5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is serving a prison sentence in the Vladimir Region. 6.  On 11 April 2003 the police arrested the applicant in his house in the presence of his family. According to the applicant, in the course of the arrest, the police officers severely beat him up and burnt his body with cigarette butts and matches. 7.  The applicant was taken to the Staropromyslovskiy police station by car. When questioned by the deputy prosecutor, the applicant admitted having been present during the murder of two law-enforcement officers, having been involved in a car-jacking and having been in possession of firearms. It appears that on the same day the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny authorised the applicant’s placement in custody. 8.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with several counts of murder, membership of an armed criminal gang, unlawful possession of firearms, theft and car-jacking. 9.  When questioned in the presence of lawyer Ts. on 12 April 2003, the applicant reiterated his statement of 11 April 2003. According to the record of the questioning, he confirmed that he had made his statement voluntarily. 10.  On 14 April 2003 the applicant was blindfolded and taken to a temporary detention centre of the ORB-2 (Operative investigation bureau). During the night he was taken to an office on the fourth floor. According to the applicant, police officers made him kneel and attached telephone cable to his fingers, subjecting him to electrocution. They also hit him with a rubber truncheon. 11.  On the same date the applicant was questioned and confessed to killing A. and to his involvement in the killing of the Kham. brothers. Lawyer Ts. was present during the questioning. The applicant reiterated his confessions when questioned again, in the presence of the same lawyer, on 21 April 2003. 12.  The applicant remained at the ORB-2 temporary detention centre for two months. He was repeatedly ill-treated by the same police officers. On an unspecified date the applicant signed a written confession. 13.  The applicant’s mother, who visited him at the beginning of June 2003, submitted a written statement that she had seen a purulent wound on the back of the applicant’s head. 14.  On 20 June 2003 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. IZ-20/1 in Grozny. He was examined by a doctor who noted that the applicant had marks on the back of his head caused by beatings and three cigarette burns on his body. It also transpired from a report signed on 20 June 2003 by two officials of the remand prison and an employee of ORB-2 that the applicant had been handed over to the remand prison “with the following injuries from ill-treatment: (1) cigarette burns (many); (2) [injuries] on the back of the head.” 15.  The applicant’s mother visited him again on 21 or 22 June 2003. In her written statement to the Court she testified that his entire body had been dark blue, and he had had numerous burn marks and a wound on the head. 16.  On 11 October 2003 the applicant was transferred back to the Staropromyslovskiy temporary detention centre. On the same day he was brought before a judge. He retracted his confession, complained about ill‑treatment and asked for another counsel. 17.  According to the applicant, at 10 p.m. on 12 October 2003 he had been taken from his cell to the questioning room at the temporary detention centre. The police officers had handcuffed him, put a plastic bag on his head and started to beat him and torture him with electricity. They had told him that he should not have retracted his confession and that in the future he should always confirm his self-incriminating statements and show remorse. After the applicant had been returned to his cell he unsuccessfully attempted to take his life by slashing his wrists. 18.  On 23 October 2003 the applicant was examined by the doctor of the remand prison, who noted that he had many abrasions on his left forearm. 19.  On 10 January 2004, when questioned in the presence of lawyer B., the applicant chose to remain silent. 20.  During the trial the applicant was represented by two lawyers. He retracted his confession and claimed that he had confessed under torture. He complained to the trial judge that his arrest and detention at ORB-2 had been unlawful, that he had been repeatedly ill-treated and threatened, and had finally been forced to confess. He pleaded not guilty. 21.  On 5 October 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chechnya convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-four years’ imprisonment. It based its decision on the applicant’s confession, confessions of his co-defendants, witness statements to the investigator and the court, and ballistic expert reports concluding that the victims had been shot with the weapons found in the applicant’s house. 22.  In reply to the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and forced confession, the court referred to the prosecutor’s decision of 11 May 2004 (see paragraph 27 below). It reviewed the prosecutor’s findings and found that they had been correct. In particular, the court agreed with the prosecutor that the medical examination had not confirmed the ill-treatment and that the witness statements had been unconvincing. The witnesses had not seen the beatings themselves and had been unable to name the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant. Moreover, despite the applicant’s claim to the contrary, at least one of the witnesses, Vlad., had known the applicant prior to his arrest. The court also referred to the medical certificate of 22 April 2003 from which it transpired that the applicant had no injuries. Lastly, it pointed out that the applicant had been assisted by counsel during the entire investigation. The court concluded that the prosecutor’s decision of 11 May 2004 had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. 23.  The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that he had given his confession under duress. He had been unlawfully held at ORB-2, where he had been ill-treated and forced to confess. The prosecutor’s inquiry into his allegations of ill-treatment had been inadequate and ineffective. 24.  On 8 June 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on appeal and reduced the sentence to twenty-three years and ten months’ imprisonment. With respect to the allegations of ill-treatment, the court noted that there was no evidence that the applicant’s confession had been given under duress. 25.  In the course of the trial the applicant’s counsel complained to the court that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment during the arrest and whilst in police custody. The court ordered the prosecutor to carry out an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations. 26.  The prosecutor’s office of the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny conducted an inquiry. The prosecutor questioned the applicant, his co-defendants and co-detainees, and the alleged perpetrators. 27.  On 11 May 2004 the prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment as unsubstantiated. The investigator and the prosecutor’s office summarised the findings of the conducted inquiries as follows:
“When questioned, [the applicant] stated that on 11 April 2003 he was arrested ... In the course of the arrest, he was beaten up. [The police officers] burnt him with cigarettes and matches. Then he was taken to [the police station]. Several days later, with a knitted hat pulled over his face, he was taken to [ORB-2] and placed in cell no. 4. On the same night [the police officers] took him to an office on the fourth floor. He was made to kneel. They attached two telephone cables to his fingers and tortured him with electricity. They also beat him with a rubber truncheon. The torture continued every day and night with brief intervals. He had a scar on the back of his head ... On 13-14 October 2004 he was beaten up at [the temporary detention centre] because he had retracted his earlier testimony. He was beaten up by [police officers Bis., Has., Zhab. and Alis.]. The fact that he had been beaten up could be confirmed by Sul. and Khad.
When questioned, [co-defendant] Ch. submitted ... that he had no knowledge as to whether [the applicant] had been subjected to any ill-treatment. When he saw [the applicant] at [ORB-2], he had no visible traces of beatings. He looked quite normal. [The applicant] complained to him through the wall separating their cells that he had been beaten up.
...
When questioned, Vlad. submitted that around the beginning of May 2003 he had been arrested by [the police] and placed in cell no. 4 at [ORB-2]. [The applicant] had been brought into the cell at night. He had had bruises on his face. [Vlad.] further submitted that ... [the applicant] had been taken for questioning during the night. He had not seen [the police officers] who had taken and then brought back [the applicant]. ... He had seen [the applicant] ... for the last time in the remand prison in Grozny. He had looked well. As regards the use of force against [the applicant] in the course of the preliminary investigation, he had been told about it by [the applicant] himself.
When questioned, Sul. submitted that he had been arrested [by police] in mid‑March 2003 and had been detained in the temporary detention centre. In mid‑April 2003 [the applicant] had been placed in the same cell. [The applicant] had been severely beaten. [Sul.] had seen a wound on [the applicant’s] head and red spots on his chest. ... he further submitted that he had not witnessed how [the applicant] had been beaten; he had seen [the applicant] only afterwards.
...
When questioned, Khad. submitted that he had been detained in [ORB-2]. In mid‑April 2003 he had heard the police officers mention the [applicant’s] name. At that time, the vent in the door to his cell had been open. He had seen through the vent that [the applicant] had been undressed by the guards ... He had seen dark blue bruises on the [applicant’s] back.
... T., deputy head of the [temporary detention centre] in Grozny, submitted that on 11 October 2003, upon arrival at the temporary detention centre, [the applicant] had been examined by a doctor. [The applicant] had not complained about his condition. During the time of [the applicant’s] detention in the temporary detention centre, he had never been questioned during the night. Any work with the suspects after 10 p.m. was prohibited ... Whilst in detention in the temporary detention centre, the applicant had slashed his wrists and received medical assistance.
When questioned, ... Bis. submitted that on 11 April 2003 during the [applicant’s] arrest ..., his unit had cordoned off the perimeter to prevent the [applicant’s] escape. The [applicant’s] arrest had been carried out by the [criminal investigation unit of the police]. When [the applicant] had been arrested, they had removed the cordon. ... He had entered the house and had seen [the applicant] standing by the wall in the hallway with his arms up. [The applicant] had recognised him because they knew each other. ... He had not seen [the applicant] since. He had not used any force against the applicant.
... Khas. submitted that in April 2003 [the law-enforcement agencies] had carried out the arrest of [the applicant], who had been the leader of an organised criminal group. He had not taken part in the [applicant’s] arrest. He did not know who had arrested him. He had not put any physical pressure on [the applicant]. It was impossible for him to have done so because he had not been involved in the [applicant’s] arrest. ...
When questioned, [police officers] Zhab. and Alis. submitted that in the course of the arrest, [the applicant] had tried to resist and abscond. As a result, force had been used against him. They did not know who exactly had used force against [the applicant]. No physical or psychological pressure had been put on [the applicant] during the preliminary investigation and [the applicant’s] detention. [The applicant] had testified voluntarily. The information given by the [applicant] had led to new evidence being obtained in respect of other participants in the criminal gang ... .
...
When questioned, Sh., the head of the on-call unit of ORB-2, submitted that no psychological or physical force had been used against the detainees in ORB-2. He further explained that the cells ... were equipped with metal doors with vents ... Those vents were kept closed. They were always closed when an arrestee was brought to the premises. This was done to prevent the detainees from seeing each other and communicating. The radio was on all the time. The sound was at full volume in order to be heard in the cells. It was impossible for the detainees to hear any conversation held in the corridor.
...
When questioned, police officer Ul. ... submitted that he and other police officers had arrested [the applicant]. They had had information implicating [the applicant] in the murder of the Kham. brothers and that he had been armed. At the time of the arrest, [the applicant] had been at home eating on the floor. When the applicant had seen the police officers, he had run to the bed trying to get a gun hidden under the pillow. In order to neutralise and arrest [the applicant], he had had to use force and combat techniques. When they had taken [the applicant] out of the house, they had pulled his T-shirt over his head in order to prevent him from fleeing. He had noticed small scars on the [applicant’s] chest and belly. After the arrest, no force had been used against [the applicant]. [The applicant] had asked to be released and had promised to help the police. He had wanted to give information about all the members of the gang whom he knew personally.
...
According to the medical register of the temporary detention centre ... , [the applicant] had complained only about his dry cough ...
...
According to forensic report no. 399 of 5 May 2004 it had been impossible to determine the origin of the scars on the [applicant’s] body because the wounds were infected. There was no forensic data substantiating the allegation that the injuries ... had been caused by electrocution. The deep scar on the front of the right forearm could have resulted from the removal of a lipoma. Multiple ... scars on the front of the left forearm had resulted from injuries caused by stabbing. The position of the scars did not exclude the possibility that they had been self-inflicted.
...
Vlad., Khad. and Sul. were suspects in the criminal investigation. Their statements that they had seen [the applicant] being ill-treated had been refuted by the evidence collected in the course of the present inquiry.
According to the certificate issued by ORB-2, Sul. had been detained there from 25 July to 5 August 2003 and could not have met [the applicant], who had been detained at ORB-2 from 16 April to 20 June 2003. ...
Khad. could not have heard the [applicant’s] name pronounced by someone in the corridor because the radio was constantly on. Nor could he have seen [the applicant] from his cell, because the vents in the cell doors were always kept closed when a new arrestee was brought to the premises.
As regards the statement made by Vlad., it was [the applicant] himself who had told him about the alleged ill-treatment.
The statements made by Vlad., Khad. and Sul. should be interpreted as their attempt to falsely accuse the police officers in order to help [the applicant] ... to evade criminal liability.
Having regard to the above, it was established in the course of the inquiry that force had been used against [the applicant] only in the course of his arrest because he had tried to resist and flee. The actions of the police had been lawful. .... The force used against [the applicant] had not been excessive.
The [applicant’s] allegations ... have not been substantiated by any evidence.
The [applicant’s] allegations ... should be viewed as a line of defence aimed at misleading the courts and evading criminal responsibility.” 28.  On 16 July 2004 the applicant challenged the decision of 11 May 2004 before the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny. According to the Government, the appeal had been lodged by the two lawyers representing the applicant. On 20 July 2004 the statement of appeal was returned to the lawyers because lawyer D. had failed to sign it. According to the applicant, neither he nor his counsel had been informed accordingly; nor had they received the returned statement of appeal. 29.  According to the applicant, on 7 February 2010 his mother had been summoned to the prosecutor’s office in Grozny. An official at the office had allegedly made threats to her in connection with the applicant’s complaints to the Court. He allegedly said that the applicant had lodged too many complaints with the Court and that that might cause him problems. 30.  On 8 February 2010 the house in which the applicant’s family were temporarily living was set on fire. 31.  The official investigation concluded that the fire had resulted from a malfunctioning gas heating system. The possibility of arson was ruled out. 32.  On 17 February 2010 the prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation into the matter. On 12 April 2010 that decision was quashed and the proceedings resumed in connection with the allegations made by the applicant’s mother that she had been threatened by an official working at the prosecutor’s office. The parties did not inform the Court of the outcome of the proceedings, nor did they provide copies of the relevant decisions.


5.  The first and second applicants were born in 1951 and the third applicant was born in 1948. They live in Turkey. 6.  The applicants are the heirs of Mr Salih Ekrem Pekinel and Mr Abdurrahim Pekinel, who were their father and uncle respectively (“ancestors”). The applicants’ ancestors (muris) were allegedly the owners of 2,258,000 square metres of land, along with six other persons (“co‑owners”), in the Maltepe village of the Menemen district in the Izmir province. 7.  On 13 October 1961 the Land Registry Commission (Tapulama Komisyonu) attached to the General Directorate of Land Registration (Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü) conducted a land registry survey (tapulama tespiti) and registered a plot of land (“plot no. 726”) in the Maltepe village as being owned by eight people - the applicants’ ancestors and the other co-owners. 8.  In 1964 the Treasury challenged this land registry survey. It claimed that the land in question had been used as meadowland (mera) and that therefore it had not been correctly surveyed by the Commission. 9.  On 22 May 1974 the land register was amended by the Land Registry Commission and the Treasury was registered as the owner of plot no. 726. 10.  On 29 July 1974 six persons (“the plaintiffs”) filed an action with the Menemen Cadastre Court, requesting that the decision of the Land Registry Commission be set aside. They claimed that the land in question had been registered with their title and that it belonged neither to the Treasury nor to the applicants’ ancestors and the co-owners. 11.  On an unspecified date the applicants’ ancestors filed a counter-claim that they held a share in plot no. 726. They requested that the former records at the land registry, which proved their right of ownership in respect of plot no. 726, be confirmed. They based their arguments on the land registry records of December 1884, which indicated that the land in question was owned by their father, Salih Paşa. 12.  On 14 April 1979 Mr Abdurrahim Pekinel and, on 28 November 1982, Mr Salih Ekrem Pekinel died. The applicants were designated as their heirs. 13.  On 7 July 1986 the Menemen Cadastre Court rendered its judgment. It held as follows:
“The land registry record of 1884 concerning plot no. 726 in Maltepe village was modified. ...
The same record was also modified regarding plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy village. The record concerning this plot became final since there was no objection. ...
According to the initial records, the size of the land was 1,103,163 square metres, whereas the size of plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy was found to be 3,619,600 square metres. It was established that the land’s borders were unclear in the records and thus open to enlargement. According to the case-law of the Court of Cassation and Article 42 of the Law on Cadastre, if the borders mentioned on records were uncertain and suitable for enlargement, the total amount indicated in these records should be taken into consideration.
...
Following the finalisation of the land registry record concerning plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy, both the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in the counter-claim acquired land from this plot.” 14.  The Menemen Cadastre Court further found that the land in question was public property because it had been used as meadowland. Thus it could not be the subject of a determination by the Land Registry Commission. The court concluded that plot no. 726 in the Maltepe village belonged neither to the plaintiffs nor to the applicants’ ancestors and the co‑owners, but to the Treasury. 15.  On 17 November 1988 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Menemen Cadastre Court and remitted the case for reconsideration. The Court of Cassation observed that the Land Registry Commission had established that plot no. 726, which covered 2,258,000 square metres of land, had belonged to some of the plaintiffs. It noted that the Treasury had objected to the registration made by the Commission, claiming that the amount of land shown in the land registry exceeded the amount to which the plaintiffs were entitled. It pointed out that the plaintiffs had challenged the registration with reference to the records kept at the land registry and that the first-instance court had dismissed the case, qualifying the land as a “meadow”. 16.  The Court of Cassation reasoned that the investigation carried out by the first‑instance court was not sufficient to render a judgment. The plaintiffs based their claims on the records kept at the land registry. These records were included in the case file but did not indicate the land’s exact location. Furthermore, the documents concerning the neighbouring plots were not used and the nature of the property was not properly examined. 17.  The Court of Cassation opined that, in order to reach a well-founded conclusion, the documents concerning the neighbouring plots should be included in the file, an on-site examination should be carried out, and local persons who were old and who knew the area should be heard. It considered in particular that issues concerning the nature and the ownership of the land and the identities of the persons who used the land should be determined by way of testimony. In addition, an expert report should be obtained from an agricultural engineer. 18.  The Court of Cassation concluded that taking a decision without making a sufficient examination was incorrect, and that the reasoning as to the necessity of the determination by the Land Registry Commission was not accurate. 19.  Following the decision of the Court of Cassation, the case was remitted to the Menemen Cadastre Court. 20.  The plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in the counter-claim, including the applicants, alleged that plot no. 726 had belonged to Salih Paşa and had been inherited by his heirs. Therefore, neither the Treasury nor other persons had a claim to it. In this connection, they stated that plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy and plot no. 726 in Maltepe had belonged to Salih Paşa and Hacı Velioğlu and that, following an agreement between their heirs, the land had been shared. They alleged that plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy had been given to the heirs of Hacı Velioğlu, whereas plot no. 726 had been reserved for the heirs of Salih Paşa. The applicants averred that they had not acquired any property from plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy. 21.  The representative of the Treasury claimed that all the plaintiffs had received more land than that to which they were entitled after the Land Registry Commission’s decision. He maintained that the plaintiffs had acquired property from plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy. He further claimed that the land in question was meadowland, which could not be qualified as private property. 22.  The Menemen Cadastre Court carried out an on-site inspection and heard evidence from three local experts and an agricultural engineer. 23.  On 13 May 1992 the Menemen Cadastre Court, taking into account the findings of the local experts and the reports of the agricultural engineer, decided that plot no. 726 in Maltepe belonged to the persons specified by the Land Registry Commission in 1961. It therefore ordered the registration of these persons or their heirs, including the applicants, as the owners of plot no. 726 in the Maltepe village at the land registry. 24.  On 21 April 1993 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 13 May 1992 and sent the case file to the Menemen Cadastre Court. 25.  The Court of Cassation reasoned that the first-instance court had not conducted an adequate investigation, the guidelines of which had been indicated in its decision of 17 November 1988. It pointed out that the size of the land in question was 1000 dönüm according to the land registry records of 1884, whereas the land registry records of 1890 had indicated that the size of the land was 1200 dönüm. The court observed in this connection that the first‑instance court had failed to explain the reason for the increase in the size of the land. Moreover, the first-instance court had failed to include in the case file the land registry record of 1875 for the land in question, the documents concerning the neighbouring plots of the land and the military maps of the area. 26.  The Court of Cassation also noted that the land registry record of 1884 referred to some places as being the borders of the land in question, (“sıra melengeç, Yorgaki oğlu, İsmet hanım, harita, Kara istirati, çataka tarlaları and kulak istifanı”), which was not fully comprehensible. Therefore, it should be determined whether the borders of the plot of land were correctly cited in the records at the land registry. The court stated that a map of the disputed plot of land and the neighbouring plots of land should be drawn up, and that the military map of the area, the statements of the experts and the local people should be taken into account when making that map. 27.  Upon receipt of the case file, the Menemen Cadastre Court re-examined the case. 28.  It requested the General Directorate of Land Registration to submit a copy of the records of 1875 kept at the land registry office in respect of plot no. 726. 29.  On 21 July 1994 the General Directorate informed the court that the record in question did not pertain to any plot of land in Seyrekköy. 30.  On 1 December 1994 the Directorate sent the document in question and informed the Menemen Court that the reason for the increase in size of the property could not be determined. 31.  In 1996 the plaintiffs of the initial case, which had been filed in 1974, withdrew their case, informing the court that they did not have a claim to plot no. 726. 32.  The Menemen Cadastre Court carried out two further on-site inspections and took oral evidence from local experts and witnesses. During the on-site visit, a scientific expert and an agricultural expert also inspected the area and submitted their observations concerning the case. 33.  In its judgment of 11 November 1998, the Menemen Cadastre Court stated the following:
“... The disputed property, plot no. 726 in Maltepe, was registered as a meadowland by the Land Registry Commission. The Commission determined the plaintiffs as the owners of the property having regard to the land registry records of 1921, 1946 and 1952. The Land Registry Commission’s decision indicated the size of the land in the amount of 2,258,000 square metres. Following the objection filed by the Treasury, on 22 May 1974, the record at the land registry was revised by the Land Registry Commission and the Treasury was registered as the owner of plot no. 726.
Plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy village was registered with the titles of some of the plaintiffs, who relied on the land registry records for their action.
It has been understood from the local experts’ statements that the words “kulakistifan, yorgakioğlu, çanako, karaistifan”, which were mentioned in the land registry records of 1952, 1890 and 1884, were the names of the Greeks who had left the country after the establishment of the Republic.
According to Article 20/C of Law no. 3402, if the borders indicated in the records and documents were not based on maps or sketches and were uncertain and suitable for enlargement, the amount indicated in these records and documents should be taken into consideration.
According to the case-law of the Court of Cassation the amount shall be taken into consideration if the records have unclear borders.
It has been understood that “kulakistifan, yorgakioğlu, çanako, karaistifan” are the names of Greeks whose whereabouts are unknown. Therefore, the land registry records should be valid as regards the amount of land indicated in them. However, some of the plaintiffs acquired more land than specified in the land registry records for plot no. 1 in the Seyrekköy village. Consequently, the case should be dismissed and, for the reasons explained above, the Treasury should be registered as the owner of plot no. 726 in the Maltepe village.” 34.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against the judgment of 11 November 1998. 35.  After holding a hearing on the merits of the case, on 5 October 1999 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, for the following reasons:
“It has not been proven that the amount of land cited in the land registry records of 1884 included the disputed plot. The record in question and the land registry records of 1926 had been revised in relation to plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy. It has been understood that the size of plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy is actually more than the size mentioned on the land registry records. It has also been understood that the borders indicated in the land registry records in respect of plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy are uncertain. It is clear that the extent of the land in plot no. 1 is greater than that indicated in both the land registry records. Accordingly, it should be acknowledged that the land registry records on which the plaintiffs based their action relate to plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy. Therefore, the judgment should be upheld.” 36.  On 26 February 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ request for rectification of the decision, holding that the land registry records on which the plaintiffs had based their action in fact related to plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy. 37.  The decision dated 26 February 2001 was not served on the applicants. It was deposited with the Registry of the Menemen Cadasre Court on 12 March 2001. The applicants stated that they only learned of it in July 2001.


9.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Karabulak, Ingushetia. The complaint is also brought in respect of the applicant’s son, Khadzhi-Murat Aslanbekovich Yandiyev, born in 1975. 10.  The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant’s son were partially disputed. In view of this the Court requested that the Government produce copies of the entire investigation file opened in relation to Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev’s disappearance. 11.  The parties’ submissions on the facts concerning the circumstances of the apprehension and disappearance of the applicant’s son and the ensuing investigations are set out in Sections 1 and 2 below. A description of the materials submitted to the Court is contained in Part B. 12.  The applicant’s son, Khadzhi-Murat Aslanbekovich Yandiyev, was born on 27 August 1975. Until August 1999 he was a student at the Moscow Sociology University. The applicant submits that he left the University in August 1999 before completing his final year of studies. One of his classmates told the applicant that her son had travelled to Grozny, Chechnya. The applicant believes that he wanted to find his father, who had apparently gone there. She has not heard from her son since August 1999. 13.  In autumn 1999 hostilities began in Chechnya. After Grozny was captured by federal forces in late January - early February 2000, a large group of Chechen fighters left the city and moved south-west towards the mountains. En route the fighters, and anyone leaving the city with them, encountered mine fields. Many people sustained injuries, especially to their feet and legs. Many of the wounded were treated in a hospital in the village of Alkhan-Kala (also called Yermolovka), which was taken by the Russian military in early February 2000. 14.  On 2 February 2000 the applicant saw her son on a news broadcast about the capture of Alkhan-Kala by the Russian forces. He was wearing camouflage uniform and was being interrogated by a Russian officer, who was also wearing camouflage. 15.  The applicant later obtained a full copy of the recording, made by a reporter for the NTV (Russian Independent TV) and CNN who had entered Alkhan-Kala with the federal troops. A copy of that recording and a transcript of the interrogation have been submitted to the Court by the applicant. 16.  The recording shows the applicant’s son, who is standing near a bus with wounded men. The bus is surrounded by Russian soldiers and the wounded are being removed from the bus. A passing soldier pushes the applicant’s son on his right leg; he winces with pain. He is speaking in a low voice and his words are barely audible. The officer questioning him is speaking in a harsh voice. The following is a translation of the relevant parts of the transcript:
“Officer: - Turn your face [to me]! Turn it properly. Who are you?
The detainee answers something, but the words are not audible.
Officer: - What did you say? From Ingushetia? - / The detainee says something about Nazran/ - From Nazran? Where do you live in Nazran?
Another serviceman who is standing nearby orders: Hands out of your pockets!
...The officer takes something - identity documents - from the pocket of the detainee’s camouflage jacket, and inspects them, asking questions. The answers are not audible.
Officer: - What is your last name? What is your first and patronymic name?
The detainee: - Born on 27 August 1975.
Another officer: - Alexander Andreyevich, we need to get the convoy group ready. We have to take all three buses there.
The officer takes something out of a small leather packet, wrapped in cellophane, that was among the detainee’s papers [apparently, a compass], and shows it to somebody: - There, you see! A solid, trained fighter.
He puts the device back into the packet and wraps it in cellophane.
Another officer asks: - Where did you leave your arms?
The detainee, shown with his head to the side: - My weapons were left over there.... /Says something about a mine field. /
The second officer repeats: In a mine field?
...The officer, pointing at his camouflage jacket: - From which soldier did you take this? From a federal soldier? From [one of] your soldiers?
The detainee says something to the effect that it was given to him. He says something about “fighting against”.
The officer: - Fighting against whom? Fighting against such [people] as here? Why did you come here? People are dying because of you!
The detainee: - Because of me?
The officer: - Of course!
The detainee: - People are dying...
The officer: - Take him away, damn it, finish him off there, shit, - that’s the whole order. Get him out of here, damn it. Come on, come on, come on, do it, take him away, finish him off, shoot him, damn it...
The detainee is led away by two soldiers”. 17.  The video also shows Russian military equipment and other wounded detainees. They are taken out of the buses or remain inside; many have their feet and legs wrapped in bandages or cellophane. The video also contains interviews with the villagers of Alkhan-Kala, who say that the village was shelled on the previous day. 18.  The CNN journalists who filmed the interrogation later visited the applicant in Ingushetia and identified the interrogating officer as Colonel-General Alexander Baranov. 19.  After seeing her son on the news broadcast on 2 February 2000, the applicant immediately began searching for him. She has had no news of him since. 20.  She applied on numerous occasions to prosecutors at various levels, to the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice, to the Special Envoy of the Russian President for rights and freedoms in the Chechen Republic, and others. She also personally visited detention centres and prisons in Chechnya and other regions in the Northern Caucasus. 21.  Acting on the applicant’s behalf, the NGOs Human Rights Watch and Memorial and the Head of the OSCE mission in Chechnya forwarded requests for information about her son to various bodies. 22.  The applicant received very little substantive information from official bodies about the investigation into her son’s disappearance. On several occasions she received copies of letters from various authorities directing her complaints to the Military Prosecutor’s Office for the Northern Caucasus, to the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office and to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102. 23.  On 18 August 2000 the Main Prisons Directorate of the Ministry of Justice (GUIN, Главное Управление исполнения наказаний Министерства Юстиции РФ, ГУИН) informed the applicant that her son was not being held in any prison in Russia. The applicant was advised to apply to the Ministry of the Interior. 24.  On 1 November 2000 the Special Envoy of the Russian President for rights and freedoms in the Chechen Republic replied to the Head of the OSCE mission in Chechnya, stating that the applicant’s son was listed as no. 363 in the list of missing persons compiled by his office following citizens’ complaints. On 1 November 2000 his office had forwarded a request for information in respect of Yandiyev’s whereabouts to the Prosecutor General. 25.  On 24 November 2000 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 in Khankala, where the headquarters of the Russian military forces in Chechnya were based, returned the applicant’s complaint to the Grozny District Department of the Interior, with a copy to the applicant. The accompanying letter stated that there were no grounds to apply to the military prosecutor’s office, because the “attached materials did not corroborate the involvement of any military servicemen in the disappearance of the applicant’s son”. 26.  On 30 November 2000 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 replied to the NGO Memorial that, following examination of its submissions, it had been concluded that “Yandiyev’s corpse had never been discovered and it did not follow from the videotape that he had been killed, as the videotape did not contain such facts.” Consequently, it was decided, under Article 5 part 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not to open a criminal investigation on account of the absence of a criminal act. In a similar reply to Memorial, dated 30 December 2000, the same military prosecutor stated that there were no grounds to conclude that military servicemen had been responsible for the actions shown in the videotape. 27.  On 8 December 2000 the Chechnya Prosecutor informed the Special Envoy about progress being made in several cases, including that involving a videotape “where an officer of the federal forces orders the execution of a wounded fighter. The latter was identified by his relatives as Yandiyev Kh. S. The said videotape has been forwarded to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 for checking and investigation under Article 109 of the Criminal Procedural Code”. 28.  On 18 December 2000 the Moscow bureau of Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the General Prosecutor with the following questions:
“(1) Was a criminal investigation opened into Yandiyev’s disappearance?
(2) Was the identity of the interrogating officer established?
(3) Was he questioned? If not, why not?
(4) Were the whereabouts of Yandiyev established, in particular if he was still alive?
(5) Was the interrogating officer or anybody else charged with Yandiyev’s “disappearance”?
If a criminal investigation into Yandiyev’s “disappearance” and ill-treatment has not been opened, please open such an investigation.” 29.  On 29 December 2000 and 24 January 2001 the Military Prosecutor’s Office for the Northern Caucasus informed the applicant and Human Rights Watch that their complaints had been forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. 30.  In February 2001 two individuals, I. and B., submitted affidavits to the head of the Karabulak District Department of the Interior, in which they stated that on 2 February 2000 Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev had been detained in Alkhan-Kala by federal troops. The affidavits did not contain the addresses of I. and B. and did not explain how they became aware of Yandiyev’s detention. 31.  On 13 February 2001 the Chechnya Prosecutor wrote to Memorial acknowledging receipt of the videotape depicting Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev’s interrogation. The videotape had been forwarded to military unit no. 20102 for the purposes of the investigation. 32.  On 13 and 27 February 2001 the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 forwarded all requests pertaining to the case to the Grozny District Department of the Interior. 33.  On 16 May 2001 Human Rights Watch wrote to the Military Prosecutor’s Office for the Northern Caucasus, asking the prosecutor to quash the decision by the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 not to open a criminal investigation. The letter referred to the contents of the videotape and to the fact that Yandiyev had not been seen subsequently. It again requested that the officers who appeared in the recording be identified and questioned. In reply, on 31 May 2001 the Military Prosecutor’s Office wrote that an inquiry would be conducted. On 22 June 2001 it informed Human Rights Watch that all the documents pertaining to the case had been transferred to the Grozny District Department of the Interior. 34.  On 14 July 2001 a prosecutor from the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal investigation no. 19112 into the abduction of Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev by unidentified persons in February 2000 in Alkhan-Kala. The decision referred to Article 126 part 2 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). 35.  On 17 August 2001 Human Rights Watch again sent a letter to the Chief Military Prosecutor. On 4 September 2001 he replied that the criminal case was being investigated by the local prosecutors’ office in Chechnya, which would inform the interested parties of its progress. 36.  The applicant submits that in December 2001 she was visited at her home by certain persons who stated that they were carrying out a population census. They asked her and her neighbours about her son and whether he had returned home. The next day they returned and told her that they were from the Karabulak Town Prosecutor’s Office and that they had received documents from the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office pertaining to her son’s disappearance. The applicant confirmed that her son was missing and that she had had no news of him. 37.  On 23 October 2002 the SRJI asked the Chechnya Prosecutor for an update on the investigation into Yandiyev’s “disappearance” and possible killing. No response was given. 38.  On 20 December 2002 the SRJI submitted a similar request for information to the General Prosecutor’s Office. On 4 February 2003 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the SRJI that its letter had been forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office for the Southern Federal Circuit. In March 2003 that Office informed the SRJI that its request had been forwarded to the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office. 39.  On 15 April 2003 the SRJI wrote to the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102 and asked, with reference to its letter of 30 November 2000, for a copy of the decision by which he had refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s complaint about her son’s possible murder. In June 2003 the military prosecutor responded that all documents related to the case had been forwarded to the Grozny District Temporary Department of the Interior (VOVD) on 24 November 2000. 40.  On 7 December 2003 the investigator of the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the investigation in criminal case no. 19112 had been resumed on 6 December 2003. On 6 February 2004 the applicant was informed by the same Office that the investigation had been adjourned for failure to identify the culprits. The applicant was informed that it was possible to appeal that decison. 41.  The applicant submits that on 30 March 2004 she was visited at her home in Karabulak by two persons from the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office who again questioned her about her missing son and about other members of her family. The applicant submitted a description of her son, but explained that she had run out of photographs of him because she had previously submitted them to various offices, including the prosecution service. The applicant signed the record of the questioning. 42.  The applicant referred to the Human Rights Watch report of March 2001 entitled “The ‘Dirty War’ in Chechnya: Forced Disappearances, Torture and Summary Executions” which reports Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev’s story and his “disappearance” after detention by Russian servicemen. 43.  In November 2003 the application was communicated to the Russian Government, which were requested at that time to submit a copy of investigation file no. 19112. In March 2004 the Government submitted 80 pages out of about 200. The Court on two occasions reiterated its request for the remaining documents, to which the Government responded that their disclosure would be in violation of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would compromise the investigation and would prejudice the rights and interests of the participants in the proceedings. 44.  In September 2005 the Court declared the application admissible and reiterated its request for the remaining documents. In November 2005 the Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal investigation file, comprising five volumes (about 900 pages) and three volumes of attachments (about 700 pages). In addition, in January and March 2006 the Government submitted two more volumes of the latest documents from the criminal investigation file (comprising about 470 pages). 45.  The investigation established that the applicant’s son had been detained on 2 February 2000 in Alkhan-Kala, together with other members of illegal armed groups. Immediately after arrest he was handed over to servicemen from the GUIN for transportation to the pre-trial detention centre in Chernokozovo, Chechnya. Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev did not arrive at Chernokozovo and his subsequent whereabouts could not be established. As of July 2001 Yandiyev was placed on the search list as a missing person, and as of October 2004 his name was placed on the federal wanted list. In October 2004 a criminal investigation in respect of Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev was opened by the military prosecutor of the United Group Alliance (UGA) under Article 208 of the Criminal Code – participation in an illegal armed group. 46.  The applicant and her husband were questioned on several occasions and granted victim status in the proceedings. The investigation also identified and questioned a large number of eye-witnesses to and participants in the events, including servicemen from the army, the interior troops and the GUIN, journalists and local residents. Several witnesses confirmed that they had observed the encounter between Yandiyev and Colonel-General Baranov and that the latter’s words had been regarded by everyone present not as an order but as “a figure of speech” aimed at calming down Yandiyev, who had behaved in an aggressive and provocative manner and could have inspired disobedience among the detainees. After questioning Yandiyev had been taken away from the bus containing the other wounded and had been placed against the fence; he had remained there for some time. The file also contains a statement by General Nedobitko, who had been in charge of the operation and who denied that any summary executions had taken place. All servicemen present were questioned as witnesses. No one was charged with a crime. 47.  Colonel-General Baranov was questioned twice about the events and stated that he had not given an order to “shoot” Yandiyev, but that he had intended to stop his aggressive behaviour and to prevent possible disturbances that could have ignited violence and entail further casualties among the arrested insurgents and the federal forces. 48.  Several expert reports were carried out on the video recording in question, in order to establish its authenticity; to establish whether the conversation between General Baranov and Yandiyev could be regarded as a proper order given within the chain of command; to evaluate the psychological state of the persons depicted; and to conclude whether the General had insulted Yandiyev. The videotape was found to be authentic. An expert report also concluded that the words used by General Baranov could not have been regarded as a proper order issued to his subordinates within the military chain of command because of its inappropriate form and contents. 49.  The investigation did not establish the fate of Yandiyev following his transfer to the GUIN servicemen on 2 February 2000. Various detention centres, military and law-enforcement bodies denied that his name had ever been on their records. Several men who were detained in Alkhan-Kala on 2 February 2000 stated that they had not seen Yandiyev after his detention. 50.  Between July 2001 and February 2006 the investigation was adjourned and reopened six times. The case was transferred from the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office to the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office and then to the military prosecutor of the UGA. The majority of documents in the case file are dated after December 2003. 51.  The parties submitted numerous documents concerning the investigation into the disappearance. The main documents of relevance are as follows: 52.  The Government submitted the documents from the criminal investigation file into Yandiyev’s disappearance, comprised of over 2,000 pages. The main documents can be summarised as follows:
a)  Decision to open a criminal investigation 53.  On 14 July 2001 a prosecutor from the Chechnya Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the abduction of Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev, born in 1975, by unidentified persons in February 2000 in Alkhan-Kala. The decision referred to Article 126 part 2 of the Criminal Code (kidnapping). On the same date the criminal case was forwarded to the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office for investigation, which accepted it on 19 July 2001. The case file was assigned no. 19112. In May 2004 the investigation was transferred to the military prosecutor of the UGA, where it was assigned case file no. 34/00/0020-04D.
b)  Statements by the applicant 54.  The file contains the applicant’s letter of 30 May 2001 to the General Prosecutor, in which she stated the known facts concerning her son’s disappearance. She stated that, having seen her son on a news broadcast on 2 February 2000, she immediately set out for Alkhan-Kala. She reached there only on 6 February 2000, and was told that her son, who was listed among 105 detainees, had been transferred to Tolstoy-Yurt. On 8 February 2000 she arrived at Tolstoy-Yurt, where she was told that at 3 p.m. that day the detainees had been transferred to the Chernokozovo pre-trial detention centre. At Chernokozovo she was told that her son was not in their custody and that his name was not on their lists. The applicant had no further news of her son, and requested the prosecutor’s office to establish his whereabouts and to inform her if he had been charged with any crimes. 55.  On 20 January 2002 the applicant was questioned in her home town. Her brief statement repeated the circumstances of her son’s disappearance and reiterated that she had had no news of him. On the same day the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 56.  Later the applicant was again questioned on several occasions. Her husband, Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev’s father, was also questioned and confirmed her previous statements.
c)  Statements by witnesses to Yandiyev’s detention 57.  The investigators questioned the witnesses to the encounter between General Baranov and Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev, including servicemen and journalists. 58.  In December 2003 and January 2004 the investigation questioned several officers from special police forces (OMON) from the Novgorod region. They submitted, almost word for word, that from November 1999 to March 2000 they had been on mission in Alkhan-Kala and that in early February 2000 an operation had been carried out in the village. Their detachment was being held in reserve, but they were aware that a large group of fighters had entered the village, and several thousand federal troops, with support from aviation and armoured vehicles, had captured a large number of fighters – possibly about 700 persons. The operation was under the command of General-Major Nedobitko, the commander of a division of the interior troops, and was visited by Major-General Vladimir Shamanov, the head of the Western Zone Alignment. The Federal Security Service (FSB) and members of the military intelligence dealt with the detainees. 59.  Several army servicemen stated in September and October 2005 that, on 2 February 2000, a group of senior officers headed by Colonel-General Baranov, who at the time had headed the UGA staff, had arrived in Alkhan-Kala by helicopter. They came because a large group of fighters, including casualties, had been detained. They were accompanied by journalists, including TV cameramen. They first visited the Alkhan-Kala hospital, where a large group of wounded fighters was found in the cellar. The cellar was dirty, the wounded were lying on the floor and there was a strong smell of decay. The soldiers deposited a large number of arms and ammunition collected from the fighters near the hospital. They then went to Alkhan-Kala’s central square to see a convoy of three or four buses containing fighters, some of them wounded. The buses were blocked on all sides by army vehicles and guarded by servicemen, who had already disarmed the men inside. Local residents had gathered to watch behind the security cordon. When the senior officers approached the buses they noticed one of the fighters near the first bus, who had been talking to a reporter. He was wearing a new army camouflage jacket and behaved in an aggressive and provocative manner, trying to instigate the detainees and local residents to disobey. The witnesses suggested that he had been under the influence of narcotics. Some witnesses also noted that he was wounded in the hip. Colonel-General Baranov talked to the detainee and calmed him down using harsh words, saying that he should be shot. He also found identity documents, a compass and a map in his pocket. The soldiers then took the detainee away from the bus containing the other fighters and placed him next to a metal fence about five metres away, where he remained calmly for an hour or an hour and a half. Colonel-General Baranov and other army officers left Alkhan-Kala after about an hour and a half, and the detained fighters were left in the charge of the GUIN servicemen. The witnesses stressed that Baranov’s words had not been regarded as an order, that Yandiyev had remained near the bus for a long time after the conversation and that, in any event, there had been far too many people around to issue or to carry out such an order. They also specified that most of the servicemen appearing in the videotape belonged to the Ministry of the Interior (OMON) or Ministry of Justice (GUIN) troops, and thus were not subordinate to a Colonel-General in the army. They denied that summary executions had taken place. 60.  In May 2004 the investigation questioned General-Major Nedobitko who had headed the operation in Alkhan-Kala. He stated that the operation had been carried out by a joint group of the army, internal troops, police units from Chechnya and other regions and GUIN troops from the Ministry of Justice. Work with the detainees came within the competence of the GUIN units. He denied that the servicemen had committed summary executions. 61.  Journalists and cameramen from NTV, RTR and the army’s press service stated that Yandiyev had told the reporters that he had been in charge of a small group of fighters. During the encounter with General Baranov he had behaved in a slowed-down manner, as if under the influence of narcotics. They also testified that Yandiyev had behaved aggressively and thus provoked General Baranov’s remarks. One reporter testified that after the conversation depicted in the videotape Yandiyev had been taken to a fence, where he remained for about 10 minutes, after which servicemen put him into an armoured personnel carrier (APC) and drove away. Other reporters stated that he remained by the fence for about an hour or more, until the group headed by Colonel-General Baranov had left. 62.  In November 2005 the investigation questioned Ryan Chilcote, the CNN correspondent who had been at the scene on 2 February 2000. He stated that he had witnessed the dialogue between the wounded fighter, later identified as Yandiyev, and a high-ranking military officer, later identified as Colonel-General Baranov. He confirmed that although his Russian was weak, he could grasp the meaning of the conversation and had understood that the officer had questioned the fighter about his army jacket and later said that he should be “finished off”. He testified that he saw Yandiyev taken away by soldiers to an APC.
d)  Statements by Colonel-General Baranov 63.  The investigation questioned Colonel-General Alexander Baranov as a witness on two occasions – in June 2004 and in September 2005. On both occasions he confirmed that he had a conversation with a young rebel fighter (“boyevik”), later identified as Yandiyev, who had been standing outside the bus with other fighters and who had been creating a disturbance by his statements. The witness stated that he had concluded from the fighter’s inadequate reaction that Yandiyev had been intoxicated, but as there was no smell of alcohol, he thought he might be under the influence of narcotics. The officer said that his harsh reaction had been caused by the detainee’s dangerous conduct, which could have incited other fighters and the villagers to disobey. In his first witness statement Mr Baranov claimed that the video footage had been altered to omit the fighter’s provocative statements. He stressed that the servicemen surrounding him were not his subordinates and thus could not have taken orders from him. In any event, nobody regarded his remarks as an order and Yandiyev was simply taken away from the bus and stood by the fence for a long time afterwards. The GUIN servicemen had dealt with the detainees and Mr Baranov had had no involvement in this.
e)  Expert reports 64.  A number of expert reports were carried out in the case. 65.  In October 2004 experts from the Criminological Institute of the Federal Security Service (Институт криминалистики ФСБ) concluded that the videotape did not contain any signs of altering or editing of image or sound and that the voice which had given the order to execute Yandiyev was that of Mr Baranov. 66.  In October 2005 a professor of linguistics at Moscow State Pedagogical University concluded that, although Colonel-General Baranov had used obscene words and expressions, these were not addressed directly at Yandiyev or anyone in particular and could not therefore be regarded as an insult. 67.  In October 2005 a comprehensive psychological and psychiatric report carried out by two senior medical experts concluded that, judging by the video extract and other materials, the behaviour of both Colonel-General Baranov and Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev on 2 February 2000 had been adequate to the situation and that neither had displayed any signs of weakening of mental performance. 68.  In November 2005 an expert commission made up of three professors from military academies concluded that the extract in the videotape did not contain a valid order given within the chain of command due to its contents and improper form. In particular, the experts’ report recalled that orders had to comply with the Constitution and other legal acts and that they could only deal with matters which were relevant to the work of the military and were within the superior’s competence. Furthermore, orders could only be issued by a superior to an identified person under his command; they were to be given in a clear and unambiguous manner. None of these conditions had been met and therefore the report concluded that neither the Colonel-General nor any of the servicemen present at the scene could have regarded his words as an order.
f)  The situation of other detainees 69.  The investigation collected a large amount of information about the persons detained on 2 February 2000 in Alkhan-Kala. It identified and questioned the servicemen who had participated in the operation and escorted the detainees to the detention centre, and also the drivers of the buses and other detainees. 70.  Musa G., a resident of Alkhan-Kala, was questioned in June 2004 and October 2005. He stated that on 2 February 2000 he had tried to leave the village with his family in a PAZ bus. He was stopped by a group of armed men who ordered him to remove his belongings and to take the bus to the Alkhan-Kala hospital. At the hospital two other PAZ buses, also driven by villagers, were waiting. The armed men took wounded individuals out of the hospital and loaded them onto the three buses; the drivers were initially instructed to travel to Urus-Martan. However, they were not permitted to pass through a military roadblock at the exit of the village and returned to Alkhan-Kala. They were then instructed to go to Tolstoy-Yurt, where, as the witness understood it, the wounded were removed from the buses by servicemen from the Ministry of Justice. The witness identified Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev from photographs and stated that he had seen that individual being placed in an APC in Alkhan-Kala and subsequently transferred to another APC at the military roadblock at the exit from the village. The witness also stated that he had seen how the servicemen searched the man and found a black flag with Arabic inscriptions. He did not see any ill-treatment of the man or of other detainees. He had not seen the man later identified as Yandiyev prior to 2 February 2000, not did he see him afterwards. 71.  In May 2004 B. (see § 30 above) testified that he had known Yandiyev since their childhood in Grozny. In December 1999 and January 2000 he met him in Grozny on several occasions. At that time Yandiyev was wearing his hair long, had a beard and wore an army camouflage jacket, but he was not armed. At the end of January 2000 the witness left Grozny through a “safe corridor” towards Alkhan-Kala. En route the column was shelled and the witness was wounded in the right arm. In Alkhan-Kala he was admitted to hospital, where he again met Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev, who had been wounded in the hip. On the morning of 2 February 2000 three buses were organised to take the wounded to the Urus-Martan hospital, but the convoy was stopped at a roadblock by the military and returned to Alkhan-Kala. There the buses were surrounded by servicemen and military vehicles and the men were taken out of the buses and searched. B. was placed by a metal fence with his back to the buses. He heard Yandiyev’s voice behind him and recalled that Yandiyev talked to some senior officer who ended the conversation by an order to “shoot” Yandiyev. The witness then saw Yandiyev being taken away. He and the other detainees were first taken to a “filtration point” in Tolstoy-Yurt, from where they were transferred to the Chernokozovo pre-trial detention centre about five days later. After that the witness was detained in two other pre-trial detention centres and was released in July 2000. He had not seen Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev after 2 February 2000 and had no news of him. 72.  The investigation obtained documents from the criminal investigation file opened in respect of B. The file contained a police report about his detention in Alkhan-Kala on 2 February 2000 on suspicion of participation in an illegal armed group. On 4 February 2000 B. was questioned in Tolstoy-Yurt and denied the charges. On the same day he was charged with participation in an illegal armed group and his detention was authorised by a prosecutor. In July 2000 the charges were dropped and B. was released under an amnesty granted to persons charged with participation in illegal armed groups in the Northern Caucasus who had not committed any serious crimes. 73.  In December 2005 the investigation questioned two other men who had been detained in February 2000 in Alkhan-Kala and taken to Tolstoy-Yurt. One of them identified Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev from a photograph and stated that he had seen that individual being taken out of a bus in Alkhan-Kala by servicemen. 74.  In November 2005 the investigation questioned several servicemen from the Ministry of Justice, from various regions of Russia, who had been deployed in Alkhan-Kala in February 2000. They stated that although their units had not been involved in the transportation of the three buses, the detainees had been transported on that day to a “filtration point” in the village of Tolstoy-Yurt. They also stated that those detainees who had been identified as “field commanders” or others who were believed to be able to provide valuable information were taken away by officers from the FSB and military intelligence (Главное разведывательное управление, ГРУ Министерства обороны РФ) and were not transported to the filtration points with the other detainees. They also stated that a system of detainee records had been maintained and that individual minutes of detention had been drawn up in respect of each of the detained persons. They estimated that on 2 February 2000 between 100 and 150 persons had been detained on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups. 75.  The Government also submitted to the Court about 700 pages of documents from other criminal investigation files opened in relation to 62 persons detained in early February 2000 in and around Alkhan-Kala. Each of the detainees was questioned on 4 February 2000 in Tolstoy-Yurt, presented with charges and sent to various pre-trial detention centres. A detention order was issued in respect of each detainee, on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups, by a prosecutor. It appears that most of the detainees were later released under an amnesty act. No such documents exist with reference to Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev.
g)  Search for Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev 76.  The investigation tried to obtain information about Yandiyev’s whereabouts from various sources. A number of law-enforcement agencies and detention centres in Chechnya, the Northern Caucasus and further afield in the Russian Federation, including pre-trial detention centre no. 20/2 in Chernokozovo, denied that he had ever been arrested or detained by them. 77.  Their family’s neighbours in Grozny stated that they had not seen the Yandiyevs after they left Grozny in 1994. One neighbour, Ibragim D., questioned in October 2004, testified that in spring 2003 he had noticed a man resembling Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev in a market in Grozny. The witness did not know Yandiyev very well and did not approach the man in the market or talk to him. 78.  Also in October 2004 the investigation questioned a local resident in Alkhan-Kala who stated that in February 2000 he had witnessed Yandiyev’s arrest. He stated that in August 2000 he had noticed a man resembling the detainee in a shop in Alkhan-Kala. The witness did not know Yandiyev personally and did not know him by name. 79.  The investigators questioned a number of Alkhan-Kala residents, including a policeman and the head of the local administration. In similarly worded statements they stated that in early February 2000 a large group of fighters headed by the field commander Arbi Barayev had entered the village. The village had been shelled and large detachments of the federal forces had then entered the village in APCs. None of the villagers questioned had ever heard of Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev, but they stated that several young men from Alkhan-Kala had been detained by the federal forces on that day and later released. 80.  Several of Yandiyev’s classmates from the Moscow Sociology University stated that they had not seen him after the summer of 1999. They described him as a devout young man who had observed Islamic customs and studied religious literature. The investigation obtained a copy of the order by the Rector of the University by which the student Yandiyev had been discharged as of 15 November 1999 for systematic absence from classes. 81.  Yandiyev’s relatives with whom he had lived in Moscow from 1993 to 1999 testified that he had left for Chechnya in the summer of 1999 and that they had had no news from him since. 82.  The investigation explored the version that the convoy which had transported Yandiyev from Alkhan-Kala could have been ambushed and that he could have escaped or been killed in the skirmish. It requested information from a number of sources about recorded ambushes of convoys in February 2000 and about escaped detainees, but received no examples of such incidents. None of the servicemen questioned were aware of such incidents. The investigation also explored whether Yandiyev could have used a false identity on arrival at the detention centre in Chernokozovo, but the guards of the facility, questioned in December 2005, testified that all the detainees who arrived there had been in possession of identity documents or police reports confirming their identities. 83.  In December 2005 the central information bureau of the Russian railroads submitted data to the investigation about all rail road tickets purchased under the name of Yandiyev from February 1998 to October 2005 (over 450 entries). 84.  On 21 January 2006 the investigation ordered a molecular-genetic analysis of the applicant’s blood sample, in order to verify if her relationship could be traced through samples of any persons killed in action while resisting the federal authorities.
h)  Criminal investigation in respect of Yandiyev 85.  On 6 October 2004 the military prosecutor’s office in charge of investigating Yandiyev’s kidnapping opened a criminal investigation into Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev’s involvement in an illegal armed group, a crime under Article 208 part 2 of the Criminal Code. On the same day Yandiyev was charged in absentia with the above crime and his name was included on the federal search list. This investigation was assigned case file number 34/00/0040-04.
i)  Information related to the discovery of bodies in Alkhan-Kala 86.  On 17 February 2005 the military prosecutor responsible for the case adjourned the investigation into Yandiyev’s kidnapping on the ground of failure to identify the culprits. The relevant document summarised the findings by that date. It referred, in particular, to the testimonies of four policemen from the Saratov Region who had been on mission in Chechnya in February 2000. Each of them stated that in mid-February 2000 five male bodies, dressed in camouflage outfits and civilian clothes, had been discovered on the outskirts of Alkhan-Kala, near the cemetery. The residents refused to bury them because they were not from Alkhan-Kala. The bodies were delivered to the Grozny District VOVD, where they were filmed and photographed by officers from the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office. The bodies were then taken by a car belonging to the Grozny district military command to Mozdok, North Ossetia. 87.  The document of 17 February 2005 cited a report by an officer of the Grozny VOVD to the effect that the registration log of the Mozdok forensic centre contained no information about the delivery of unidentified bodies in the first half of 2000. 88.  The document further referred to information from the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office that no criminal investigation had ever been conducted by that office into the discovery of five male bodies at the Alkhan-Kala cemetery in February 2000. 89.  The case file reviewed by the Court does not contain these documents.
j)  The prosecutors’ orders 90.  At different stages of the proceedings several orders were issued by the supervising prosecutors, enumerating the steps to be taken by the investigators. On 3 December 2001 a prosecutor from the Chechen Prosecutor’s Office ordered that all the circumstances of Yandiyev’s disappearance were to be fully investigated, those who had taken part in a special operation in Alkhan-Kala in early February 2000 were to identified, and that the applicant was to be found and granted victim status in the proceedings. 91.  On 6 December 2003 a prosecutor from the Grozny District Prosecutor’s Office noted that “no real investigation has taken place and the necessary steps have not been taken to establish and investigate the circumstances of the case”. He ordered the investigators to question the applicant and her husband about the “personality” of Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev and about the details of their search for him. It was also necessary to find a copy of the videotape containing Yandiyev’s questioning. The document also ordered that steps be taken to identify the detachments of federal forces that could have been involved in the special operation in Alkhan-Kala in early February 2000 and to establish what had happened to the detained persons. 92.  On 1 March 2004 the Deputy Prosecutor of Chechnya ordered the investigators to establish the whereabouts of B. and I. and to question them about the circumstances of Yandiyev’s detention. He also ordered that investigative measures which could help to clarify Yandiyev’s personality, and other necessary measures, be pursued. 93.  Between July 2001 and February 2006 the investigation was adjourned and reopened six times. The most recent order by the Deputy General Prosecutor, dated 10 February 2006, extended the investigation until 16 April 2006. It summarised the findings until that date and ordered the investigation to proceed with identification and questioning of other detained persons and the GUIN servicemen who had participated in the detention of suspects on the date in question, and to check the version that Yandiyev could have escaped from detention or used a false identity etc. 94.  The Government submitted a copy of a TV report by the NTV company dated 2 February 2000. It contains a short interview with Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev, who is shown standing by a bus. He confirms that he walked to Alkhan-Kala from Grozny and that he was with a group of about 15 persons. The footage then shows Yandiyev standing alone by a metal fence and a group of servicemen unfolding a black banner with an Arabic inscription. 95.  The applicant submitted an undated copy of an interview with the CNN producer Ryan Chilcote for an on-line magazine, in which he spoke of how Yandiyev’s questioning was filmed by his crew:
“The Chechen War, especially the second campaign, was my first experience with real warfare. I was able to get close to the action and see a lot of things on both sides of the conflict.
I was travelling with the Russians when they took Alkhan-Kala, a village near the Chechen capital of Grozny. They captured a bunch of Chechen rebel fighters; one of them, a young guy in his 20s, was wearing a Russian uniform he’d obviously taken from a soldier he’d killed. The second-in-command in the Russian military walked up to him and said, “What the hell are you doing in that Russian uniform?” The rebel fighter talked back to him, and they got into a heated debate. The general looked through the guy’s pockets and found his passport. He read all the information out loud. Then he said to two of his soldiers, “Get rid of this guy. Kill him right here.” The soldiers didn’t know what to do. They knew our cameras were rolling. So they just nodded their heads but didn’t do anything.
When the general came through again, he got upset. “I told you to get rid of this guy!” The soldiers dragged the man to an armoured personnel carrier and drove him off. A Russian colonel came up to me and said, “Hey, Ryan, want to shoot an execution?” It was one of those moments when you don’t know what to do as a journalist. On the one hand, I’d be documenting a war crime, the execution of an unarmed man. On the other, it went against my instincts. Just then, the tank I’d come in on began to leave, and I had to jump aboard. A few months later, we went to the rebel fighter’s address, which the general had read aloud on camera, to find out what had happened to him. We showed his mother the tape and asked if she’d heard from him. She hadn’t. It was really difficult—she totally broke down. It’s quite probable he was executed.”


4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budapest. 5.  In April 1997 the applicant bought a flat from a private individual, S.M. The seller stipulated that she had the right to buy back the property until 30 July 1997. However, she was not able to exercise this right because of the lack of sufficient means. 6.  In September 1997 the Land Registry registered the applicant’s property rights on the flat. Subsequently, the applicant requested S.M. to let him have possession. Since S.M. was reluctant to leave the flat, the applicant requested the Gödöllő District Court to order the execution of the purchase contract – which had been concluded by a notary public (közjegyzői okirat) and, therefore, was executable as a final court judgment. The District Court issued the order on 10 November 1997. 7.  Subsequently, S.M. brought an action against the applicant before the Gödöllő District Court, requesting the court to establish the invalidity of the purchase contract and to order the termination of its execution. In April 1998 the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action. On appeal, in October 1998 the Pest County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. 8.  S.M. requested that the case be reopened. The Gödöllő District Court suspended the execution of the purchase contract. The applicant appealed. The Pest County Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision and ordered the continuation of the execution in April 1999. Subsequently, S.M.’s request to reopen the case was dismissed. In May 1999 S.M. again requested the suspension of the execution, but the District Court dismissed her request. 9.  In the meantime, the applicant was charged with the forgery of the contract in question. In view of the ongoing criminal proceedings, the Gödöllő District Court suspended the execution of the contract on 15 July 1999. In May 2003 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, acquitted the applicant. On 12 June 2004 the applicant requested the continuation of the execution. On 13 July 2004 the District Court accepted the applicant’s claim. The Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on 21 October 2004. 10.  According to the information available in the case file, the execution proceedings are still pending.


6.  The applicants were born in 1932, 1938 and 1935 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Sofia, Bulgaria, and the third applicant lives in New York, the United States of America. They are brothers. 7.  The applicants’ father owned a factory, together with the adjacent plot, in the town of Gabrovo. In 1947 the property was nationalised under the Nationalisation of Private Industrial and Mining Undertakings Act 1947. In the following years the authorities added a storey to the main factory building, transformed the factory into a school, and transformed the adjacent plot, together with other plots, into a schoolyard. The transformation was reflected in the relevant zoning plan. In 1964 the property was entered in the State properties register. 8.  In 1983 the applicants’ father died, leaving them as his only heirs. 9.  After the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act” – see paragraphs 25‑30 below) came into force on 25 February 1992, the applicants asked the mayor of Gabrovo to strike the property out of the State properties register. On 30 November 1992 the mayor granted their request, reasoning that the conditions for restitution were in place and that the applicants had become owners of the property by the operation of the Act. The restituted property consisted of a plot of land of 3,730 square metres, the first storey of the two-storey main building of 620 square metres (the second storey, which, as noted above, had been added by the authorities after the nationalisation, remained the property of the municipality), a one-storey accessory building of 200 square metres, and a second one-storey accessory building of 60 square metres. On 28 March 1996 the applicants obtained a notary deed certifying their title to the property. 10.  In the following years the municipality continued to use the building as a school, with the applicants’ consent. However, the municipality sought to settle the issue of its use of the school. In a letter of 13 March 1995 the mayor invited the second applicant to a meeting to discuss the future amount of rent to be paid by the municipality. The outcome of the meeting was not specified by the parties. In a letter of 3 September 1996 the mayor advised the applicants that the municipality intended to start a procedure for the expropriation of the property or its purchase. When the applicants objected, this initiative was abandoned. 11.  In a contract of 3 August 1998 the applicants allowed the municipality to use the property in return for a monthly rent of 3,646,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL). The municipality also agreed to pay the applicants BGL 34,637,000 as compensation for use of the property between 15 October 1997 and 3 August 1998. 12.  On 21 January 1999 the municipal council adopted a resolution to start a procedure for the purchase of the property. It appears that the resolution was subsequently abandoned. 13.  On 17 May 2001 the municipal council adopted a resolution for the purchase of the property. The price was set at the equivalent of 180,000 United States dollars. 14.  On 22 June 2001 the regional governor of Gabrovo ordered the suspension of the execution of the municipal council’s resolution of 17 May 2001. She noted, in particular, that since 1960 the main building and the yard had accommodated a school. She went on to say that the property served the needs of the local community and was municipal public property, that it had never been returned to the applicants, and that the mayor’s decision to strike it out of the State properties register had been made in error. 15.  The governor also brought judicial review proceedings to have the resolution set aside. On 31 October 2001 the Gabrovo Regional Court dismissed her claim. It found that the governor’s assertions that the property had not been returned to the applicants and had remained municipal property were ill-founded. On appeal, in a final judgment of 15 July 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court disagreed and set the resolution aside. It held, inter alia, that the school was municipal public property by virtue of the Constitution of 1991 and interpretative decision no. 19 of 1993 of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 31 below), and had never been returned to the applicants. The court went on to say that since it had not been possible to return the property to the applicants, they were entitled to compensation under the Compensation of Owners of Nationalised Real Property Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act” – see paragraphs 35‑39 below). 16.  Meanwhile, on 1 April 2001 the municipality stopped paying rent to the applicants. On an unspecified date in 2002 they filed a claim for non‑payment of rent against the municipality with the Gabrovo District Court. The municipality filed a counterclaim, seeking a judicial declaration that it was the owner of the property. 17.  On 3 July 2002 the Gabrovo District Court granted the applicants’ claim and dismissed the municipality’s counterclaim. The municipality appealed, but on 20 December 2002 the Gabrovo Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. 18.  The municipality appealed on points of law. On 14 October 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation granted its claim in respect of the main building. It held, in particular, that the municipality had reconstructed that building in such a way that a new building, different from the nationalised one, had been created. That building had been earmarked to accommodate a school and thus serve the needs of the community. The court went on to say that in view of that, the main building could not have been returned to the applicants and had remained the property of the municipality. The judgment in this part was final. The court remitted the remainder of the case, which concerned the two accessory buildings and the plot of land, for re‑examination. It instructed the lower court to examine which part of the plot existed independently of the school, because only that part could have been returned. As for the accessory buildings, the lower court had to determine whether they had been part of the school compound and on that basis decide whether or not they had been subject to restitution. 19.  Having re-examined the case, on 7 October 2005 the Gabrovo Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ claim and allowed the municipality’s counterclaim. It found, in particular, that under the relevant zoning plan the plot of land, together with another plot, had been earmarked to serve the school. The court went on to say that the two accessory buildings and the plot of land were functionally connected with the main building and served the needs of the school. Therefore, they could not have been severed and returned to the applicants. 20.  On 12 December 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld that judgment and held that the property in question had always belonged to the municipality. In the court’s view, the property had been municipal public property at the time when the 1992 Act had come into force, and had therefore not been subject to restitution. The adoption in 1996 of the State Property Act 1996 and the Municipal Property Act 1996 (see paragraph 32 below) had not in itself transformed State and municipal property into private and public property, as that transformation had already been envisaged in the Constitution of 1991. The two Acts had simply laid down the detailed rules governing those types of property. The court went on to say that since the property could not be returned to the applicants, they were entitled to compensation under the 1997 Act (see paragraph 26 below). In addition to those findings, the court also endorsed the findings of the Gabrovo Regional Court and held, in particular, that the disputed plot of land was part of a bigger plot, did not feature as a discrete plot in the zoning plan, and could not therefore have been returned. 21.  Following the Supreme Court of Cassation’s ruling of 14 October 2004 in respect of the main building (see paragraph 18 above), in 2005 the municipality lodged a claim for unjust enrichment against the applicants with the Sofia City Court. It sought repayment of allegedly wrongly paid rent in the amount of 151,207 new Bulgarian levs (BGN), plus interest for the period between 3 August 1998 and 31 March 2001. The proceedings are still pending. 22.  On 24 November 2005 the applicants applied for compensation under the 1997 Act (see paragraphs 35‑39 below). On 25 January 2006 the governor dismissed the application, saying that the applicants had missed the one-year time-limit laid down in the Act, which had expired in 1998. The applicants sought judicial review. In a final judgment of 17 May 2007, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the governor’s decision. 23.  On 27 March 2008 the applicants sent a letter to the chairperson of the municipal council and the mayor of Gabrovo, seeking compensation. Meetings with representatives of the municipal council followed. On 25 May 2008 the applicants sent another letter to the council’s chairperson and the mayor, reiterating their request. According to the applicants, the authorities did not react to that letter. 24.  On 21 October 2010 the municipal council adopted a resolution to close down the school. In April 2011 the applicants sent letters to the mayor, the municipal council and the regional governor, saying that after the closure of the school the property had become private municipal property and should be returned to them.


4.  The applicants were born in 1957, 1952 and 1926 respectively and live in Gerasdorf. 5.  In 1983 land consolidation proceedings were opened in respect of Gerasdorf, where the applicants live as farmers. The proceedings related to a total area of 1,329 hectares, including 60 hectares out of the 200 hectares of the applicants’ farming estate. The applicants and other family members used to farm their land jointly. In addition they had entered into agreements on rights of use (Nutzungstauschvereinbarungen) with other farmers, allowing them to cultivate third-party plots while waiving their rights to cultivate a number of their own plots of land. These agreements had been made orally and had not been entered into the land register. 6.  In 1986 the occupation and valuation schedule (Besitzstands- und Bewertungsausweis) was issued and on 13 November 1986 the provisional transfer of property (vorläufige Übernahme) was ordered. 7.  On 16 May 1990 the District Agricultural Authority issued the consolidation plan (Zusammenlegungsplan), against which the applicants and some other family members appealed on 5 July 1990. Thirty-seven other parties also appealed. 8.  The Regional Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat) granted the applicants’ appeal as well as the appeals of thirty-four other parties in a decision of 28 April 1992 and referred the case back to the lower instance. 9.  In January 1993 the applicants filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag). As a result, the Regional Land Reform Board became competent to deal with the matter. The applicants’ further application for transfer of jurisdiction to the Supreme Land Reform Board was dismissed by the latter on 7 December 1994 on the ground that there had not been an undue delay in the proceedings before the Regional Land Reform Board. Consequently, the proceedings remained pending before the Regional Land Reform Board. 10.  On 19 June 1995 the Regional Land Reform Board having held a hearing issued a new consolidation plan, amending the allocation of compensatory parcels to the applicants and a number of other parties. The applicants appealed. 11.  In a decision of 6 December 1995 the Supreme Land Reform Board decided to suspend the appeal proceedings pending further amendments of the consolidation plan concerning other parties. The applicants filed a complaint against that decision with the Constitutional Court. On 13 March 1996 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint and transferred the case to the Administrative Court where it became pending on 7 May 1996. On 7 November 1996 the Supreme Land Reform Board submitted observations. 12.  On 26 May 1998 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) quashed the decision of 6 December 1995 and ordered the Supreme Land Reform Board to continue the proceedings. 13.  Subsequently between 27 October 1998 and 2 June 1999 the Supreme Land Reform Board conducted comprehensive proceedings. It carried out on-site visits, took expert opinions and held a number of hearings. It appears that in the course of a hearing held in April 1999 two judges declared to withdraw from the case as they were also sitting in related proceedings concerning the applicants’ claim under the Official Liability Act. 14.  By decisions of 2 June and 12 October 1999 the Supreme Land Reform Board, after having held hearings in its new composition, again amended the consolidation plan in respect of the applicants and a number of other parties. 15.  The applicants’ complaint against the Supreme Land Reform Board’s decision of 2 June 1999 was dismissed by the Constitutional Court for lack of prospects of success on 27 September 1999 and the case was transferred to the Administrative Court. After the applicants had amended their complaint, the Supreme Land Reform Board submitted the files on 16 May 2000 and observations on 21 July 2000. 16.  The applicants’ complaint against the Supreme Land Reform Board’s decision of 12 October 1999 was dismissed by the Constitutional Court for lack of prospects of success on 13 June 2000 and the case was transferred to the Administrative Court. After the applicants had amended their complaint, the Supreme Land Reform Board submitted observations on 13 March 2001. 17.  In the meantime, the appeal of a third party against the Supreme Land Reform Board’s decisions, led to an amendment of the consolidation plan concerning the first and third applicants by the Regional Land Reform Board’s decision of 4 July 2000. Their appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Land Reform Board on 6 June 2001. 18.  The first and third applicant’s complaint against the Supreme Land Reform Board’s decision of 6 June 2001 was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 25 June 2003 and the case was transferred to the Administrative Court. The Supreme Land Reform Board submitted observations on 1 October 2003. 19.  In judgments of 3 July 2003, 11 September 2003 and 20 January 2005 the Administrative Court set aside the Supreme Land Reform Board’s decisions of 2 June and 12 October 1999 and of 6 June 2001 for various procedural defects. However, it dismissed the applicants’ argument that the agreements on rights of use concluded by them prior to the opening of the land consolidation proceedings should have been taken into account in the occupation and valuation schedule. In that respect the Administrative Court found that neither section 10 nor any other provision of the Lower Austria Agricultural Act (Flurverfassungs-Landesgesetz) supported the applicants’ position. Consequently, the case was again pending before the Supreme Land Reform Board. 20.  Following hearings on 4 April 2005 and 22 June 2005 the Supreme Land Reform Board issued a new decision on the latter date, again amending the consolidation plan and modifying the land compensation granted to the applicants. 21.  On 28 November 2005 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the applicants’ complaint for lack of prospects of success and transferred the case to the Administrative Court. The Supreme Land Reform Board submitted its observations on 9 May 2006. In January 2008 the Administrative Court requested it to submit further documents. 22.  On 21 February 2008 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ complaints as being unfounded. It confirmed the legal view that the agreements on the use of parcels concluded by the applicants were not to be taken into account in the occupation and valuation schedule. Furthermore, the Administrative Court held that the proceedings had corrected the procedural defects criticised by its earlier decision. Lastly, the compensatory parcels awarded to the applicants complied with the requirements of the Lower Austria Agricultural Act. 23.  The judgment was served on the applicants’ counsel on 11 March 2008. 24.  In 1990 the applicants brought official liability proceedings for loss of earnings as a result of the delays in the land consolidation proceedings and allocation of land of minor quality. Following a first set of proceedings, the Supreme Court, by its judgment of 9 June 1998, remitted the case to the Vienna Regional Civil Court. The proceedings before that court were stayed in June 2000 at the applicants’ request in order to await the outcome of the land consolidation proceedings. They were resumed in June 2008. On 30 December 2009 the Vienna Regional Civil Court dismissed the applicants’ claim. The applicants appealed. The outcome of the proceedings is not known. 25.  At an unknown date, the applicants brought compensation proceedings under section 26a of the Lower Austria Agricultural Act. On 17 February 2009 the Regional Land Reform Board rejected the applicants’ compensation claim. On 29 June 2010 the Supreme Land Reform Board dismissed their appeal.