6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in the village of Makhkety, the Vedeno District, in the Chechen Republic. 7.  The applicant was married to Mr Magomed Khumaidov, born in 1977. They had a daughter, Ms Seda Khumaidova, born in 2002. The couple and their daughter, as well as Magomed Khumaidov’s father, Mr Kharon Khumaidov, born in 1932, lived at 28 Klubnaya Street, the village of Makhkety. 8.  At about 11 a.m. on 13 February 2002 a group of armed men wearing military camouflage uniforms and masks forcibly entered the Khumaidovs’ house. The applicant concluded that they were federal servicemen. 9.  The Khumaidovs were inside the house at the time. The servicemen did not produce identity papers or any documents justifying their actions. They searched the house and apprehended the applicant’s husband and father-in-law without any explanations. Although Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov were only wearing trousers and shirts, they were not allowed to take their overcoats. The men forced them into a military UAZ vehicle that had no registration numbers and took them to a base of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) in the village of Khatuni. 10.  A number of residents of Makhkety witnessed the detention of the first applicant’s husband and father-in-law. 11.  On 29 July 2002 a national newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported the above events in an article ‘Streamlined production of enemies’. 12.  According to the Prosecutor’s Office of Russia, it was established that at about 11 a.m. on 13 February 2002 unknown armed men wearing military camouflage uniforms had arrived at the Khumaidovs’ household and kidnapped Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov. The whereabouts of the missing men was unknown. 13.  Immediately after the detention of Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov the applicant and other relatives arrived at the FSB base in Khatuni, enquired about the Khumaidovs and attempted to provide them with warm clothes. Several FSB officers who had the names or nicknames Damir, Shamil, Dima and Timur Yarulin spoke to them. They refused to take the clothes but promised that the Khumaidov men would be released soon. Later the same officers told that Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov had been sent to the federal military base in Khankala, but refused to give further explanation. 14.  From 13 February 2002 onwards the applicant repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies, including prosecutors at various levels, federal and regional departments of interior, administrative authorities of the Chechen Republic, the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms and the Representative for Rights and Freedoms in Russia. She was supported in her efforts by Human Rights Watch (“HRW”) and the SRJI. In their letters to the authorities the applicant and the NGOs described in detail the circumstances of the detention of Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov, referred to the fact that a number of eyewitnesses had seen the Khumaidov men taken to the federal base in Khatuni, and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. In most cases their enquiries remained unanswered, or only formal responses were given, by which the respective requests were forwarded to various prosecutors’ offices for examination. 15.  In April 2002 the applicant spent a fortnight near the FSB base in Khatuni. Her attempts to get information about her missing relatives proved unsuccessful, as the federal servicemen refused to answer her queries. 16.  On 5 July 2002 the district prosecutor’s office issued the applicant with a document confirming that on 18 June 2002 they had commenced an investigation in connection with the kidnapping of Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov by “unidentified servicemen” in the village of Makhkety. 17.  On 18 July 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the applicant’s complaint concerning her relatives’ disappearance to the district prosecutor’s office. 18.  By a letter of 22 July 2002 the administration of the Chechen Republic informed the applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the district prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic, the department of interior of the Vedeno District (“ROVD”) and the Department of Interior of the Chechen Republic. 19.  On 15 August 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the applicant that on 18 June 2002 case no. 73040 had been opened in connection with the kidnapping of Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov by “unidentified servicemen”. 20.  By a letter of 20 August 2002 the district prosecutor’s office notified the applicant that the investigation had established that servicemen of the 45th regiment had been involved in the abduction of her husband and father-in-law, and therefore on 22 July 2002 the criminal case had been transferred to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 2011 in the town of Shali for a further investigation. The letter stated that the criminal proceedings had subsequently been suspended as it was impossible to identify the perpetrators. 21.  On 23 August 2002 the ROVD informed the applicant that on 18 June 2002 criminal case no. 73040 had been opened in connection with the abduction of Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov by unidentified servicemen. 22.  By a letter of 4 September 2002 the Office of the Representative for Rights and Freedoms in Russia notified the applicant that her complaint of ineffective investigation of the abduction of her relatives had been transferred to the Prosecutor General’s Office. The latter forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the Southern Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office on 17 September 2002. 23.  On 8 October 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the applicant of the main procedural steps taken in connection with the disappearance of her husband and father-in-law and, notably, stated that the criminal proceedings instituted on 18 June 2002 and then suspended on 18 August 2002 had been resumed on 30 August 2002 and that the case had been transmitted to the district prosecutor’s office for a further investigation. The applicant was invited to address any subsequent queries to the district prosecutor’s office. 24.  On 18 November 2002 the SRJI, acting on the applicant’s behalf, enquired with the district prosecutor’s office about the investigation of the abduction of Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov. In reply, the SRJI received a handwritten note stating that case no. 73040 had been opened on 18 June 2002 and suspended on 18 August 2002. 25.  On 11 March 2003 the Vedeno District Court of the Chechen Republic, on the applicant’s request, declared Magomed Khumaidov missing, having confirmed that on 13 February 2002 he had been taken away by masked servicemen and had then disappeared. The court based this finding on, inter alia, statements of witnesses Mr A. and Ms S., residents of Makhkety and relatives of the Khumaidovs. 26.  On 17 April 2003 the SRJI requested the district prosecutor’s office to grant the applicant victim status in case no. 73040 and to furnish her with a copy of the relevant decision. In a reply of 10 June 2003 the district prosecutor’s office stated that it was impossible to send the requested document to the SRJI, as they did not belong to a category of those entitled under national law to receive procedural documents, and that the applicant could apply to the district prosecutor’s office for a copy of the decision granting her victim status. The letter continued that the file of criminal case no. 73040 had been destroyed as a result of a fire in December 2002, and that measures were being taken to recreate it. 27.  On 14 February 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”) forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”) and ordered that the matters complained of be verified. In the absence of any reply to the letter of 14 February 2004, the UGA prosecutor’s office sent further copies of the applicant’s complaint on two occasions, 9 and 27 April 2004, and enquired about the results of its examination. 28.  By two identical letters, of 8 May and 4 June 2004, the unit prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that they had carried out an inquiry in connection with her complaints and had established that at the material time military personnel of the military units supervised by the said prosecutor’s office had not conducted any special operations and had not detained any individuals nor taken them to law enforcement agencies. The letters invited the applicant to address any further queries to the district department of interior or the district prosecutor’s office. 29.  On 10 November 2004 the SRJI enquired with the district prosecutor’s office about the progress in the investigation and the steps taken. 30.  On 24 December 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic replied that the SRJI’s application had been examined and that criminal proceedings had been instituted in connection with the events described. 31.  By a letter of 22 July 2005 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic sent the applicant’s request to establish her relatives’ whereabouts to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 32.  On 18 June 2002 the district prosecutor’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the disappearance of Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The file was given the number 73040. 33.  On 18 August 2002 the investigation in case no. 73040 was suspended due to failure to identify those responsible. 34.  On 17 December 2002 the investigation file in case no. 73040 was destroyed in a fire as a result of an attack by rebel fighters on the district prosecutor’s office and the temporary department of interior of the Vedeno District (“VOVD”). 35.  On 27 October 2003 the district prosecutor’s office granted the applicant victim status in case no. 73040 and informed her accordingly. 36.  On 18 October 2004 the district prosecutor’s office ordered that the file in case no. 73040 be restored. The investigation was resumed on the same date and the applicant was notified accordingly. 37.  On 20 October 2004 the district prosecutor’s office ordered the ROVD to take certain investigative measures. 38.  On 27 October 2004 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned. 39.  The investigation was suspended on 18 November 2004 and 13 October 2005 and then resumed on 13 August and 20 October 2005. 40.  From 15 to 17 August 2005 the district prosecutor’s office questioned three witnesses, namely the head of the administration of Makhety, the applicant’s sister-in-law and the applicant’s neighbour. 41.  On 18 August 2005 the investigator of the district prosecutor’s office inspected the scene of the incident at the applicant’s house, but did not find any relevant evidence. On the same date the applicant was again questioned. 42.  The district prosecutor’s office sent a number of queries to various State agencies on 20 October and 3 November 2004, as well as on 15 and 28 August 2005. The district military commander’s office, the Vedeno District Department of the FSB and the Russian Ministry of Interior submitted that they had carried out no special operations in the vicinity of Makhkety between 10 and 15 February 2002 and had not detained the Khumaidov father and son. 43.  On 28 August 2005 the district prosecutor’s office sent requests concerning Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov’s detention to prisons in the Chechen Republic. No confirmation was obtained that the applicant’s relatives had ever been detained in those facilities. 44.  The case was being investigated by the district prosecutor’s office. The investigation had failed to identify those responsible or to establish the whereabouts of the applicant’s relatives. The applicant’s hypothesis that Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov had been detained by servicemen of the 45th regiment was not substantiated or supported by any evidence. 45.  Despite specific requests made by the Court on two occasions, the Government refused to submit a copy of the entire investigation file in case no. 73040, 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. 46.  The Government only submitted a few documents, which included:
(a) a copy of a procedural decision of 18 June 2002 instituting criminal proceedings in connection with the kidnapping of the applicant’s relatives on 13 February 2002;
(b) copies of procedural decisions of 18 August 2002 and 20 October 2005 suspending and reopening criminal proceedings in connection with the disappearance of the applicant’s relatives;
(c) a copy of a procedural decision of 18 December 2002 on institution of criminal proceedings in connection with an explosion on the territory of the VOVD leading to the destruction of property;
(d) copies of investigators’ decisions of 18 October 2004 and 13 August 2005 taking up case no. 73040;
(e) a copy of a letter of 18 October 2004 informing the applicant of the restoration of the file of case no. 73040;
(f) a copy of a letter dated 13 May 2005 notifying the applicant that on 15 August 2005 the investigation in case no. 73040 had been resumed.