6.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1949 respectively. They live in Urus-Martan in the Chechen Republic. 7.  The applicants are married. They are the parents of Mr Vakha Khavazhovich Abdurzakov, born in 1981. 8.  On the night of 24 to 25 October 2002 the Abdurzakovs were sleeping in their family house at 234 Sheripov Street, Urus-Martan. 9.  At about 3 a.m. on 25 October 2002 barking dogs woke the applicants. The second applicant heard human voices, looked out of the window and saw four armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks. 10.  The second applicant stepped outside the house and saw in the courtyard around thirty armed men who ordered him in Russian to stop. He also heard the engine of an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”). 11.  The armed men ordered the second applicant to raise his hands and entered the house. There they forced him to his knees and searched the house without producing any warrant. Some of them pointed their machine guns at the first applicant. 12.  Meanwhile several armed men entered Vakha Abdurzakov’s room and ordered him to identify himself. The first applicant produced her son’s identity papers. The armed men examined them and ordered Vakha Abdurzakov to rise and took him to the entrance door. When the first applicant begged them not to take her son away, they replied that she should “thank” her neighbours. 13.  The armed men pushed the first applicant into a room and blocked its door with a refrigerator. Then they left the house taking Vakha Abdurzakov with them. 14.  The second applicant unblocked the door and let his wife out of the room. She ran into the street and noticed two UAZ vehicles going towards the town centre. Then she saw two APCs parked nearby. When she had almost reached them they drove away. 15.  In the morning of 25 October 2002 the applicants and their neighbours found bloodstains on the road which led from the applicants’ house to Titov Street, where traces of UAZ tyres were visible. 16.  The applicants concluded that those who had abducted their son were Russian servicemen because they had freely moved around the town during the curfew, had driven military vehicles and had spoken Russian without an accent.
(b) Money demanded from the applicants 17.  Two or three days before 25 October 2002 Ms Yu., an inhabitant of Urus-Martan, had visited the applicants and told them that Russian law enforcement agencies had been told that their son was participating in illegal armed groups and had been planning to detain him. Ms Yu. had said that she would prevent Vakha Abdurzakov’s arrest if the applicants paid her 400 United States dollars (USD). The applicants had declined her offer as they were convinced that their son had not been involved in any illegal activities. 18.  A few days after Vakha Abdurzakov’s disappearance Ms Yu. again visited the applicants and told them that their son had originally been kept in the Urus-Martan temporary department of the interior (“VOVD”) and then transferred to the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district military commander’s office”). She also mentioned names of two persons involved in Vakha Abdurzakov’s disappearance, “Volodya” and “Sergey”, and said that the latter was the head of the Urus-Martan District Department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB department”). Later the applicants learned that at the material time the FSB department had been headed by Mr Sergey Konstantinov. 19.  The applicants gave Ms Yu. a parcel with some food and clothing for their son. Later she said that she had transferred the parcel to Vakha Abdurzakov, in detention in the district military commander’s office, and that “Sergey” and “Volodya” had offered to release him for USD 3,000. The applicants did not have the money and promised Ms Yu. that they would consider the offer. 20.  After a certain lapse of time the applicants agreed to pay the money demanded, borrowed USD 2,800 from their acquaintances and gave it to Ms Yu. on 7 January 2003. Nevertheless, they had no news from Vakha Abdurzakov. Ms Yu. explained them that “Sergey” had swindled her out of the money and left Urus-Martan. 21.  At about 3 a.m. on 25 October 2002 unknown armed persons wearing camouflage uniforms entered the house at 234 Sharipov Street, Urus-Martan, apprehended Vakha Abdurzakov and took him away to an unknown destination. 22.  In the morning of 25 October 2002 the applicants visited various law enforcement agencies of the Urus-Martan District but received no information on Vakha Abdurzakov’s detention. On the same day they lodged written complaints with the prosecutor’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor’s office”), the department of the interior of the Urus-Martan District (“ROVD”) and the Urus-Martan District Court (“the district court”). 23.  In the following months the applicants continued to search for their son and contacted various official bodies, such as the Special Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya for Rights and Freedoms (“the Special Envoy”), the President of the Chechen Republic, the Russian Ministry of the Defence and the prosecutors’ offices at different levels. In their applications they described in detail the circumstances of Vakha Abdurzakov’s abduction and asked for assistance in establishing his fate and whereabouts. It appears that those applications were to no avail. 24.  On 3 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Vakha Abdurzakov under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 61146. 25.  On 29 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status in case no. 61146. 26.  On 14 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 61146 had been suspended for a failure to identify those responsible and that the ROVD had been instructed to search for Vakha Abdurzakov. 27.  On 21 May 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the Special Envoy’s office that the investigation into Vakha Abdurzakov’s kidnapping had been opened on 3 November 2002, that all requisite investigative measures had been taken and that the ROVD had been instructed to search actively for perpetrators. 28.  On 16 March 2004 the first applicant requested the South Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office to help her to find her son. Her letter was then forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. 29.  On 22 April 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded to the district office the first applicant’s letter of 16 March 2004 and ordered that the search for Vakha Abdurzakov be actively pursued. 30.  On 16 June 2004 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 61146 had been suspended and that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 31.  On 22 June 2004 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to resume the investigation into her son’s kidnapping, to take the requisite steps to solve the crime, to allow her access to the investigation file and, if necessary, to transfer the case to a military prosecutor’s office. 32.  On 1 July 2004 the district prosecutor’s office replied that, despite the requisite investigative measures taken in case no. 61146, the perpetrators had not been identified. They further noted that other measures were being taken and that the investigation would be resumed once new information on the case was obtained. 33.  On an unspecified date in August-September 2004 the investigation into Vakha Abdurzakov’s kidnapping was resumed. 34.  On 2 September 2004 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to question Ms Yu. as a witness. 35.  On 17 September 2004 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 61146 for failure to identify those responsible and informed the first applicant accordingly on 20 September 2004. 36.  On 11 October 2004 the district prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant’s request to question Ms Yu. On an unspecified date Ms Yu. submitted that Vakha Abdurzakov had been detained in the district military commander’s office and that she had given the applicants’ money to “Sergey” and “Volodya” as a payment for his release. 37.  On 19 December 2005 the first applicant requested the district military commander’s office to help in the search for her son. 38.  On 23 December 2005 the first applicant requested assistance from the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic in establishing her son’s whereabouts. 39.  On 13 January 2006 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office. 40.  On 18 January 2006 the district prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that investigative measures were being taken to solve the crime. 41.  On 10 July 2006 the first applicant requested an update on progress in the investigation from the district prosecutor’s office. 42.  On 10 September 2007 the first applicant was informed that the investigation in case no. 61146 had been resumed. 43.  On 3 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation of Vakha Abdurzakov’s abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 61146. 44.  On 10 November 2002 the district prosecutor’s office requested information on Vakha Abdurzakov’s whereabouts to the FSB Department, the district military commander’s office, the temporary unit of the Ministry of the Interior and military unit no. 6779. According to the replies received, Vakha Abdurzakov had not been detained by those agencies or kept in a temporary detention facility and no criminal proceedings had been instituted against him. 45.  On 29 November 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned. She submitted that at about 3 a.m. on 25 October 2002 her son had heard dogs barking and had gone into the street. Someone had ordered him not to move and threatened to open fire. Vakha Abdurzakov had gone back inside the house and told the first applicant that there were soldiers in the courtyard. Then unknown armed men in masks had entered the house, asked her son’s last name and demanded his identity papers. Having taken the identity papers and a gold ring, the men had led Vakha Abdurzakov out of the house. 46.  On 4 December 2002 the district prosecutor’s office questioned the second applicant. He submitted that at about 3 a.m. on 25 October 2002 six unknown armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks had entered his house, made his son get out of bed and taken his identity papers. 47.  On 3 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation for failure to identify those responsible and informed the first applicant accordingly. 48.  On 23 September 2003 the first applicant informed the district prosecutor’s office that two APCs and two UAZ vehicles had been used by her son’s kidnappers. 49.  On 17 August 2004 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 3 January 2003 and resumed the investigation because of the necessity to verify newly discovered information. 50.  On 17 September 2004 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation and notified the first applicant accordingly. 51.  On 8 October 2004 the first applicant requested the district prosecutor’s office to question Ms Yu. as a witness. 52.  On 11 October 2004 the investigation was resumed to verify newly discovered information. 53.  On 23 October 2004 Mr Yu., Ms Yu.’s son, was questioned. He submitted that in the winter of 2003 the second applicant had told him that Ms Yu. had taken USD 2,800 from him promising that his son would be released but had not kept her word. The second applicant had demanded that Mr Yu. pay him back. Mr Yu. had requested an explanation from his mother who had confirmed that she had taken the money from the second applicant and given it to a policeman of the Urus-Martan District. Mr Yu. could not tell whether his mother was sincere but he had sold his plot of land to pay the second applicant back. 54.  On 11 November 2004 the investigation in case no. 61146 was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators and the first applicant was notified accordingly. 55.  On 25 October 2005 the district prosecutor’s office questioned Ms Yu. She submitted that in August 2002 an acquaintance of hers, a VOVD serviceman named “Sergey” had asked her whether Abdurzakov the Wahhabi was her neighbour. She had replied that the Abdurzakovs were not Wahhabi. A month later Ms Yu. had told the first applicant that the VOVD had had something against Vakha Abdurzakov and mentioned that other people had been buying up materials compromising their children. After Vakha Abdurzakov’s abduction the first applicant had come to Ms Yu. and asked her for assistance. The following morning the two women had gone to the VOVD premises and asked “Sergey” whether the police had detained Vakha Abdurzakov. He had replied that the police had not been involved and promised to check whether the district military commander’s office was implicated. Later that afternoon “Sergey” had told Ms Yu. that Vakha Abdurzakov had been arrested by the FSB department. Some three months later “Sergey” had told Ms Yu. that FSB servicemen had demanded USD 3,000 as a payment for release of Vakha Abdurzakov. Two days later “Sergey” had come to her place and told her that Vakha Abdurzakov would be released in the morning if the sum was paid. The second applicant had given Ms Yu. USD 2,800. She had added USD 200 of her own and given “Sergey” the money. Vakha Abdurzakov had not come home. A few days later Ms Yu. had learned that “Sergey” and “Volodya” had left the Chechen Republic after the completion of their mission. 56.  On 7 September 2007 the decision of 11 November 2004 was quashed and the investigation in case no. 61146 was resumed. The first applicant was notified accordingly. 57.  On 10 September 2007 the first applicant was questioned. She submitted that after her son had been taken away, she had gone into the street and seen two APCs and two UAZ vehicles parked some 500 metres away from her house. The vehicles had been moving in the direction of the town centre of Urus-Martan. The first applicant had not seen the registration numbers of the vehicles. She had spotted her neighbour on the street. When the first applicant had returned home, she had realised that nine shirts, a man’s suit and a gold ring had been stolen. 58.  On 11 September 2007 the first applicant’s neighbour allegedly seen on the night of 25 October 2002 was questioned and submitted that he had not left his house that night and had not heard any military vehicles. 59.  The investigation, although so far fruitless, was ongoing. The law enforcement authorities of the Chechen Republic had never arrested or detained Vakha Abdurzakov on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in his respect. According to the Government, the applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation. 60.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the contents of the investigation file in case no. 61146, providing only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status. 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. 61.  On 21 July 2004 the first applicant complained of unlawful actions of the district prosecutor’s office to the district court and requested that the investigation into her son’s kidnapping be resumed and that she be allowed to study the case file. 62.  On 6 August 2004 the district court established that the district prosecutor’s office had failed to take all possible investigative measures, in particular to question servicemen of the district military commander’s office and other law enforcement agencies, and ordered that the investigation in case no. 61146 be resumed. The remaining claims were dismissed for the reason that under domestic law access to a criminal case file was only permitted upon completion of an investigation. 63.  On 24 August 2004 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 64.  On 9 November 2004 the first applicant complained to the district court about unlawful actions of the district prosecutor’s office, in particular about the decision of 17 September 2004, and requested that the investigation be resumed and steps be taken to solve the crime. 65.  On 16 December 2004 the district court dismissed the first applicant’s claims arguing that the district prosecutor’s office had taken all necessary investigative measures in case no. 61146. 66.  On 26 January 2005 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.