6.  The applicants are:
1) Ms Ayset Magomedovna Khalidova, who was born in 1959;
2) Mr Khasmagomed Khalidov, who was born in 1924;
3) Ms Nebisat Khalidova, who was born in 1916;
4) Mr Atbi Isayevich Khalidov, who was born in 1993, and
5) Ms Zarina Isayevna Khalidova, who was born in 1980.
They live in the town of Urus-Martan, in the Chechen Republic. 7.  The second and the third applicants are spouses and the parents of Mr Isa Khalidov, born in 1950. Isa Khalidov was married to the first applicant, they are the parents of Mr Shamil Khalidov, born in 1981, and the fourth and the fifth applicants. 8.  In November 2002 Isa and Shamil Khalidov worked at a juice factory, Dary Prirody, in the village of Psedakh, Malgobekskiy District in the Republic of Ingushetia, a region adjacent to the Chechen Republic. 9.  At about 11 p.m. on 29 November 2002 ten armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the factory. They identified themselves as officers of law enforcement agencies and, without providing any explanations, took Isa and Shamil Khalidov away in a grey UAZ vehicle with registration number 241 06 RUS. 10.  The applicants did not witness the apprehension of Isa and Shamil Khalidov and only learned of it in the evening of 30 November 2002 from a relative who had heard local rumours. 11.  The investigation in case no. 03540030 established that at about 11 p.m. on 29 November 2002 unidentified armed persons had entered the territory of the factory, Dary Prirody, where a camp for refugees from the Chechen Republic had been located. They had put Isa and Shamil Khalidov in a UAZ vehicle with registration number 241 06 and had driven away to an unknown destination. 12.  Having learned of their relatives’ disappearance, the applicants started searching for Isa and Shamil Khalidov. In an attempt to establish the whereabouts and the fate of those missing, they applied both in person and in writing to various official bodies, such as the Prosecutor General’s Office, the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment, the Administration of the Chechen Republic, the Russian Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Interior of the Chechen Republic, the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia, the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic and the Russian State Duma. The applicants retained copies of some of these complaints and submitted them to the Court. Most of the complaints were lodged by the first applicant on behalf of the whole family. A number of complaints were lodged by the SRJI on the first applicant’s behalf. Some applications remained unanswered, while some of them were forwarded to prosecutors’ offices at different levels. 13.  On 15 December 2002 the first applicant wrote to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office and the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia complaining about her husband and son’s disappearance. 14.  On 25 December 2002 the prosecutor’s office of Ingushetia forwarded the first applicant’s letter to the prosecutor’s office of the town of Malgobek (“the Malgobek prosecutor’s office”). 15.  At some point the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia established that a unit of servicemen of the department of interior of the Nadterechny District of the Chechen Republic (“the Nadterechny ROVD”), under the command of Mr K., had been in the village of Psedakh at the time of the apprehension of Isa and Shamil Khalidov. 16.  In a decision of 7 January 2003 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office stated that, according to an inquiry into the events of 29 November 2002, Isa and Shamil Khalidov had been apprehended by an officer of the Nadterechny ROVD, Mr K.; the Malgobek prosecutor’s office had refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the latter in the absence of evidence of a crime. 17.  On 15 January 2003 the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia informed the first applicant that an inquiry into the disappearance of her husband and son had established that a group of servicemen of the Chechen police forces commanded by Mr K. had been in the village of Psedakh in the evening of the disappearance of Isa and Shamil Khalidov. The Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia further advised the first applicant to contact the Nadterechny ROVD and assured her that the search for her relatives would be continued. 18.  On 28 January 2003 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office requested the prosecutor’s office of the Nadterechny District of the Chechen Republic (“the Nadterechny prosecutor’s office”) to verify whether Isa and Shamil Khalidov had been arrested and, if so, to report their whereabouts and to provide detailed information concerning the arrest. 19.  On 4 March 2003 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office wrote to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic stating that Isa and Shamil Khalidov had been apprehended by the servicemen of the Chechen police forces under the command of Mr K. and that the Nadterechny ROVD had refused to cooperate and provide information concerning the Khalidovs’ detention. The Malgobek prosecutor’s office requested the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to establish which law enforcement agency had detained Isa and Shamil Khalidov, to provide legal grounds and copies of documents authorising their detention and to inform them of the two men’s whereabouts. 20.  In reply to the request of 28 January 2003, on 20 March 2003 the Nadterechny prosecutor’s office informed the Malgobek prosecutor’s office that the Nadterechny ROVD had not detained Isa and Shamil Khalidov, that Mr K.’s unit had not been sent to the village of Psedakh on 29 November 2002 and that the Nadterechny ROVD did not own a UAZ vehicle with the registration number 241 06 RUS. 21.  On 7 April 2003 the first applicant wrote to the Nadterechny prosecutor’s office seeking an investigation of her husband and son’s unlawful detention or kidnapping opened. On the same date she wrote to the Nadterechny ROVD enquiring about her relatives’ fate. 22.  On 5 May 2003 the first applicant requested the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic to open an investigation of the unlawful detention or kidnapping of her husband and son. 23.  On 8 May 2003 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 7 January 2003 and opened an investigation of the disappearance of Isa and Shamil Khalidov under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 03540030. 24.  On 15 May 2003 the South Federal Circuit Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office forwarded the first applicant’s letter to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office. 25.  On 26 May 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the Nadterechny prosecutor’s office. 26.  On 30 May 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in case no. 03540030. 27.  On 3 June 2003 the Nadterechny prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that there were no grounds to prosecute Mr K. and the servicemen of his unit because they had not been in the village of Psedakh at the time of the detention of Isa and Shamil Khalidov and that the Nadterechny ROVD did not have a UAZ vehicle with the registration number 241 06 RUS. 28.  On 25 June 2003 the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that the Malgobek prosecutor’s office had opened an investigation of the kidnapping of Isa and Shamil Khalidov and mentioned that the investigation had been impeded by the unwillingness to cooperate of the law enforcement agencies of the Chechen Republic. 29.  On 9 July 2003 the SRJI wrote on behalf of the applicants to the Malgobek prosecutor’s office enquiring about the progress of the investigation. 30.  On 23 July 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment forwarded the first applicant’s letter concerning the disappearance of her husband and son to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. 31.  On 25 August 2003 the SRJI requested the Nadterechny prosecutor’s office to open an investigation into the Khalidovs’ kidnapping. In reply, on 25 September 2003 the Nadterechny prosecutor’s office submitted that the alleged implication of Mr K.’s unit in the Khalidovs’ disappearance had not been proven and that the investigation was pending before the Malgobek prosecutor’s office. 32.  On 5 September 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 forwarded the first applicant’s letter to the military commander of the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic. 33.  On 15 September 2003 the SRJI requested from the Malgobek prosecutor’s office information on the progress of the investigation of the kidnapping of Isa and Shamil Khalidov. 34.  On 25 September 2003 the Nadterechny prosecutor’s office informed the SRJI and the first applicant that there was no proof of Mr K.’s implication in the Khalidovs’ disappearance and explained that it had not instituted proceedings regarding the kidnapping of Isa and Shamil Khalidov because the investigation in case no. 03540030 was pending before the Malgobek prosecutor’s office. 35.  On 11 November 2003 the first applicant complained to the Malgobek Town Court of Ingushetia that the Malgobek prosecutor’s office had not provided her with information on the course of the investigation in case no. 03540030. 36.  On 16 December 2003 the first applicant wrote to the Malgobek prosecutor’s office enquiring about the investigation of the kidnapping of her husband and son. 37.  On 18 December 2003 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 03540030 for a failure to identify suspects. 38.  On 28 January 2004 the Malgobek Town Court of Ingushetia allowed the first applicant’s complaint and ordered that the Malgobek prosecutor’s office provide her with copies of the decisions of 7 January, 8 May and 18 December 2003. The judgment became final immediately. 39.  On 28 March 2004 first applicant asked the Malgobek prosecutor’s office to question Mr K. and the servicemen of his unit as witnesses to the disappearance of Isa and Shamil Khalidov. 40.  On 7 July 2004 the SRJI requested from the Malgobek prosecutor’s office information on the progress in the investigation into the kidnapping of Isa and Shamil Khalidov. In reply, on 31 July 2004 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office submitted that the investigation in case no. 03540030 had been stayed on 18 December 2003 due to the investigative authorities’ inability to identify those responsible, that the investigation had examined the implication of the servicemen of the Nadterechny ROVD in the Khalidovs’ kidnapping and and that there were no grounds for resumption of the proceedings. 41.  On 5 August 2004 the first applicant asked the Malgobek prosecutor’s office to inform her of the progress of the investigation. In reply, on 17 August 2004 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office stated that Mr K. and the servicemen of his unit had been questioned and that there were no grounds to consider them implicated in the kidnapping of Isa and Shamil Khalidov. 42.  On 15 December 2002 the first applicant reported the kidnapping of her husband and son to the police. 43.  On an unspecified date the military commander advised the first applicant to apply to a prosecutor’s office. 44.  On 29 December 2002 the first applicant lodged a complaint concerning her relatives’ kidnapping with the Malgobek prosecutor’s office. 45.  On 7 January 2003 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the events complained of by the first applicant pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 46.  On 8 May 2003 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office quashed the decision not to institute criminal proceedings and opened an investigation of Isa and Shamil Khalidov’s disappearance under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). 47.  The investigators questioned as witnesses a serviceman of the department of interior of the Malgobek District, a serviceman of the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia and two servicemen of the Nadterechny ROVD. The servicemen submitted that they had no information concerning those who had kidnapped Isa and Shamil Khalidov or the whereabouts of the missing men. 48.  In November 2002 no servicemen of the Nadterechny ROVD were posted to the Malgobek District of Ingushetia. 49.  The department of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”) of Ingushetia, the FSB department of the Chechen Republic, the Ministry of Interior of Russia, the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia, the Nadterechny prosecutor’s office and other law enforcement agencies of North Caucasus had no information on the arrest of Isa and Shamil Khalidov, their whereabouts or identities of the kidnappers. 50.  The UAZ vehicle with registration number 241 06 RUS was assigned to the department of interior of the Dzheyrakhskiy District of Ingushetia (“the Dzheyrakhskiy ROVD”). The investigators questioned the head of the Dzheyrakhskiy ROVD who submitted that in 2002 the UAZ vehicle was being repaired as by that time it had deteriorated as a result of wear and tear. In February 2003 the UAZ vehicle had been written off the books of the Dzheyrakhskiy ROVD. In November 2002 the vehicle had not been moved outside the Dzheyrakhskiy District and its registration plates had not been removed. 51.  In 2002 the Malgobek ROVD did not use the UAZ vehicle with registration number 0 241 MM 06. 52.  A number of witnesses were questioned but their interviews gave no new information concerning the circumstances of the kidnapping of Isa and Shamil Khalidov. 53.  The investigation had not identified the perpetrators and was under way. Investigative measures aimed at resolving the kidnapping of Isa and Shamil Khalidov were being taken. 54.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose any documents of the investigation file in case no. 03540030. 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.