5.  The applicants are:
1) Mr Vakha Murtazov, born in 1955;
2) Ms Kumset Murtazova, born in 1958;
3) Mr Alikhan Murtazov, born in 1990,
4) Mr Dzhakhar Murtazov, born in 1995,
5) Mr Aslan Murtazov, born in 1981, and
6) Mr Adam Murtazov, born in 1980. 6.  The applicants live in the village of Naurskaya, Naurskiy District, in the Chechen Republic. 7.  The first applicant is a brother of Mr Ayub Murtazov, born in 1952. The second applicant is Ayub Murtazov’s wife; the couple are the parents of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants. 8.  Prior to 2000 Ayub Murtazov was the head of the local administration of Naurskaya. In 2001 he sued his former employer for salary arrears. 9.  At about 3 a.m. on 18 October 2001 fifteen or twenty armed men came to Ayub Murtazov’s house. Most of them were wearing masks. The masked men identified themselves as servicemen of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”). There were also two unmasked persons; the FSB servicemen explained that those were attesting witnesses. The FSB servicemen’s breath smelt of alcohol. Five or six of them forced Ayub Murtazov to the floor and started beating him. Meanwhile the others hid a package in the house, which later was “discovered” during a search. The package was full of a substance that looked like soap. The FSB servicemen said it was explosive material. They searched the house and the courtyard and left, taking Ayub Murtazov with them. 10.  Later the same day the FSB servicemen transferred Ayub Murtazov to the police. He was kept in the temporary detention facility of the Naurskiy District department of the interior. The police opened a criminal investigation into the discovery of the explosive materials. At some point Ayub Murtazov was released, after signing an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. Later the criminal case against him was closed. 11.  At about 3.30 a.m. on 19 November 2002 around twenty masked men wearing dirty camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns burst inside Ayub Murtazov’s house. They spoke Russian without an accent. The second applicant inferred that they were federal servicemen. She also observed that the men were either drunk or drugged. 12.  The servicemen did not identify themselves. They forced the second applicant to the floor and went to Ayub Murtazov’s room. When he asked them to explain their actions, the servicemen started swearing in Russian. They searched the house while some of them took the second applicant and her two minor sons into a room, tied them up with adhesive tape and left them there. 13.  The servicemen left the house, taking Ayub Murtazov with them. The second applicant did not hear the sound of any vehicles. She was later told by her neighbours that several armoured personnel carriers had been seen in the village that night. 14.  The Government submitted that it would be premature to give any information pertaining to the kidnapping prior to completion of the investigation in case no. 67061. They further asserted that the applicants’ account of events did not in general contradict to the information collected in the course of the investigation. 15.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the materials from the investigation file in case no. 67061. Neither did they produce their account of the course of the investigation. They submitted copies of what they described as “main investigation file materials”, some of which are barely legible. The account of the events below is based on those documents and information submitted by the applicants. 16.  On 21 November 2002 the second applicant lodged a formal complaint about her husband’s abduction with the district prosecutor’s office. 17.  On 2 December 2002 the Naurskiy District prosecutor’s office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Ayub Murtazov under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping) in case no. 67061. 18.  On 10 December 2002 the second applicant was questioned as a witness; on 18 December 2002 she was granted victim status. 19.  On 10 December 2002 the Naurskiy district department of the interior informed the district prosecutor’s office that they had not carried out any special operations in the Naurskiy District on 19 November 2002. 20.  On 20 December 2002, as well as on 4 and 16 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office questioned three residents of Naurskaya who stated that they had merely heard about Ayub Murtazov’s kidnapping and knew no further details. 21.  On 24 December 2002 the Naurskiy district department of the FSB informed the district prosecutor’s office that they had not carried out any special operations in Naurskaya on 19 November 2002 and that they had no information concerning Ayub Murtazov’s kidnapping. 22.  On an unspecified date the first applicant complained about his brother’s abduction to the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Human Rights in the Chechen Republic. The complaint was forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic. On 22 January 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office. 23.  On 27 January 2003 the district prosecutor’s office notified the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Human Rights in the Chechen Republic and the second applicant that the investigation into the kidnapping of Ayub Murtazov by unidentified armed men had been opened on 2 December 2002 and was under way. 24.  In February 2003 the district prosecutor’s office questioned as witnesses other residents of Naurskaya, but all of them merely stated that they had no information on the case. 25.  On 2 April 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 67061 for failure to identify those responsible. 26.  On 11 June 2003 the first applicant complained about his brother’s kidnapping to the military prosecutor’s office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor’s office”). 27.  On 17 June 2003 the UGA prosecutor’s office forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20111 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”). 28.  On 21 June 2003 the unit prosecutor’s office informed the first applicant that they had no information on Ayub Murtazov’s whereabouts or any implication of the federal military in his kidnapping. 29.  On 23 June 2003 the district prosecutor’s office notified the first applicant that the investigation in case no. 67061 had been suspended for failure to identify those responsible on 2 April 2003. 30.  On 29 May 2004 the FSB department of the Chechen Republic informed the first applicant that they had no information on Ayub Murtazov’s whereabouts and were taking measures to find him. 31.  On 4 August 2004 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant’s complaint to the district prosecutor’s office and ordered them to take more vigorous investigative measures. 32.  On 11 August 2004 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 2 April 2003 as unfounded, resumed the investigation in case no. 67061 and notified the first applicant accordingly. 33.  On 12 August 2004 the district prosecutor’s office questioned Ms A., the applicants’ neighbour, as a witness. She stated that on 19 November 2002 she had seen five or six men in masks and camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns running around her courtyard. They had entered her house and started inspecting it. They had not told Ms A. what they had been doing. At some point their superior had said that Ms A. could not go to her neighbours’ because their house had been mined. She had found out later that Ayub Murtazov had been taken away. 34.  In 2004 the district prosecutor’s office sent requests for information on Ayub Murtazov to prosecutors’ offices and police departments of the neighbouring districts. In reply, numerous State agencies submitted that they had not arrested Ayub Murtazov and did not have any information on his whereabouts. 35.  On 11 September 2004 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 67061. 36.  On 11 July 2005 the district prosecutor’s office, in reply to the first applicant’s complaint informed him that the investigation in case no. 67061 had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators; the date of the decision on suspension was not mentioned. 37.  On 18 April 2006 the district prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 11 September 2004 owing to incompleteness of the investigation and resumed the proceedings. They notified the first applicant accordingly. 38.  On 26 April 2006 the first applicant was granted victim status. 39.  On 18 May 2006 the district prosecutor’s office again suspended the investigation in case no. 67061. 40.  On 8 September 2006 the investigation was resumed because it had not been completed; on 11 October 2006 it was suspended again. 41.  On 11 January 2007 the proceedings in case no. 67061 were resumed. 42.  On 20 January 2007 the second applicant was questioned. 43.  On 23 January 2007 the district prosecutor’s office requested the Naurskiy district department of the interior to submit the personal details of the servicemen who had been on duty at four checkpoints (code names for those points mentioned) on the night between 18 and 19 November 2002. 44.  On 24 January 2007 the Naurskiy district department of the interior informed the district prosecutor’s office that they had not kept the logs of vehicles passing by the Naurskiy District checkpoints. 45.  On 14 February 2007 the district prosecutor’s office questioned in the course of the proceedings in case no. 67061 Mr S., a resident of the village of Mekenskaya, Naurskiy District. He submitted that on the night of 18-19 November 2002 his neighbour Mr O. had been taken from his house by armed men in camouflage uniforms and taken away. Those men had travelled in a grey UAZ vehicle and a Niva vehicle. 46.  On 15 February 2007 the investigation in case no. 67061 was again suspended. 47.  On 23 August 2007 the investigation was resumed. On the same date the district prosecutor’s office sent requests for information concerning Ayub Murtazov to the police departments of various districts. On 24 August 2007 similar requests were sent to the prosecutors’ offices of various districts. No relevant information was received in reply. 48.  On 6 September 2007 the investigation was transferred to the Naurskiy investigating unit of the investigating department of the Investigating Committee of the Russia Prosecutor’s Office (“the investigating unit”). 49.  On 23 September 2007 the investigating unit suspended the investigation. 50.  On 3 March 2008 the investigating unit quashed the decision of 23 September 2007 as unfounded and resumed the investigation. 51.  In March 2008 requests for information concerning Ayub Murtazov’s kidnapping were sent to various police departments and the FSB department. 52.  On 8 March 2008 the investigation was suspended. 53.  On 4 June 2009 the applicants were informed that the investigation had been resumed. 54.  On 30 August 2009 the applicants were notified that the investigation had been suspended. 55.  In the Government’s submission, the investigation was pending.