5.  The applicant was born in 1936. He is the father of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev, who was born in 1970. At the material time the applicant lived in Berkat-Yurt, Chechnya. He currently lives in Shali, Chechnya. 6.  At the material time, during the first counterterrorist campaign in Chechnya, Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev worked as a driver of a URAL petrol tanker. On 9 February 1996 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 11 February 1996) he was driving his lorry on the outskirts of Berkat-Yurt, Chechnya. Next to the village, in the vicinity of a Russian military checkpoint, he was stopped by a group of military intelligence officers under the command of Major A.Z. The group belonged to military unit no. 74614 of the 205th brigade of the Internal Troops of the Russian Ministry of the Interior. After that, the applicant’s son disappeared.
(b)  The search for the applicant’s son 7.  On 10 February 1996 the applicant started a search for his son. On 12 February 1996 he found out that his son had been detained by the military servicemen. The applicant went to the base of an air force squadron stationed in the area, together with the head of the Berkat-Yurt village administration. There they spoke to the squadron commander and showed him a photograph of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev. They told the commander that on 9 February 1996 Elbek had been detained by the military servicemen. The commander informed them that on 9 February 1996 a group of military intelligence officers, under the command of a Major, had arrived at their base with a detainee. They had introduced themselves as representatives of the 205th brigade of the Internal Troops and explained that they had arrived to provide medical assistance to two soldiers who had been blown up by a landmine. This intelligence group had arrived with a detainee, and the detainee had been Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev: the commander recognised him from the photograph. Upon providing medical assistance to the wounded soldiers, the intelligence officers had placed the applicant’s son either in an armoured personnel carrier or an infantry battle vehicle (“IBV”) and left for Khankala, Chechnya. Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s lorry had been driven away by a soldier. 8.  After that, the applicant and the head of administration went to see the commander of the 205th brigade, General Na. Upon their request, the General ordered that the applicant, together with a group of military servicemen on three IBVs and under the command of a Captain, would drive to where the 56th brigade (56-я бригада) were stationed. At that location, the commander of the 56th brigade confirmed that Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev had been detained by the intelligence officers. 9.  The applicant subsequently requested information about his missing son and his lorry from General Na. The commander refused to admit that the 205th brigade had detained Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev and that his lorry had been parked at their premises. 10.  Sometime later the applicant together with representatives of the military prosecutor’s office visited the premises of the brigade, where they found Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s lorry. The vehicle’s registration numbers had been removed and it was being used by the brigade’s servicemen. 11.  In support of his application, the applicant submitted his statement and copies of correspondence received from the authorities. 12.  The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicant. With reference to the contents of the criminal investigation file, but without providing copies of the relevant documents, the Government submitted the following:
“In the morning of 9 February 1996 Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev was driving a URAL lorry with registration number 74-83 ЧИЛ from Grozny to Shali, Chechnya. In the vicinity of the villages Petropavlovskaya and Berkat-Yurt, on a cart road, he was detained by a military intelligence group from military unit no. 74814 under the command of Major A.Z. The reason for the detention was the discovery of a grenade launcher RPG-26 in Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s vehicle and his deviation from the route indicated in his waybill.” 13.  On 15 March 1996 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 44662 instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev. 14.  The investigator in charge of the criminal case, Mr Az., informed the applicant that Major A.Z. had given himself up and confessed to detaining Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev. According to the Major, he and his servicemen had allegedly seized a grenade launcher from the applicant’s son and had taken him to Khankala, Chechnya. In Khankala the servicemen had been ordered to transfer Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev to the Group Directorate of the Operational Headquarters (Группа Управления Оперативного Штаба (ГУОШ)) in Grozny, Chechnya. On the way there Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev had jumped out of the car and ran towards the forest. He had been shot, covered with leaves and soil and left in the forest. 15.  It appears that on an unspecified date the military prosecutor’s office searched for Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s body in the forest, but to no avail. 16.  About two months after providing the initial statement concerning the shooting of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev, Major A.Z. changed his statement and told the investigation that on the way to Grozny Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev had run away into the forest and had never been seen since.
(b)  The official investigation into the disappearance 17.  On 15 March 1996 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 44662 instituted an investigation into the case of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev under Article 103 of the Criminal Code (murder). The case was opened against Major A.Z. of military unit no. 74814. The criminal case file was given the number 14/27/0148-98. 18.  On 15 September 1996 the criminal case concerning the murder of the applicant’s son was terminated for a lack of corpus delicti. The applicant was informed about it on 17 October 1996. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the decision and on 30 April 1998 the proceedings were reopened (see paragraph 45 below). The applicant was not informed about the reopening of the proceedings. 19.  On 4 August 1997 the military prosecutor’s office of the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit replied to a complaint made by the applicant’s wife and stated, inter alia, the following:
“... the investigation established that on 9 February 1996 your son had been detained by a military intelligence group of military unit no. 74814 ... He had fled from the servicemen on the way to the military commander’s office and had been shot at. However, it is unclear whether he was killed, as nobody saw him [again]‑dead or alive. The military prosecutor’s office examined the relevant part of the forest and did not find any graves ...
On the basis of the above, the criminal investigation was terminated on 15 September 1996 ... It is impossible to establish your son’s whereabouts ...” 20.  On 6 January 1998 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 44662 forwarded the criminal case file to the military prosecutor’s office of the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit. 21.  On an unspecified date the military prosecutor’s office of the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit forwarded the criminal case file to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 74814 in the Budennovsk military garrison. 22.  On 5 July 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaint about his son’s disappearance to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office. 23.  On 14 July 2002 the Department of Coordination of Counterterrorist Operations of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) informed the applicant that his son Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev was not listed as a detainee of the Russian federal forces in Chechnya. 24.  On 21 January 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s request for assistance in the search for his son to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA”). 25.  On 12 September 2003 the Bureau of the Special Representative of the Russian President in Chechnya for rights and freedoms (“the Bureau”) complained to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office about the lack of information concerning the criminal investigation. 26.  On 14 January 2004 the Bureau requested that the UGA military prosecutor’s office provide information about the progress of the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant’s son. The letter stated, amongst other things, the following:
“... [The applicant] complained that his son Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev together with the URAL petrol tanker ... had been detained by a military intelligence unit of the 205th brigade on 9 February 1996 ... Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s lorry had been found on the brigade’s premises sometime later.
On 15 March 1996 a criminal case was opened in connection with the above matter. The arguments concerning the detainee’s escape, as well as the witnesses’ statements concerning the place of his burial, are not convincing, as the witnesses have been changing their statements at every interrogation.
The applicant complained that the investigators were reluctant to establish the true circumstances surrounding the events ...” 27.  On 27 January 2004 the UGA military prosecutor’s office replied to the Bureau as follows:
“... The case concerning the circumstances of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s detention was investigated by the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 44662 within the framework of the criminal case opened against Major A.Z. of military unit no. 74614. In connection with this, in accordance with the rules of jurisdiction, the applicant’s complaint was forwarded to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 44662 in Buynaks, Dagestan ...” 28.  On 26 February 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 44662 forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of the Budennovsk military garrison. The letter stated, amongst other things, the following:
“... the investigation established that on 15 March 1996 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 44662 had opened an investigation under Article 103 of the Criminal Code in respect of officer Major A.Z. of military unit no. 74814. Circumstances of the case: on 11 February 1996, in Chechnya, Major A.Z. committed the murder of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev.
On 15 September 1996 the criminal case against Major A.Z. was terminated ... for a lack of corpus delicti.
On 6 January 1998 the criminal case file was transferred from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 44662 ... to the military prosecutor’s office of the Budennovsk military garrison (the station of military unit no. 74814) ...” 29.  On 18 March 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 informed the applicant that “in March 1996 one of the military prosecutor’s offices in the Northern Caucasus investigated a criminal case concerning the disappearance of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev ...” but that it had not been their office which investigated the crime. 30.  On 24 March 2004 the UGA military prosecutor’s office provided the applicant with similar information and stated that they had not investigated the case either. 31.  On 27 March 2004 the UGA military prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaint about his son’s disappearance to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116. 32.  On 30 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 44662 informed the applicant, amongst other things, of the following:
“... it has been impossible to verify the arguments provided in [the applicant’s] complaint about the murder of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev ... for the following reasons:
In 1996 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 44662 was transferred from Grozny to its current station in Buynaks, Dagestan ...
Military unit no. 74814, where Major A.Z. was serving and in respect of whom the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 44662 had opened a criminal case under Article 103 of the Criminal Code (in connection with the murder of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev) on 15 March 1996, was stationed in Budennovsk in the Stavropol Region along with the servicemen who had witnessed the events in question ...
Taking into account that in 1998 due to well known reasons the investigation of the criminal case was impossible, it was decided to transfer the criminal case against Major A.Z. ... to the military prosecutor’s office of the Budennovsk military garrison, where the suspect and the witnesses were stationed at the time ...” 33.  On 13 May 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit informed the applicant that on an unspecified date they had requested that the military prosecutor’s office of the Budennovsk military garrison provide them with the investigation file of criminal case no. 14/27/0148-98 opened against Major A.Z. of military unit no. 74814. The case file had been requested in order to examine the applicant’s complaints. 34.  On 15 June 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit informed the applicant, amongst other things, of the following:
“... the military prosecutor’s office of the Budennovsk military garrison investigated the criminal case against Major A.Z. of military unit no. 74814, who was suspected of murdering Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev. It was impossible to establish Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s whereabouts or his corpse. The criminal investigation was terminated on 10 January 2000 ...”
The letter provided neither the reasons for the termination of the criminal proceedings, nor contained a copy of the relevant decision. 35.  On 3 September 2004 the Chechnya Committee for the Defence of Constitutional Rights wrote on behalf of the applicant to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office and the UGA military prosecutor’s office. The letter stated, amongst other things, the following:
“ ... this document (the letter of 15 June 2004 from the military prosecutor’s office of the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit) and other information received from the prosecutors’ offices directly point to the involvement of Major A.Z. in the detention of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev, who disappeared following the detention ...
... we have already complained to the UGA military prosecutor’s office about the investigators’ reluctance to establish the true circumstances of the case and the investigation’s unconvincing arguments to this end ...
... It is irrefutable that the murder and the detention at the checkpoint took place ... that there was no possibility for the detained [Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev] to use any physical force against [those who detained him], in particular, against the armed men ... [Therefore] the arguments concerning the detainee’s attempts to escape are ridiculous ...” 36.  On 30 November 2004 the UGA military prosecutor’s office, without enclosing a copy of the relevant decision, informed the applicant of the following:
“... on 10 January 2000 the military prosecutor’s office of the Budennovsk military garrison terminated criminal case no. 14/27/0148-98 under Article 208 § 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code [for a lack of evidence] ...” 37.  On 24 December 2004 and 21 January 2005 the military prosecutor’s office of the Northern Caucasus Military Circuit replied to the applicant’s complaints about his son’s disappearance, stating that they were in the process of the examination of the contents of criminal case file no. 14/27/0148-98 and that he would be informed of the results. 38.  According to the applicant, he was not granted victim status in the criminal case concerning his son’s disappearance and the investigative authorities consistently failed to provide him with information on the progress of the criminal case. 39.  On 4 March 1996 Major A.Z. gave himself up and confessed to the killing of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev. He and other witnesses showed investigators the place where they had buried the body. 40.  At some later stage, Major A.Z. backtracked and stated that he had only confessed to killing Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev to improve his image before the command, as he had been responsible for Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s escape from the servicemen. 41.  On an unspecified date the investigators searched the burial site identified by the Major and the other witnesses, but Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s body was not found. 42.  On 8 March 1996 the investigators examined Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s lorry and forwarded it to the Grozny Refinery for storage. 43.  On 15 March 1996 the investigators opened a criminal case against Major A.Z. under Article 103 of the Criminal Code (murder). 44.  On 15 September 1996 the investigation of the criminal case was terminated for a lack of corpus delicti in the actions of Major A.Z. 45.  On 30 April 1998 the investigation of the criminal case was reopened. 46.  On 29 May 1998 and 5 January 1999 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 47.  On 30 June 1998 and 18 March 1999 the investigation was resumed. 48.  On 18 April 1999 the investigation of the criminal case was again terminated on account of a lack of corpus delicti in the actions of Major A.Z. 49.  On 10 December 1999 the investigation of the criminal case was reopened. 50.  On 10 January 2000 the investigation of the criminal case was terminated for failure to prove the charges against Major A.Z. 51.  On 30 April 2009 the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings was overruled and the investigation was resumed. 52.  On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicant and his wife, who stated that in 1998 they had learnt from a Mr A.Kh., who had been released from a detention centre, that their son Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev had been detained in the Lefortovo remand prison in Moscow. According to the Government, the investigation did not obtain information confirming the applicant’s son’s detention in that prison. 53.  The Government further submitted that, although the investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev, it was still in progress and all measures provided for in domestic law were being taken to solve the crime. The applicant had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation. 54.  Despite specific requests by the Court, the Government did not disclose any documents from the investigation file of criminal case no. 14/27/0148-98. The Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of their confidentiality, since the file contained secret information.