6.  The applicant was born in 1959; at the material time she lived in Argun. She currently lives in Noybera, Chechnya. The applicant was the wife of Asradiy (also spelled as Asrudi, Asradiyn and Visrudi) Estamirov, who was born in 1957. 7.  At about 5 p.m. on 5 January 2001 a convoy of the 70th motorised infantry battalion was moving on the Gudermes-Argun highway through the town of Argun in Chechnya. 8.  At about 5.30 p.m., when the military was moving in the vicinity of the corner of Gudermesskaya Street and Stepnoy Lane in Argun, the convoy exchanged intense fire with unidentified persons, who had attempted to attack it. Asradiy Estamirov, who happened to be at the corner of Gudermesskaya Street and Stepnoy Lane was wounded in the head and subsequently died. 9.  According to Mr R.V., who was at home on 5 January 2001, at about 5 p.m. on that date he heard intensive shooting. Shortly after the firing had come to an end, he was asked to take the wounded Asradiy Estamirov to hospital in his car. He took the applicant’s husband to the Argun town hospital. 10.  On 6 February 2001 the Argun town registration office issued an official certificate confirming the death of Asradiy Estamirov. The document stated that he had died on 6 January 2001. 11.  On 16 May 2001 the Argun town hospital issued a medical statement concerning the death of Asradiy Estamirov. According to the document, the cause of his death had been a “...blunt penetrating wound of the left frontal region of the head... received during the shooting by the federal military forces...” 12.  On an unspecified date a doctor of the Argun town hospital issued an information statement concerning the cause of Asradiy Estamirov’s death. According to the document, “...the corpse arrived at the trauma ward of the Argun town hospital at 5.20 p.m. on 5 January 2001; [Asradiy Estamirov] was killed during the fire [opened by] the federal forces... diagnosis: blunt penetrating wound of the left frontal region of the head, fatal injury...” 13.  In support of her statement the applicant enclosed the following documents: a statement by Mr R.V. dated 18 November 2004; a statement by Mr T.E. dated 18 November 2004; a copy of two medical statements, undated and dated 16 May 2001, respectively; and a copy of Asradiy Estamirov’s death certificate dated 6 February 2001. 14.  The Government did not challenge the matter as presented by the applicant. They submitted that the applicant’s husband had been killed on 5 January 2001 during an exchange of fire between the military convoy and unidentified individuals. 15.  On 5 January 2001 three residents of Argun, Ms Kh.E., Ms Ya.D. and Ms S.E., provided their statements to the applicant to the effect that on 5 January 2001 they had seen a convoy of Russian federal forces driving on the Gudermes-Argun motorway; the convoy had been firing at unknown targets. According to the document, none of the three residents had witnessed the shooting of the applicant’s husband or had been able to notice the registration numbers or any distinctive features of the military vehicles. 16.  On 5 or 6 January 2001 an officer from the Argun Department of the Interior (the Argun VOVD) informed his superiors that at about 6 p.m. on 5 January 2001 Asradiy Estamirov had been taken to the hospital by Mr R.V. who had found him wounded in Stepnoy Lane earlier the same day. 17.  On 6 January 2001 the Argun town hospital no. 1 informed the Argun VOVD that on 5 January 2001 they had received the body of Asradiy Estamirov with a gunshot wound on his forehead. 18.  On 6 January 2001 the Argun Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office (the Prosecutor’s Office) instituted an investigation into the killing of Asradiy Estamirov under Article 109 § 1 of the Criminal Code (negligent infliction of death). The case file was given the number 45003. 19.  On 6 January 2001 the investigators examined the crime scene and collected four bullet cartridges left after the shooting. 20.  On the same date, 6 January 2001, the investigators questioned Mr M.B. who stated that he had been the duty doctor at the Argun town hospital no. 1 when at about 5 p.m. on 5 January 2001 Asradiy Estamirov had been taken there. Upon arrival at the hospital the applicant’s husband had been dead. 21.  On 6 January 2001 the investigators also questioned Mr T.-A.E., who stated that on 5 January 2001 he had been at home in Stepnoy Lane when he had heard automatic gunfire which had lasted a few minutes. The witness had stayed at home and had gone out when the gunfire had stopped. On the ground he had found Asradiy Estamirov, who had been alive but with a gunshot wound on his forehead. The witness decided to take Asradiy Estamirov to the hospital; he had asked his neighbour Mr R.V. (also known as Mr A.V.) to assist him, and the two men had taken Asradiy to the hospital where it had been established that the applicant’s husband had died. 22.  On 6 January 2001 (in the documents submitted the date was also cited as 6 December 2001) the investigators questioned Mr R.V. who stated, amongst other things, that on 5 January 2001 he had been told that a man had been wounded as a result of gunfire in his neighbourhood. The witness had taken this man, Asradiy Estamirov, to the hospital, but the latter had died. 23.  On 7 January 2001 the Prosecutor’s Office ordered a ballistic expert examination of the cartridge cases found at the crime scene. 24.  On 8 January 2001 the Prosecutor’s Office ordered an expert forensic examination of a blood-like substance found at the crime scene. 25.  On 9 January 2001 the expert examinations department of the Argun VOVD carried out a ballistic expert examination of four cartridge cases collected from the crime scene. According to the report:
“...two cartridge cases were fired... from the same firearm; one cartridge case... was fired from the second type of firearm and the third one... from the third type of firearm.
...the comparative analysis... established that the cartridge cases had been a part of ammunition....of bullets of 7.62 mm calibre...
... it is impossible to establish precisely from what type of firearm the cartridge cases had been fired owing to the lack of a relevant database in Argun...” 26.  On 8 January 2001 (in the submitted documents the date is mistakenly cited as 9 January 2000) the Prosecutor’s Office ordered an expert forensic examination of Asradiy Estamirov’s body. 27.  On 9 January 2001 the Chechnya Forensics Examinations Bureau issued its report, according to which the death of Asradiy Estamirov had been caused by a blunt perforating gunshot wound to the forehead. 28.  On 11 January 2001 an investigator from the Prosecutor’s Office issued an information statement concerning the criminal case, according to which on 5 January 2001 five military units had gone through the town of Argun, and the last one had been military convoy no. 7001, which had consisted of thirty-six servicemen under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Shv. 29.  On 12 January 2001 the investigators forwarded a request to the Military Prosecutor’s Office of military unit no. 20102, asking them to take the following steps: to identify which convoy had passed through Argun on 5 January 2001 at about 5 p.m.; to question the head of the convoy and the senior drivers about the circumstances of Asradiy Estamirov’s killing and to collect at the military unit all the documents pertaining to the shooting. 30.  On 27 January 2001 the investigators questioned the mother of Asradiy Estamirov, Ms S.E., who stated, amongst other things, that she had not witnessed the events, but had learnt from neighbours that her son had been accidently killed during an exchange of gunfire between a military convoy and unidentified persons. 31.  On the same date the investigators questioned Asradiy Estamirov’s sister, Ms Kh.G., whose statement about the events was similar to the one given by her mother, Ms S.E. 32.  On 22 February 2001 the investigators requested that the Argun VOVD take operational-search measures to establish the circumstances of Asradiy Estamirov’s death. 33.  On 6 March 2001 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 34.  On the same date, 6 March 2001, the Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators. 35.  On 18 May 2001 the applicant wrote to the Argun prosecutor and requested the authorities to identify the perpetrators of her husband’s killing. In his reply of 6 June 2001 the Argun prosecutor informed the applicant that all measures envisaged under the domestic law were being taken to identify the culprits. 36.  On 17 July 2001 the applicant requested that the Chechnya prosecutor provided her with information on the progress of the investigation and the reasons for its suspension. No reply was given to this request. 37.  On 14 December 2001 the Argun Department of the Federal Security Service (the Argun FSB) informed the investigators that they had no information concerning the stationing of the 70th military unit of military convoy no. 7001. 38.  On 14 October 2004 the deputy Argun prosecutor overruled the decision of 6 March 2001 to suspend the investigation as unlawful and resumed the proceedings. The prosecutor pointed out that the investigators had failed to take a number of necessary steps. The decision stated, inter alia, the following:
“.... It is necessary to order and conduct additional ballistic expert examinations... to check whether A. Estamirov was involved in illegal armed groups... to obtain the results of the forensic examination... to identify and question the servicemen who had participated in the military convoy and to conduct a ballistic expert examination of their firearms, to compare these firearms with the cartridge cases collected from the crime scene and to take other investigating measures...” 39.  On 15 October 2004 the deputy Argun prosecutor informed the applicant’s representatives that the decision to suspend the investigation had been overruled and that on 6 March 2001 the applicant had been granted victim status in the criminal case, but she had not yet been questioned by the investigators. 40.  On 18 October 2004 the investigators requested that the Military Prosecutor’s Office of military unit no. 20102 inform them about the stationing of the 70th motorised infantry battalion of military convoy no. 7001 and provide them with the list of servicemen who had served in this military convoy on 5 January 2001. 41.  On or after 12 November 2004 the supervisory prosecutor criticised the investigators for their failure to carry out previously given orders stating, inter alia, the following:
“...examination of the investigation file of 12 November 2004 demonstrated that none of the [previously] given prosecutor’s orders in criminal case no. 45003 concerning the death of A. Estamirov had been carried out during the investigation.
The criminal case file does not contain the plan of investigative steps and operational measures... which leads to chaos in taking the necessary steps aimed at solving the crime...” 42.  On 18 November 2004 the investigators again questioned Mr T.-A. E. who reiterated his statement of 6 January 2001 (see paragraph 21 above). 43.  On 19 November 2004 the investigators questioned Ms T.A., Asradiy Estamirov’s sister, who stated that on 5 January 2001 she had been at home in Gudermesskaya Street when she had heard an exchange of gunfire lasting about twenty minutes. On the following day she had learnt from the neighbours that this shooting had taken place between a Russian military convoy and members of illegal armed groups. 44.  On the same date, 19 November 2004, the investigators again questioned Mr R.V., who reiterated his statement of 6 January 2001 (see paragraph 22 above). 45.  On 22 November 2004 the investigators showed the applicant a copy of the decision granting her victim status in the criminal case and questioned her.  She stated that she had not witnessed the events on 5 January 2001 as she had not been at home. From her relatives she had learnt that her husband Asradiy Estamirov had been shot at about 5.30 p.m. on 5 January 2001 during an exchange of gunfire between a Russian military convoy and unidentified persons. The applicant further stated that her husband’s death had been an accident. 46.  On 29 November 2004 the investigators questioned the applicant’s son, Mr I.E., whose statement concerning the events was similar to the one given by the applicant on 22 November 2004. 47.  On 7 December 2004 the investigators requested that the Stavropol Expert Examinations Bureau provide them with the results of the forensic expert examination ordered in 2001. On 28 December 2004 the Bureau replied that they had neither received the investigators’ order nor the evidence for examination. 48.  On 8 December 2004 the investigators requested that the Argun FSB, the Argun town Department of the Interior (the Argun GOVD) and the Argun Military Department of the United Group Alignment inform them about the current location of the 70th motorised infantry battalion and provide them with the names of the servicemen who had served in military convoy no. 7001 on 5 January 2001. 49.  On 10 December 2004 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of military unit no. 20102 informed the investigators that the 70th motorised infantry battalion was stationed in Shali, Chechnya and that it was impossible to identify the servicemen who had served in military convoy no. 7001 on 5 January 2001 as the Military Prosecutor’s Office was not supposed to take operational-search measures. 50.  On 13 December 2004 the Argun GOVD informed the investigators that it was impossible to establish where the 70th motorised infantry battalion was currently stationed. 51.  On 14 December 2004 the Argun FSB replied to the investigators, stating that owing to departmental subordination, they had been unable to establish the current stationing of the 70th motorised infantry battalion and suggested that such information could be obtained from the military. 52.  On 14 December 2004 (in the documents submitted the date is also cited as 15 December 2004) the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators and informed the applicant accordingly. 53.  On 15 December 2004 the investigators requested the Argun GOVD to take operational measures to identify the perpetrators of Asradiy Estamirov’s killing. 54.  On 16 December 2004 an operational-search officer from the Argun GOVD informed his superiors that it was impossible to find witnesses to Asradiy Estamirov’s killing. 55.  On 24 January 2005 the Military Prosecutor’s Office of military unit no. 20116 requested that military unit no. 23132 provide information about their servicemen who had participated in military convoy no. 7001 on 5 January 2001. 56.  On 18 March 2005 the applicant’s representatives requested that the Argun Prosecutor’s Office inform them of the progress in the investigation and whether the applicant and other witnesses had been questioned by the investigators. They also requested that the applicant be provided with copies of documents from the case file. On 22 April 2005 the Argun Prosecutor’s Office replied to the request, stating that the applicant had been granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. 57.  On 14 January 2006 the applicant complained to the Argun Prosecutor’s Office that the investigation into her husband’s killing had been ineffective, and requested to be provided with detailed information concerning the progress in the proceedings. In their reply of 8 February 2006 the Argun Prosecutor’s Office stated that the investigation had taken all necessary steps in the criminal case and that the applicant’s allegations of its ineffectiveness were unsubstantiated. On the same date the applicant was provided with copies of a few procedural documents from the case file. 58.  On 8 February 2006 the investigators replied to the applicant, stating that they had taken all possible measures to solve the crime, that she had been granted victim status in the criminal case and had been informed about it on 22 November 2004, and that she was entitled to the procedural rights of a victim according to the law. 59.  On 13 February 2006 the applicant requested the investigators to grant her access to the investigation file. Her request was granted on the same date and she was shown the contents of the investigation file in the Prosecutor’s Office. 60.  On 15 February 2006 the applicant complained to the Argun Prosecutor that the investigation into her husband’s killing had been ineffective, and requested that the authorities provide her with the results of the ballistic and forensic expert examinations of evidence and the results of the information requests concerning the servicemen of military convoy no. 7001. She also asked to be provided with access to the investigation file. On 2 March 2006 the Argun Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant, stating that she had already been provided with copies of procedural documents to which she was entitled under the domestic law, and that access to the other documents in the case file would be possible only upon completion of the investigation. 61.  On 2 March 2006 the investigators replied to the applicant that by law she was entitled to have access to the entire contents of the investigation file only upon completion of the investigation. 62.  On 29 March 2006 the investigators allowed the applicant’s lawyer access to the investigation file. 63.  On 21 October 2009 the investigators resumed the investigation in the criminal case, stating that it was incomplete and that a number of steps, including the following, should be taken:
“... it is necessary to:
- identify the servicemen of the 70th motorised infantry battalion of military unit no. 23132 (in 2004 the unit was stationed in Shali) who had participated in military convoy no. 7001 which had moved through the town of Argun on 5 January 2001 and had been subjected to gunfire by unidentified persons. Upon identifying the servicemen, they should be questioned about the circumstances of the crime. It is also necessary to take measures to establish which firearms the servicemen had at the time and then to subject them to expert examination;
- establish the whereabouts of the bullet cartridges collected from the crime scene and send them to the ballistics information centres...to order an additional ballistic expert examination in order to identify the firearms used [by the perpetrators];
- compare the bullet cartridges collected from the crime scene with the firearms which had been used by servicemen of the 70th motorised infantry battalion on 5 January 2001;
- establish the whereabouts of and question Lieutenant Colonel Shv. who had been in charge of military convoy no. 7001...;
- forward information requests to archives of the power structures concerning the servicemen and the command of the 70th motorised infantry battalion of military unit no. 23132 who had been there on assignment in January 2001 and had participated in the exchange of gunfire on 5 January 2001 ...”
The applicant was informed about this decision on the same date. 64.  On 12 November 2009 the Argun town Prosecutor’s Office informed the investigators that their office had no information concerning the four bullet cartridges collected from the crime scene. 65.  On 21 November 2009 the investigation in the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicant was informed accordingly on the same date. 66.  On 25 November 2009 the Southern Federal Department of the Russian Ministry of the Interior informed the investigators that they had no information concerning the possible involvement of Asradiy Estamirov in illegal armed groups. 67.  According to the Government, the investigation has so far failed to identify the perpetrators of Asradiy Estamirov’s killing, but it is still in progress. The investigative authorities are taking all possible measures to have the crime resolved. 68.  Upon the Court’s request the Government submitted a copy of the investigation file in criminal case no. 45003, which is 119 pages long. 69.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Russian Government, demanding compensation for the damage caused by her husband’s death. 70.  On 14 May 2002 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow rejected her claim. The decision stated that as the criminal investigation into the killing had not yet been completed and the perpetrators had not been prosecuted, the applicant’s allegations that Asradiy Estamirov had been killed by Russian servicemen were unsubstantiated. On 26 August 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal. 71.  According to the applicant, in May 2005 she lodged three claims for damages with the Moscow City Court and the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, but her requests went unanswered.