6.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Goyty, Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. 7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 8.  The applicant is the father of Murad Khachukayev, born in 1974. At the material time they lived, along with the applicant’s daughter and other two sons and their family members, in a private household comprising two houses at 141 Kirova Street in the village of Goyty (in the submitted documents the village is also referred to as Goyskoye), in the Urus-Martan District, Chechnya. The village was under curfew. 9.  The applicant’s account of events was based on his statements as well as on eyewitness statements from his daughter, two daughters-in-law and youngest son. 10.  On the night of 4-5 February 2003 the applicant, his elder son with his wife and their two children, the applicant’s daughter and daughter-in-law were sleeping in one of their houses, while Murad Khachukayev and the applicant’s youngest son were sleeping in the other one, situated in the same courtyard. 11.  Around 2.30 a.m. a group of about fifteen masked men in camouflage uniform broke into the applicant’s house. The intruders had machine-guns, ammunition belts (“разгрузка”), sniper rifles and torches. They did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations. According to the applicant, the intruders were Russian military servicemen, as they spoke unaccented Russian and were able to circulate freely during the curfew. 12.  The applicant was woken by the noise and attempted to get up, but was ordered to remain in bed. Two intruders pointed their machine guns at him. He asked them what they intended to do and in response they told him to go to sleep. From his bed the applicant saw that there were other armed men in the house. 13.  Three men entered the room in which the applicant’s daughter and one of his daughters-in-law were sleeping. They told the women that it was a passport check and ordered them to remain in their beds and not to move. Then two of them aimed their machine guns at the women, while the third searched the room, acting quickly and quietly and in a professional manner. The intruders also asked the applicant’s daughter, who was in the other house at the time, and she replied that her two brothers were sleeping there. About five minutes later the men left the room, having warned the women to stay inside, as the house was surrounded by snipers. 14.  Two intruders entered the room occupied by the applicant’s elder son, his wife and their two children. The applicant’s daughter-in-law woke up and the men told her that it was a passport check. They pointed their machine guns at the applicant’s elder son, who was still asleep, and asked the applicant’s daughter-in-law whether there were any firearms in the house. She answered in the affirmative and gave them a pistol belonging to her husband, who was an officer of a law enforcement agency. The intruders enquired why there were firearms in the house and the applicant’s daughter-in-law replied that it was her husband’s service gun. Thereafter the men asked who was in the other house, and the applicant’s daughter-in-law replied that two of her husband’s brothers were sleeping there. The intruders also ordered the applicant’s daughter-in-law to produce her husband’s identity papers. When she did so, one of the men took the documents away and showed them to someone in the street. Shortly after he returned and gave the papers back. The intruders then disassembled the service gun of the applicant’s elder son and put it in a plastic bag, stating that they had done so to ensure that the Khachukayevs would not shoot them in the back. 15.  A group of three or four men forcibly entered the other house, occupied by Murad Khachukayev and the applicant’s youngest son. They ordered the latter to get up and stand against the wall and checked his documents. Thereafter they ordered Murad Khachukayev to lie face down on the floor and checked his identity papers as well. The men also quickly searched the house. After that they ordered Murad Khachukayev to follow them and took him away, stating that he should show them his neighbours. 16.  According to the applicant, he went out to the yard to check what the intruders were doing in the house where his two sons were sleeping. One of the intruders shouted at him that there were snipers around. It was cold outside and the applicant went back to get some warm clothes. He returned to the yard a few minutes later, but the intruders had already left. The applicant’s youngest son told him that they had taken Murad Khachukayev away. The applicant rushed inside and woke up his elder son. They immediately went to the village administration, but there were only security guards there, who told them that it was too early in the morning and advised them to wait until working hours. 17.  The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicant. They stated that it had been established that “on the night of 5 February 2003 unidentified persons in camouflage uniform and masks, armed with automatic firearms, abducted M.S. Khachukayev from house no. 141, Kirova Street in the village of Goyty, in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya”. 18.  In the morning of 5 February 2003 the applicant and his relatives found numerous footprints on the snow in their yard and around their household in the street. The footprints led in the direction of the village bakery. According to one of the applicant’s daughters-in-law, the servicemen who had raided their house that night had been out of breath and she concluded that they had reached their house on foot from some distance away. Several days later she talked to three other residents of Goyty who had seen two military UAZ vehicles parked near the bakery on the night of the abduction. The first witness had seen the UAZ vehicles close to the bakery in Goyty; the second and third witnesses had seen the vehicles in the western part of the village at about 4 a.m. on 5 February 2003. The vehicles were leaving Goyty and were about to cross the checkpoint of the Russian federal forces in the eastern part of Urus-Martan. 19.  After communication of his application to the respondent Government, the applicant submitted to the Court the names and addresses of the witnesses who had provided this information. The witnesses requested not to have their names transmitted to the Government, out of fear for their personal safety, but they were ready to provide their accounts to the Court on conditions of anonymity. 20.  The applicant asked his family members and neighbours to preserve the footprints in order to enable the authorities to conduct a crime scene examination and collect evidence. After that the applicant and his elder son went to Urus-Martan and complained to the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office (the district prosecutor’s office), the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (the ROVD) and the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office (the military commander’s office) that Murad Khachukayev had been unlawfully abducted. According to the applicant, all these law-enforcement bodies stated that they had not detained his son and that they had no information as to the latter’s whereabouts, and refused to take any measures in connection with his complaints. 21.  During the next five days the applicant continued the search for his son. Every day he requested the authorities orally and then in writing to inform him about the reasons for his son’s apprehension or to commence an investigation, if Murad Khachukayev had been kidnapped by unknown persons. No measures had been taken. 22.  On 10 February 2003 the applicant spoke with a resident of Goyty, who informed him that a shepherd who had been tending cattle in the abandoned orchard (known as the Michurina orchard or the Michurina district orchard) on a State collective farm near the road between Goyty and Urus-Martan had seen a fresh hole in the ground and human remains which had apparently been blown up. According to the applicant, the Russian mass media reported a number of incidents when the remains of blown-up corpses of persons detained by federal servicemen had been found on the said collective farm. In support of these allegations he submitted a copy of an article ‘Chechnya: after order no. 80’ (‘Чечня: после приказа № 80’) from a national weekly newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, dated 29 April-5 May 2002. 23.  On the same day the applicant and his elder son met the shepherd, who accompanied them to the place where the remains had been discovered, which was about 20 metres from the road. The shepherd told them that he had discovered this site on 5 February 2003. The applicant saw a hole measuring approximately 1.5 m. in diameter and 1 m. in depth, with small fragments of a human body all around. The remains looked as though the body had been torn apart by an explosion. The applicant examined the hole and found several pieces of bone, a lock of hair and the lower part of a right leg with a woollen sock, a striped cotton sock and a burnt boot on it. He identified the socks and the boot as belonging to his son, Murad Khachukayev. The other fragments of the corpse of the applicant’s son, who had weighed 120 kg when he was alive, were too small and therefore unidentifiable. Some time later the applicant found out that a number of residents of Urus-Martan and the nearby villages had heard the explosion on the night of his son’s abduction. 24.  The applicant and his relatives buried the remains shortly thereafter. It does not appear that they took photographs of the remains before the burial or contacted any authority or medical doctors about this matter. 25.  Following the discovery of Murad Khachukayev’s remains, the applicant repeatedly applied, both orally and in writing, to prosecutors at various levels. He referred to his son’s abduction, asked for assistance and details of the investigation and complained that the investigating authorities were taking no action. Mostly he received formal responses informing him that his requests had been forwarded to prosecutor’s offices at a lower level for examination. 26.  On 12 February 2003 the district prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into Murad Khachukayev’s abduction under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned the number 34023. The applicant was informed about this decision on 18 February 2003. 27.  On 12 February 2003 the investigators conducted a scene of crime examination of the place where the remains had been discovered. As a result, portions of the clothing and two metal objects had been collected for analysis. The scene of crime examination at the applicant’s house was conducted thirteen months later (see paragraph 44 below). 28.  On 21 February 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 29.  On 4 March 2003 ballistics analysis (взрывотехническая экспертиза) established that one of the metal objects collected by the investigators from the place of the discovery of Murad Khachukayev’s remains had been a shell splinter and the other had not been a part of an explosive device. The applicant was not informed about this investigative measure. 30.  On 7 April 2003 forensic analysis of Murad Khachukayev’s remains concluded that it was impossible to establish the cause of his death. The applicant was not informed about this investigative measure. 31.  On 12 April 2003 the investigators suspended the investigation in criminal case no. 34023 owing to the failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about this decision on 16 April 2003. 32.  On 23 June 2003 the investigators reopened the investigation in criminal case no. 34023 at the applicant’s request. The applicant was informed about this decision on 24 June 2003. 33.  On 23 July 2003 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about this decision on the same date. 34.  On 14 August 2003 the investigators reopened the investigation in the criminal case due to “significant incompleteness of the investigation conducted”. The applicant was informed about this decision on 15 August 2003. 35.  On 15 September 2003 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish identity of the perpetrators. The applicant was informed about this decision on the same date. 36.  On 9 December 2003 the investigators reopened the investigation in the criminal case “due to incompleteness of the investigation conducted”. The applicant was informed about this decision on the same date. 37.  By a letter of 16 December 2003 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that on 9 December 2003 the investigation into his son’s abduction had been resumed and that “the investigative actions aiming at establishing Murad Khachukayev’s whereabouts and identifying the identity of the alleged perpetrators were under way”. 38.  On 21 December 2003, during questioning by the investigators, the applicant reiterated that he had found his son’s remains and identified them by the fragments of clothes and footwear. 39.  On 26 December 2003 the investigators informed the applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had taken all measures possible in the absence of those to be charged with the crime. 40.  On 9 January 2004 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. According to the applicant, on 5 May 2004 an official of the Goyty village administration gave him a letter from the district prosecutor’s office dated 9 January 2004, by which the applicant was informed that the investigation in case no. 34023 had been suspended on the same date for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 41.  On 26 February 2004 the Department of the Prosecutor General’s office in the Southern Federal Circuit (Управление Генеральной прокуратуры РФ в Южном федеральном округе) forwarded the applicant’s request for information about the investigation in criminal case no. 34023 to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office for examination. 42.  On 4 March 2004 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that his complaint concerning the abduction of Murad Khachukayev and the subsequent discovery of the latter’s remains had been examined and that the search for the perpetrators was under way. 43.  On 5 March 2004 the investigators resumed the investigation in criminal case no. 34023. The decision stated, inter alia, that “on 12 February 2003 in an orchard located four km from Urus-Martan in the direction of Goyty, fragments of a human body were discovered. The relatives [of the disappeared] identified M.S. Khachukayev from these fragments by the remaining footwear and portions of clothing” and further stated that “[the decision to suspend the investigation] was unsubstantiated and should be overruled and the criminal case should be returned for additional investigation”. On the same date the letter informing the applicant about this decision was forwarded to his address. 44.  On 13 March 2004 the investigators conducted a scene of crime examination at the applicant’s house. 45.  On 5 April 2004 the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. It appears that the applicant was not informed about this decision. 46.  On 6 May 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint against the investigators with the Urus-Martan Town Court (the Town Court). He challenged the decision of 9 January 2004 to suspend the investigation and requested the court to order the investigators to resume the criminal investigation, carry it out in a thorough and effective manner, take a number of necessary investigative measures and provide him with access to the case file. The applicant also complained that the investigators had failed to reply to his previous request. 47.  On 14 May 2004 the Town Court ordered the investigators to reply to the applicant’s request and dismissed the remainder of his complaint. 48.  On 24 August 2004, on an appeal by the applicant, the Chechnya Supreme Court quashed the decision of 14 May 2004 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. 49.  At the end of August 2004 the applicant wrote to the Town Court and the district prosecutor’s office with requests to resume the investigation, take necessary investigative measures and verify the theory that the federal forces had been involved in the abduction and murder of his son. In respect of the latter the applicant referred to a number of measures that could have been taken by the investigators. He also requested to be provided with access to the criminal case file. 50.  On 25 September 2004 the investigators resumed the investigation in the criminal case. On the same date a letter informing the applicant about this decision was forwarded to his address. 51.  On 29 September 2004 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It stated that despite all possible measures the authorities had been unable to establish the identity of the culprits, that the criminal investigation had been reopened on 25 September 2004, and that until it was complete the applicant could not be provided with access to the investigation file. 52.  On 25 October 2004 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case owing to the failure to establish the perpetrators. On the same date a letter informing the applicant about this decision was forwarded to his address. According to the applicant, he did not receive the letter and only at some point in June 2005 did the investigators inform him in reply to his oral request that the criminal proceedings in case no. 34023 had been suspended. 53.  On 27 October 2004 the Chechnya Supreme Court quashed the Town Court’s decision of 29 September 2004 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 54.  On 1 December 2004 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s complaint in part and ordered the prosecutor’s office to resume the criminal proceedings and to carry out a complete and effective investigation. The court rejected the applicant’s request for access to the case file, stating that the investigation was still in progress. 55.  On 25 January 2005 the Chechnya Supreme Court upheld the decision of 1 December 2004 on appeal, noting that the refusal to provide the applicant with access to the investigation file did not violate his constitutional or procedural rights, as “he had not been refused access to the criminal case file in general, but only until the completion of the preliminary investigation”. 56.  On 21 September 2005 the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor requesting information about the progress of the investigation in the criminal case and asking for it to be resumed. 57.  On 2 June 2006 the applicant wrote again to the district prosecutor requesting information about the progress of the investigation in the criminal case. 58.  On 5 June 2006 the district prosecutor’s office resumed the investigation in case no. 34023. On the same date a letter informing the applicant about this decision was forwarded to his address. 59.  On 5 June 2006 the district prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation under Article 105 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated murder) in connection with the discovery of Murad Khachukayev’s remains. The decision stated that “in the course of the investigation of criminal case no. 34023 opened on 12 February 2003 in connection with the abduction of Murad Khachukayev on 5 February 2003 from the village of Goyty in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya, it was established that the corpse of the said person with signs of violent death had been discovered on 12 February 2003 in the orchards located near the village of Goyty in the Urus-Martan district”. The criminal case was assigned number 57031. 60.  On the same date the Urus-Martan prosecutor’s office joined the investigation in criminal case no. 34023 with the investigation in case no. 57031. The joined criminal case was assigned number 34023. 61.  On 6 June 2006 the applicant was questioned by the investigation in criminal case no. 34023. 62.  On 13 June 2006 the applicant’s two relatives were questioned by the investigators. 63.  On 5 July 2006 the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators. 64.  On 27 July 2006 the investigators reopened the investigation in criminal case no. 34023. The applicant was not informed about this decision. 65.   At some point in 2008 the investigation of criminal case no. 34023 was transferred from the Urus-Martan district prosecutor’s office to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office. 66.  On 27 May 2008 the investigators exhumed Murad Khachukayev’s remains for a post-mortem examination. The applicant was not informed about the results of the examination. 67.  Referring to the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s office, the Government submitted that the applicant’s first complaint that his son had been abducted had been received by the district prosecutor’s office on 11 February 2003, that the criminal case in this respect had been instituted on 12 February 2003 under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping) and that it had been assigned number 34023. In connection with the discovery on 12 February 2003 of fragments of a human body which, according to the relatives, was that of Murad Khachukayev, the district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 57031 under Article 105 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated murder). The investigation of this case had been joined with the investigation in criminal case no. 34023. 68.  On 12 February 2003 the investigation questioned witness Mr A.E., who stated that he had been present during the examination of the place of discovery of the remains and identified them as belonging to his cousin Murad Khachukayev. In addition, the investigation questioned five witnesses who had been present in the applicant’s house during Murad Khachukayev’s abduction and who had confirmed that their relative had been taken away by unidentified persons. The Government submitted that although the applicant and his relative had information about the two UAZ vehicles driving around in the village on the night of the abduction, they had failed to provide this information to the investigation. 69.  On 21 February 2003 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned about the circumstances of his son’s abduction. According to his account, on 5 February 2003 a group of unidentified armed men had broken into his house and taken away his son; on 12 February 2003 he had found out about the discovery of the fragments of his son’s body near the village of Goyskoye. 70.  According to the information from the Prosecutor General’s office, the investigative authorities undertook, inter alia, the following measures: on 12 February 2003 they had examined the place where the remains were discovered and, as a result, had collected portions of the clothing and two metal objects for analysis. On 4 March 2003 ballistics analysis had established that one of these metal objects was a shell splinter and that the other was not part of an explosive device. According to the forensic expert evaluation of Murad Khachukayev’s remains, dated 7 April 2003, it had been impossible to establish the cause of his death. 71.  According to the Government, the newspaper article submitted by the applicant about the discovery of several corpses in the Urus-Martan district had no connection with the applicant’s case; no criminal proceedings had been initiated in connection with these discoveries. The Government submitted that in June 2002 four other corpses had been found in the orchards on the outskirt of Urus-Martan; however, these corpses had not been blown up and were the subject of a separate criminal investigation. 72.  On 5 July 2006 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended and on 27 July 2006 it was resumed. 73.  On 31 July 2006 the investigators questioned the applicant’s relative Mr A.E., who stated that on 6 February 2003 the applicant had told him that a group of unidentified men had abducted his son. On 12 February 2003 a resident of Urus-Martan had told him about the discovery of human remains in the orchard in Michurina district and that these remains had been identified as those of Murad Khachukayev. 74.  On 2 August 2006 the investigators questioned Mr A.D. and Mr A.Kh., and on 15 December 2006 they questioned Mr G.A. Each of the witnesses provided a statement similar to the one given by Mr A.E. On unspecified dates the investigators also questioned Mr Z.D., Mr A.Kh., Mr Kh.Kh. and Mr T.A., who also provided similar statements. 75.  On 25 August 2006 the investigators questioned Mr I.P., who stated that on 12 February 2003 when he had been tending cattle in the orchard in Michurina district he had found human remains and had informed the central mosque about it. On the following day Murad Khachukayev’s relatives had visited him and he had showed them where he had found the remains. 76.  On 12 December 2006 the investigators requested the ROVD to establish the identity of additional witnesses to Murad Khachukayev’s abduction. According to the ROVD, they failed to establish the identity of additional witnesses. 77.  On 19 May 2008 the investigation of the criminal case was transferred to the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor’s office. 78.  On 20 May 2008 the investigators requested the district military commander to inform them whether a curfew was in force in Goyty on 5 February 2003. According to his response, no such information was available. 79.  On 24 May 2008 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who stated that he could not remember the individual features of his son’s abductors; that some time after his son’s abduction human remains had been discovered on the outskirt of Goyty; that he and his relatives had identified them as belonging to Murad Khachukayev by the remaining pieces of clothing; that they had buried the remains in a local cemetery and that he could not give his permission for the exhumation of his son’s remains because of his religious beliefs; that he had not seen military vehicles next to his house on the night of the abduction; that he did not remember who had told him that the abductors had arrived in UAZ vehicles, and that he had not complained about his son’s abduction to the head of the ROVD or the district military commander. 80.  On 25 May 2008 the investigators forwarded requests for information to a number of law enforcement agencies. According to the response received from the Central Archives of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior, no special operations aimed at the detention of Murad Khachukayev had been conducted in Goyty on 4-5 February 2003. 81.  On 2 June 2008 the applicant gave consent for the exhumation of Murad Khachukayev’s remains. 82.  The Government further submitted that on 9 June 2008 the investigation of the criminal case was being conducted by a group of investigators from the public prosecutor’s office and the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (the UGA). 83.  On 17 June 2008 the investigators questioned Mr S.-M.M., who stated that at the material time he had been the head of the ROVD. He remembered that the applicant’s son had been abducted and that in spite of the investigators’ efforts it had been impossible to establish the identity of the culprits. Around the same time the investigators had forwarded requests for information concerning the whereabouts of Murad Khachukayev to various law enforcement agencies in Chechnya; they had identified and questioned a number of witnesses but had failed to obtain any meaningful information. According to the witness, on 5 February 2003 the Urus-Martan area was under curfew and representatives of law enforcement agencies or the military could not move around freely without the permission of the local military commander. 84.  On 25 June 2008 the investigators exhumed the remains of Murad Khachukayev from the cemetery on the outskirt of Goyty. The applicant was present during the procedure. On the same date the investigators took samples of the applicant’s blood and decided to conduct a DNA test of the remains to establish whether there was a blood relationship between them and the applicant. According to the Government, as of February 2009 the testing has not yet been completed. 85.  On 27 June 2008 the investigators questioned the current head of the Goyty village administration, Mr A.D., who stated that in 2003 unidentified armed men had abducted Murad Khachukayev, and that some time later human remains had been found and the applicant and his relatives had identified them as belonging to Murad Khachukayev. The witness gave a good character reference to Murad Khachukayev and stated that the latter had not participated in illegal activities against the federal forces. 86.  On 15 August 2008 the investigators questioned Mr A. Dzh., who had been the head of the Goyty village administration at the material time. His statement concerning the events in 2003 was similar to that of Mr A.D. 87.  According to the Government, the criminal case file did not contain any evidence demonstrating that a special operation had been conducted on the night of 4-5 February 2003 in Goyty. 88.  The Government further submitted that the theory of the involvement of special forces (спецподразделений) in the abduction of Murad Khachukayev had not been confirmed by the investigation. According to the information obtained from various departments of the Ministry of the Interior (the MVD), the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and other law enforcement agencies, they had not detained Murad Khachukayev, had never opened any criminal proceedings against him and had not placed him in detention. 89.  Finally, the Government submitted that although the investigation had failed to establish the identity of the perpetrators of Murad Khachukayev’s abduction and murder, it was still in progress. 90.  When the application was communicated to the respondent Government the Court requested it to submit a copy of the entire investigation file no. 34023. However, despite the specific request from the Court the Government refused to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in the criminal case, stating with reference to the information obtained from the Prosecutor General’s office 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. The Government submitted only several documents, which included:
(a) a procedural decision dated 12 February 2003 to institute criminal proceedings in connection with Murad Khachukayev’s abduction;
(b) a procedural decision dated 21 February 2003 to grant the applicant victim status in criminal case no. 34023;
(c) procedural decisions concerning suspensions and resumptions of the investigation in case no. 34023;
(d) investigators’ decisions to take up case no. 34023;
(e) procedural decisions concerning extension of the time-limits for the investigation in the criminal case;
(f) letters informing the applicant about suspensions and resumptions of the investigation in the criminal case;
(g) a procedural decision of 5 June 2006 to institute criminal proceedings in connection with Murad Khachukayev’s murder. 91.  On 18 September 2008 the Court declared the application partially admissible and reiterated its request for a copy of the investigation file. The Court also requested information on the progress of the investigation after July 2006. 92.  In response, the Government submitted an update of the investigation but no documents from the investigation file. They reiterated that disclosure of the documents would violate Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the file contained personal data of participants in the criminal proceedings.