5.  The applicants are:
(1) Ms Khalimat Kosumova (also spelled as Kasumova), who was born in 1978;
(2) Mr Arbi Kasumov, who was born in 1952;
(3) Ms Taus Kasumova, who was born in 1959;
(4) Mr Usman Kasumov, who was born in 1988;
(5) Ms Marina (also spelled as Milana) Kasumova (also known as Shadidova), who was born in 1982; and
(6) Mr Ali Kasumov, who was born in 2001.
The first applicant is the sister of Abdul Kasumov (also spelled as Abdula or Abdulla Kosumov), who was born in 1982; the second and third applicants are his parents; the fourth applicant is his brother; the fifth applicant is his wife; and the sixth applicant is his son. The applicants live in Mesker-Yurt, Chechnya. 6.  At the material time the village of Mesker-Yurt was under the full control of the Russian military forces. Checkpoints manned by military servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. 7.  The applicants lived at 22 Partizanskaya Street (in the documents submitted the address was also referred to as 65 Lenina Street), Mesker‑Yurt, in the Shali district of Chechnya. The household consisted of several dwellings around a courtyard. Abdul Kasumov lived in one of the dwellings with the fifth and sixth applicants. 8.  On the evening of 21 November 2002 the applicants were at home. At about 9 p.m. they heard military Ural vehicles driving around in the village. According to the applicants, on the same evening their neighbours saw armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) driving around the settlement. 9.  On the night of 21 November 2002 the applicants, their relatives and Abdul Kasumov were sleeping at home. At about 4 a.m. a group of armed men in spotted camouflage uniforms broke into the applicants’ household. The men were not wearing masks, spoke unaccented Russian and were of Slavic appearance. They neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen. 10.  The men pointed their guns at the applicants and their relatives. Then they broke down the door into the dwelling where Abdul Kasumov was sleeping with his wife and son. The men grabbed him, pulled a mask over his head and took him outside in his underwear. Next, they took Abdul Kasumov’s sweater, shirt and trousers. When the fifth applicant attempted to follow them, the men ordered her to get back inside the house and threatened to kill her if she disobeyed. 11.  While some of the abductors were raiding Abdul Kasumov’s dwelling, others went into his brother’s quarters. According to Abdul Kasumov’s sister-in-law, Ms M.T., the intruders started shooting at the entrance door; some of the bullets hit a sideboard and broke its glass doors. The men swore at Ms M.T. and asked her: “Where is your husband? Where did he go? Is he planting a mine somewhere?” 12. Having spent about thirty minutes at the applicants’ house, some of the men left with Abdul Kasumov whereas others remained in the yard and prevented the applicants from going outside. 13.  The abduction of Abdul Kasumov was witnessed by a number of local residents. According to the applicants, another resident of Mesker‑Yurt who lived about 300 meters away from the applicants, Mr E.M., was abducted on the same night and another resident of Mesker‑Yurt had been abducted a day before. 14.  The applicants stayed in the house until the sunrise. Then they followed the footprints left by the men in the snow. The prints led to the place where the abductors had parked their vehicles. 15.  In the morning of 22 November 2002 the applicants went to the checkpoints located at the roads in and out of the village and enquired about their relative. The on-duty military servicemen ignored their questions. 16.  The applicants have had no news of Abdul Kasumov ever since. 17.  In support of their statements, the applicants submitted the following documents: a statement by the first applicant, dated 2 August 2006; a joint statement by the applicants’ neighbours Mr V.U. and Mrs T.U., dated 12 November 2006; a statement by the fifth applicant, dated 12 November 2006; a statement by the second applicant, dated 26 January 2007; a statement by the fourth applicant, dated 26 January 2007; a statement by the applicants’ relative Ms M.T., dated 26 January 2007; and two hand-drawn maps of the applicants’ household and its premises. 18.  The Government did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants. 19.  On 5 December 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 2 and 15 December 2002) the Shali district prosecutor’s office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) instituted an investigation into the abduction of Abdul Karimov under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 59275 (in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as 48062). 20.  On 10 December 2002 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 21.  On 24 December 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the second applicant’s report of his son’s abduction to the district prosecutor’s office. 22.  On 29 January 2004 the Shali district department of the interior (“the Shali ROVD”) informed the applicants that on 15 December 2002 the district prosecutor’s office had initiated an investigation into the abduction and that operational-search measures were under way. 23.  On 23 June 2005 the third applicant complained about her son’s abduction by military servicemen in camouflage uniforms to a number of State authorities, including the deputy of the State Duma and the Chechnya Government. 24.  On 8 August 2005 the Shali ROVD informed the applicants that on 2 December 2002 the district prosecutor’s office had instituted an investigation into the abduction of Abdul Kasumov and that operational‑search measures were under way. 25.  On 15 September 2005 the Department of the Interior for the Rostov Region informed the applicants that Abdul Kasumov was not sought by the police, that he had not been arrested by their officers and that their information centre had no information concerning his whereabouts. 26.  On 30 September 2005 the Shali ROVD informed the applicants that they were taking operational-search measures to establish the whereabouts of Abdul Kasumov. The text of the letter included the following:
“... [the investigators] have been verifying the theory of the involvement in the abduction of the special forces and power structures stationed in the Shali district of Chechnya. They have been also verifying the theory of possible involvement in the crime of military servicemen, and of members of illegal armed groups [arrested and] currently detained in the Shali detention centre...” 27.  On 3 October 2005 the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior informed the applicants that on 10 May 2003 they had opened search file no. 71475 and that the search for Abdul Kasumov was being carried out in accordance with the plan approved by the head of the ROVD. 28.  On 25 November 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicants’ complaint about the abduction of Abdul Kasumov to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 29.  On 7 December 2005 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that on an unspecified date they had suspended the investigation of criminal case no. 59275 for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators. 30.  On 25 September 2006 the district prosecutor’s office issued an information statement in relation to criminal case no. 59275. The document included the following:
“... The preliminary investigation established that on 22 November 2002, at about 3.30 a.m., unidentified persons of Slavic ethnic background in camouflage uniforms, armed with firearms, had broken into the house at 22 Partizanskaya Street and had taken Abdulla Kasumov away to an unknown destination...” 31.  On 22 January 2007 the applicants’ representatives complained to the district prosecutor’s office about the lack of information concerning the investigation and asked to be informed about its progress. 32.  On 1 February 2007 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office replied to the applicants’ representatives, stating that they had forwarded their complaint to the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 33.  On 19 February 2007 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicants’ representatives that they had not established the whereabouts of Abdul Kasumov and that on 15 March 2003 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 15 February 2003) they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the perpetrators. 34.  The applicants did not receive any further information from the authorities concerning the criminal investigation into the abduction. 35.  On 10 December 2002 the applicants reported Abdul Kasumov’s abduction by military servicemen to the district prosecutor’s office. They described its circumstances in detail and asked for assistance in the search for their relative. 36.  On 10 December 2002 the investigators granted the second applicant victim status in the criminal case and questioned him. He stated that at about 3.30 a.m. on 22 November 2002 a group of five or six Russian armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms had broken into his house. The servicemen had had a strong build and had not worn masks. The officers had grabbed Abdul Kasumov and had hit the applicant with rifle butts when he had attempted to prevent them from taking his son away. At the same time more servicemen, around fifteen or twenty, had broken into the other dwellings situated around the courtyard. The servicemen had walked away with Abdul Kasumov in a southerly direction. 37.  On 15 December 2002 the district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 59275 in connection with the abduction of Abdul Kasumov “...by a group of unidentified armed men of Slavic appearance who had broken into the house at 22 Partizanskaya Street, Mesker-Yurt at about 3.30 a.m. on 22 November 2002...” 38.  On 16 December 2002 the investigators questioned the fifth applicant, who stated that early in the morning on 22 November 2002 a group of Russian military servicemen had broken into her house, had handcuffed her husband Abdul Kasumov and had taken him away. The applicant stated that the servicemen had worn camouflage uniforms and khaki helmets resembling those of motorcyclists and that they had spoken Russian among themselves. The servicemen had stopped her from leaving the room. After the abductors had gone, the applicant and her relatives had waited for the sunrise and had then followed the footprints left by the abductors in the snow. The footprints had led to the southern outskirts of the village. 39.  On 17 December 2002 the investigators requested that the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116 inform them whether they had arrested or detained Abdul Kasumov and whether their servicemen had left the premises of the military unit on the date of the abduction. No reply was given to this request. 40.  On 19 December 2002 the investigators requested that the Shali ROVD provide them with assistance in establishing the perpetrators of Abdul Kasumov’s abduction and inform them whether they had detained the applicant’s relative. 41.  On 29 December 2002 the second applicant complained about his son’s abduction by military servicemen in camouflage uniforms to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office. The applicant provided a brief description of the circumstances of the abduction and stated that the abductors could have belonged to the Federal Security Service. 42.  On 30 December 2002 the investigators requested that the Stavropol Regional detention centre (IZ-26/2) inform them whether Abdul Kasumov was detained on their premises. The detention centre replied in the negative. 43.  On 6 and 8 January 2003 the Shali ROVD replied to the investigators’ requests of 19 December 2002, stating that they could not establish the perpetrators of Abdul Kasumov’s abduction and that he was not detained on their premises. 44.  On unspecified dates in December 2002 and January 2003 the investigators sent queries to the Gudermes ROVD and the Argun ROVD in Chechnya asking whether those agencies had arrested or detained Abdul Kasumov or whether his corpse had been found in their districts. Negative replies were received from both ROVD bureaus. 45.  On 15 February 2003 the investigators suspended the investigation of the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators. 46.  On 29 August 2005 the investigators replied to the first applicant’s request for information about the progress of the criminal case. The letter stated that on an unspecified date the investigation had been suspended, but that operational-search measures were under way. 47.  On 24 August 2009 the supervisory prosecutor from the Chechnya prosecutor’s office ordered that the investigation of Abdul Kasumov’s abduction be resumed and provided the investigators with a list of measures to be taken by the investigators in the criminal case. The Government did not disclose the contents of this document. 48.  According to the Government, the investigation has neither established the whereabouts of Abdul Kasumov nor found his corpse. The investigators found no evidence to support the involvement of military servicemen or representatives of law-enforcement agencies in the abduction. The law-enforcement authorities of Chechnya had never arrested or detained Abdul Kasumov on criminal or administrative charges and had not carried out a criminal investigation in his respect. No special operations had been carried out against the applicants’ relative. 49.  Despite a specific request by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the contents of criminal case file no. 59275, providing only copies of “main documents” from the case file amounting to twenty-seven pages. The Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the rest of the documents would be in violation of Article 161 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure and to the detriment of the investigation and the participants in the criminal proceedings.