested at the checkpoint located on southwest outskirts of Urus-Martan and were detained in the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office (the district military commander’s office) located in the centre of the town. Mr L.M. promised the applicant that he would help get her son released. He was unable to assist the applicant as at some point later he was killed. 18.  Sometime after the abduction the applicant’s daughter, Ms M.V. saw the white VAZ-2106 car with registration number K674XT95 on the premises of the district military commander’s office. She recognised the car by its colour, registration number and the curtains with the tiger head pattern in the back window of the car. For about two months after the abduction she saw the car on numerous occasions in the town centre; men in military uniforms were driving in it. 19.  There has been no news of Ruslanbek Vakhayev and Mr M.D. since their arrest. 20.  In support of her statements the applicant submitted the following documents: a statement by Ms N.M. dated 15 March 2007; a statement by Ms Ya.I. dated 15 March 2007; a statement by Ms A.Ch. dated 23 March 2006, a statement by Ms M.V. dated 4 April 2007, a statement by the applicant dated 5 April 2007 and copies of the documents received from the authorities. 21.  The Government did not challenge the matter as presented by the applicant. At the same time they submitted that there was no evidence that Ruslanbek Vakhayev was dead or that State servicemen were involved in his alleged abduction. 22.  According to the applicant, on 7 October 2001 she complained in writing about her son’s abduction to a number of local law-enforcement agencies. She did not retain a copy of her complaint. 23.  On 2 June 2002 the applicant complained about the abduction of her son by military servicemen at the checkpoint to the district prosecutor, the head of the VOVD and the district military commander. She stated that his abduction had been witnessed by a large number of local residents, including the woman with the ill child. 24.  On 30 June 2002 the Chechnya department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) informed the applicant that they had forwarded her complaint about her son’s abduction to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. 25.  On 14 August 2002, 30 May and 7 July 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (the UGA) forwarded the applicant’s complaints about the abduction to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. 26.  On 17 September 2002 and 12 May 2003 the Prosecutor General’s office in the Southern Federal Circuit forwarded the applicant’s complaint about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into her son’s abduction and request for assistance in the search for him to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office for examination. 27.  On nine occasions, that is, on 23 and 30 September 2002 and then on 9 and 17 June and 18 August 2003, and 4 March, 24 June, 28 November and 21 December 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaints about her son’s abduction from the checkpoint and her requests for assistance in the search for him to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 28.  On 3 November 2002 (in the submitted materials the date was also stated as 18 October 2000) the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the abduction of Ruslanbek Vakhayev under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). The case file was given the number 61153 (in the submitted documents the number was also referred to as 24048). 29.  On 25 December 2002 the investigators granted the applicant victim status in the criminal case. 30.  On 14 January 2003 the investigators informed the applicant that on an unspecified date they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators. 31.  On 29 April 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaint about her son’s abduction from the checkpoint to the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA. 32.  On 10 June 2003 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (the Chechnya MVD) forwarded the applicant’s complaint about her son’s abduction to the VOVD for examination. 33.  On 17 and 30 June 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicant that the examination of her complaints had not established any involvement of military servicemen in the abduction of Ruslanbek Vakhayev. 34.  On 20 June 2003 and 8 December 2005 the VOVD informed the applicant that neither military servicemen, nor representatives of law enforcement agencies of the Urus-Martan district had arrested her son and that he was not detained on the premises of the VOVD. In the first letter the authorities referred to criminal case no. 24048, and in the second letter they referred to criminal case no. 61153. 35.  On 3 July 2003 the district military commander’s office informed the applicant that they had conducted an inquiry into her allegations about the abduction of her son at the checkpoint and stated the following:
“... as of 30 June 2003 the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office does not have any information concerning the whereabouts of your son and the reasons for his arrest. The absence of information is explained by the fact that the [current] military commander’s office has been fulfilling its tasks in the Urus-Martan district only since 28 December 2002 and the fact that the reference to [your son’s] arrest ‘in the autumn of 2001’ is not precise enough.” 36.  On 5 August 2003 the applicant complained to the Chechnya prosecutor. In her letter she stated that her son had been detained at the checkpoint of the Russian military forces and had disappeared since and that none of the law-enforcement or military agencies had acknowledged the involvement of their servicemen in his abduction. The applicant further complained that the district prosecutor’s office had opened the investigation into the disappearance more than one year after the events and that the investigators had failed to identify the military servicemen who had manned the checkpoint on 5 October 2001. She requested that the prosecutor’s office resume the suspended investigation and inform her about its progress. 37.  On 20 October 2003 the Chechnya FSB informed the applicant that they had not arrested her son and that he had not been suspected by them of any criminal activities. 38.  On 16 January 2004 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that on 14 January 2004 they had resumed the investigation in the criminal case. 39.  On 4 March 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that the investigation of the criminal case was in progress. 40.  On 12 April 2004 the applicant complained to the district military commander about her son’s abduction at the checkpoint and requested assistance in the search for him. 41.  On 30 March 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that on 15 March 2005 they had resumed the investigation in the criminal case. 42.  On 15 June 2005 the applicant complained to the military prosecutor of the UGA. In her letter she described in detail the circumstances of her son’s abduction at the checkpoint and stated that her son had been arrested by representatives of State agencies in broad daylight and in the presence of numerous witnesses. She further complained that the investigation in the criminal case had been ineffective, that the investigators had failed to identify the servicemen who had manned the checkpoint at the material time and failed to question any of the witnesses to the arrest; that the VAZ-2106 car which had been taken away by the abductors, had been seen for a long time after the abduction in the yard of the district military commander’s office and that military officers had driven around Urus-Martan in it. In the light of the inaction of the district prosecutor’s office and the circumstances surrounding the abduction, the applicant asked the military prosecutor to request the investigation file from the district prosecutor’s office, to conduct the investigation into the events and to identify and prosecute the servicemen who had manned the checkpoint on 5 October 2001 and abducted her son. 43.  On 4 July 2005 the district prosecutor’s office replied to the applicant and stated that they had examined her complaint and that operational-search measures were being taken to identify the perpetrators. 44.  On 30 July 2005 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicant that the investigation in criminal case no. 61153 had not established the involvement of military servicemen in her son’s abduction and that, therefore, the investigation should be carried out by the district prosecutor’s office. 45.  On 27 August 2005 the military prosecutor’s office of the UGA informed the applicant that the inquiry conducted by the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 had not established the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction and that the abduction was being investigated by the district prosecutor’s office in the framework of criminal case no. 24048. 46.  On 4 November and 5 and 28 December 2005 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators and that operational-search measures were being taken to identify the culprits. 47.  On 28 February 2006 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaint about the abduction to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 48.  The applicant submitted that she received no further information from the authorities concerning the investigation into her son’s disappearance. 49.  On 27 July 2002 the applicant complained in writing about her son’s abduction from the checkpoint to the Urus-Martan ROVD. She described the abduction and stated that it had taken place on 5 October 2001 in the vicinity of Roshni-Chu. 50.  On 3 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation “into the detention on 5 October 2001 of Ruslanbek Vakhayev and Mr M.D. at the checkpoint next to Roshni-Chu...”. The criminal case file was given the number 61153. 51.  On 10 and 19 November 2002 the investigators questioned the applicant, who stated that her son Ruslanbek had been abducted at the checkpoint by military servicemen after having been stopped there with Mr M.D. in the latter’s white car and that this car had later been seen on the premises of the military commander’s office. 52.  On 22 November 2002 the investigators requested that the district military commander’s office, the district FSB, the temporary district police group (ОГ ВОГО и П МВД) and military unit no. 6779 inform them whether they had arrested or detained Ruslanbek Vakhayev. 53.  On 29 and 30 November 2002 the district FSB, military unit no. 6779 and the temporary district police group replied that they had neither arrested nor detained the applicant’s son. 54.  On an unspecified date in November 2002 the head of the checkpoint KPP-206 (Roshnya) informed the investigators that they did not have any information about the alleged arrest or detention of Ruslanbek Vakhayev as their service at the checkpoint had commenced on 25 October 2002 and that no documents regarding this incident had been handed over from the previous military unit who had manned the checkpoint. 55.  On 25 December 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 56.  On 2 January 2003 the investigators questioned the father of Mr M.D. The Government only furnished the Court with a part of his statement, from which it followed that his unofficial search for his son had not brought any tangible results. 57.  On 3 January 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed thereof on 14 January 2003. 58.  On 20 June 2003 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed on account of the investigators’ failure to take crucial steps. On the same date the proceedings were resumed and the applicant was informed thereof. 59.  On 11 July 2003 the investigators again questioned the applicant who reiterated her previous statements and added that her son Ruslanbek had been in the car with Mr M.D. and a woman with her paralysed son when they had been stopped at the checkpoint, and that after the abduction Mr M.D.’s car had been seen on the premises of the military commander’s office. 60.  On 20 July 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed thereof on the same date. 61.  On 20 August 2003 the applicant complained to the Chechnya Prosecutor that the investigation into her son’s abduction had been ineffective. She stated that the proceedings had been suspended in spite of the investigators’ failure to take such basic steps as identification of the servicemen who had manned the checkpoint on 5 October 2001. The applicant requested that the investigation be resumed and the servicemen who had manned the checkpoint be identified and questioned. 62.  On 10 September 2003 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General that the investigation into the abduction had been ineffective. She described the circumstances of the events and stated that the investigators had failed to take basic steps to identify the culprits. 63.  On 14 January 2004 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed on account of the investigators’ failure to take crucial steps and provided the investigators with a list of measures to be taken. On the same date the proceedings were resumed and the applicant was informed thereof. 64.  On 15 January 2004 the investigators provided the supervising prosecutor with a brief report on the progress of the investigation in the criminal case. The document stated, amongst other things, the following:
“... the investigation established that on 5 October 2001 Ruslanbek Vakhayev, who was born in 1974, and Mr M.D., who was born in 1978, had been detained at the checkpoint next to the village of Roshni-Chu. No information concerning their whereabouts has been available since ...” 65.  On 18 January 2004 the investigators questioned the applicant’s daughter, Ms M.V., who stated that on 5 October 2001 her brother Ruslanbek Vakhayev and Mr M.D. had told her that they had been going to Roshni-Chu to visit Mr M.D.’s fiancé. They had left in Mr M.D.’s white VAZ-2106 car. On 6 October 2001 the witness had spoken to the mother of Mr M.D. and then learnt about the arrest of two young men at the checkpoint on 5 October 2001. The arrest had been witnessed by the taxi‑drivers at the taxi stand located close to the checkpoint. One of the drivers had arrived at the applicant’s home with the woman who had been in the car with Ruslanbek and Mr M.D. when they had been stopped at the checkpoint. Both of them had informed the witness and the applicant about the circumstances of the incident. 66.  On 18 January 2004 the investigators again questioned the applicant, whose statement was similar to the one made by her daughter Ms M.V. on the same date. 67.  On 28 January 2004 the investigators questioned the mother of Mr M.D., Ms A.D., whose statement was similar to the one made by Ms M.V. on 18 January 2004. 68.  On 29 January and 5 February 2004 the investigators questioned Ms Z.D. and Mr Sh.D., both of whom stated that on 5 October 2001 they had driven together to Roshni-Chu. At the checkpoint outside the village they had had to stop owing to the traffic jam caused by the arrest of two young men by the military servicemen who had been manning the checkpoint. According to the witnesses, they had met an acquaintance of theirs, Mr Kh., who had witnessed the events along with many other people awaiting the opening of the passage. On the following day the witnesses had been told that the two men were Ruslanbek Vakhayev and Mr M.D. 69.  On 29 January and 4 February 2004 the investigators questioned the applicant’s relatives, Ms A.V. and Ms Z.S., whose statements about the events were similar to the one made by Ms M.V. on 18 January 2004. 70.  On 14 February 2004 the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed thereof. 71.  On 2 March 2004 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed on account of the investigators’ failure to take crucial steps and provided the investigators with a list of measures to be taken. On the same date the proceedings were resumed and the applicant was informed thereof. 72.  On 2 April 2004 the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed thereof on the same date and appealed against this decision to the Urus-Martan Town Court (see paragraph 104 below). 73.  On 27 August 2004 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed for the failure to take necessary steps. On the same date the proceedings were resumed and the applicant was informed thereof. 74.  On 27 September 2004 the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed thereof on the same date and appealed against this decision to the Urus-Martan Town Court (see paragraph 107 below). 75.  On 25 February and 9 May 2005 the applicant again complained to the Chechnya prosecutor and the Prosecutor General. She provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction and stressed that there had been numerous witnesses to the incident and that Mr M.D.’s car had afterwards been seen on the premises of the military commander’s office. She further stated that the investigation of the abduction had been ineffective and that her complaints against the investigators’ decisions, including those to the local court, had been to no avail and requested that the servicemen who had manned the checkpoint on 5 October 2001 be identified and prosecuted. 76.  On 15 March 2005 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed on account of the investigators’ failure to take crucial steps and provided the investigators with a list of measures to be taken. On the same date the proceedings were resumed and the applicant was informed thereof. 77. On 11 April and subsequently on 7 October 2005 the investigators requested that the Central Archives of the Russian Ministry of the Interior inform them which military units had manned the checkpoint on 5 October 2001, stating, amongst other things, that
“... [from] the materials collected by the investigation it follows that on 5 October 2001 at about 12 a.m. Ruslanbek Vakhayev and Mr M.D. were detained at the checkpoint by representatives of state forces ...” 78.  On 30 May 2005 the Central Archives of the Russian Ministry of the Interior replied that they did not have any relevant information and suggested that the investigators ask for information from the Archives of the North-Caucasus Military Circuit. No reply was received to the request of 7 October 2005. 79.  On 16 March 2005 the investigators questioned Mr A.B. The Government did not furnish the Court with a copy of his statement. 80.  On 18 March 2005 the investigators again questioned the applicant’s daughter, Ms M.V., who stated that about three or four days after the abduction she had learnt from Mr M.D.’s younger brother that the white car in which Ruslanbek and Mr M.D. had been detained at the checkpoint had been parked in the yard of the Urus-Martan military commander’s office. She also stated that she had met a taxi driver who had witnessed the abduction and described it to her in detail. On the evening of 6 October 2001 she and her cousin, Ms Z.S., had gone to see the head of the local administration, Mr L.M., who had told them that both young men had been detained at the military commander’s office. Mr L.M. had been killed six months after the events. 81.  On 21 March 2005 the investigators questioned Mr R.M. The Government did not furnish the Court with a copy of his statement. 82.  On 21 March 2005 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who stated that she had found out about her son’s abduction by the servicemen from witnesses to the events. She could not recall the names of the witnesses, but stated that one of them was a cashier at the State Pensions Fund in Roshni –Chu. For about two months after the abduction she had been promised that Ruslanbek would be released, but to no avail. Therefore, about a year later she had given up hope and lodged a written complaint with the authorities. 83.  On 24 March 2005 the investigators questioned the cousin of Ms M.V., Ms Z.S., who confirmed the latter’s statement made on 18 March 2005. 84.  On 25 March 2005 the investigators again questioned the mother of Mr M.D., Ms A.D., who stated that her husband, who had conducted the search for their son, had told her that the local administration had informed him that M.D. and Ruslanbek Vakhayev had been detained in the building of the military commander’s office and that they had waited for the release of the two men for several months. 85.  On 5 April 2005 the investigators again questioned the father of Mr M.D., Mr Ma.D., who stated that after his son’s abduction at the checkpoint he had learnt that his son’s car had been parked for some time on the premises of the Urus-Martan military commander’s office. He stated that military commander Gadzhiyev, with whom he had been acquainted, had promised to assist him in obtaining the release of his son and Ruslanbek, but to no avail, and that Gadzhiyev had been killed several months later. 86.  On 15 April 2005 the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed thereof. 87.  On 15 June 2005 the applicant complained to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102, providing a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction and naming witnesses to the events. She stated that in spite of having the necessary information, the investigators had failed to identify the servicemen who had manned the checkpoint on 5 October 2001, to question numerous witnesses to the incident who had been waiting to go through the checkpoint and to establish the circumstances under which the car of the abducted men had happened to be used by servicemen from the military commander’s office. She pointed out that her complaints to the local courts against the investigators’ decisions had failed to prompt the investigators to take those steps. 88.  On 4 October 2005 the supervising prosecutor again ordered that the investigation be resumed on account of the investigators’ failure to take crucial steps and provided the investigators with a list of measures to be taken. In particular, he instructed the investigators to identify and question the witnesses to the abduction, including the taxi driver who had informed the applicant and Ms M.V. about the events and the cashier from the State Pension Fund. On the same date the proceedings were resumed and the applicant was informed thereof. 89.  On 6 October 2005 the applicant refused to familiarise herself with the contents of the criminal case file owing to the state of her health. 90. On  8 October 2005 the investigators again questioned the applicant. The Government did not furnish a copy of this statement to the Court. 91.   On various dates in October 2005 the investigators questioned three local residents, Ms L.R., Ms B.E. and Ms Z.A., all of whom stated that they had not witnessed the abduction and were not aware of the incident. 92.  On 4 November 2005 the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was duly informed. 93.  On 15 December 2005 and 26 February 2006 the applicant again complained to the Chechnya prosecutor, providing a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction and naming witnesses to the events. She stated that in spite of having the relevant information, the investigators had failed to identify the servicemen who had manned the checkpoint on 5 October 2001, to question numerous witnesses to the incident who had been waiting to go through the checkpoint and to establish the circumstances under which the car of the abducted men had happened to be used by servicemen from the military commander’s office. She requested that the investigators take the above measures and pointed out that her complaints to the local courts against the investigators’ decisions had failed to prompt the investigators to take those steps. 94.  On several dates in 2006 the applicant was informed by the prosecutors’ offices of various levels that the investigation of her son’s abduction was in progress and that the investigators were taking all possible steps to identify the culprits. 95.  On 15 May 2007 the applicant complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor, stating that she had not been informed as to whether the investigators had taken the steps necessary to comply with the court order of 30 September 2005 (see paragraph 110 below). She requested that the investigation be resumed and that she be allowed to examine the case file. 96.  On 17 May 2007 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor partially allowed the applicant’s complaint, stating that it would be up to the investigator in charge of the criminal case to decide when and to what extent she would be able to view the case file. 97.  On 22 June 2007 the applicant again complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor, stating that she had attempted on several occasions to gain access to the investigation file at the district prosecutor’s office, but that it had not been possible as the investigator in charge of the case had been either busy or absent. The applicant requested to be provided with access to the case file. 98.  On 25 and 26 June 2007 the investigators again questioned the applicant’s daughter, Ms M.V., and the father of Mr M.D., Mr Ma.D., both of whom reiterated their previous statements. 99.  On 2 July 2007 the Urus-Martan district prosecutor replied to the applicant’s complaint of 22 June 2007, stating that it was up to the investigator in charge of the criminal case to decide when and to what extent she would be able to view the case file. On the same date the investigator sent the applicant a letter stating that she could view the case file at the prosecutor’s office on 4 July 2007. It is unclear whether the applicant received the letter. On 5 July 2007 the investigator in charge of the criminal case reported to the district prosecutor that the applicant had failed to show up to view the case file. 100.  On various dates between the end of 2002 and 2007 the investigators forwarded numerous requests for information to various departments of the interior, the FSB, the prosecutors’ offices, the military commanders’ offices, detention centres and hospitals in other regions in Chechnya and the Russian Federation asking whether they had arrested or detained Ruslanbek Vakhayev, provided him with medical help or found his corpse or had any information about his whereabouts or fate. Only replies in the negative were received. 101.  On 9 September 2010 the investigation of the criminal case was resumed and the applicant was informed thereof. 102.  The Government further submitted that although the investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of Ruslanbek Vakhayev, it was still in progress. The authorities were taking all possible steps to have the crime resolved. The law-enforcement authorities had never arrested or detained Ruslanbek Vakhayev. 103.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government disclosed only part of the investigation file in criminal case no. 61153, running up to 373 pages. No explanation was given for the failure to submit a copy of the entire contents of the case file. 104.  On 28 July 2004 the applicant complained about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into her son’s abduction to the Urus-Martan Town Court (hereafter “the Town Court”). She stated that in spite of numerous witnesses to the abduction and the relative simplicity with which such information could have been obtained by the investigators, the district prosecutor’s office had failed to identify the servicemen who had manned the checkpoint on the date of the abduction. The applicant asked the court to order the district prosecutor’s office to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the events, to prosecute the perpetrators, to grant her the status of civil plaintiff in the proceedings and provide her with access to the investigation file. 105.  On 13 August 2004 the Town Court partially allowed the applicant’s complaint and ordered the district prosecutor’s office to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of the abduction. The text of the decision included the following:
“... it follows from the investigation file, that the investigation has not been conducted in full. For instance, the investigators did not identify and question the officers ... who had manned the checkpoint on the southwest outskirts of Urus‑Martan and participated in the arrest of Ruslanbek Vakhayev; the investigators failed to identify and question the woman who had been in the same car with the abducted men; not all of the steps listed in the operational-search plan have been taken during the criminal investigation ...” 106.  The remainder of the complaint was rejected. The court stated that the applicant would have the right to view the investigation file only after the completion of the investigation. 107.  Around 20 October 2004 the applicant again complained to the Town Court about the ineffectiveness of the investigation in the criminal case and the lack of access to the investigation file. 108.  On 1 November 2004 the Town Court rejected her complaint. The decision stated, amongst other things, the following:
“... During the investigation the district prosecutor’s office carried out the court’s orders of 13 August 2004. In these circumstances the applicant’s request for a more thorough and effective investigation is unsubstantiated ...” 109.  The applicant appealed against that decision to the Chechnya Supreme Court. On 7 September 2005 the Chechnya Supreme Court overruled the decision and remitted the applicant’s complaint to the Town Court for a fresh examination. 110.  On 30 September 2005 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s complaint and ordered the investigators to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of the abduction and allow the applicant to view the investigation file. The text of the court’s decision included the following:
“... from the case-file materials it follows that the investigation failed to take all the necessary steps to establish the whereabouts of the abducted man and identify the perpetrators. In particular, they failed to:
- identify and question the witnesses who had been at the checkpoint during R. Vakhayev’s arrest on 5 October 2001;
- identify and question the state servicemen who had manned the checkpoint on the day of R. Vakhayev’s apprehension;
- take measures to find the car in which R. Vakhayev had arrived [at the checkpoint] in spite of the statement by witness Ms T.V. that this car had been parked in the yard of the district military commander’s office and, moreover, that its officers had driven around in this car;
These circumstances demonstrate that the applicant’s request for a more thorough and effective investigation of the criminal case is substantiated ...”