5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in various districts of the Chechen Republic. They are the close relatives of people who disappeared after allegedly being arrested at their homes by servicemen. In each of the applications, the events took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The alleged abductions were primarily carried out during curfew hours, at night or early in the morning. In some of the cases, the applicants submitted that, at the material time, a special operation was being conducted by military servicemen or law-enforcement agencies in the area, which was subsequently confirmed by the investigation (see, for example, Vezirov and Others (no. 44284/11), Nuraliyevy (no. 48134/11) and Sangariyevy (no. 52182/11)). 6.  The applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. 7.  From the documents submitted, it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions. 8.  In their observations, the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged abductions. 9.  Below are summaries of the facts relevant to each individual complaint. Each account of events is based on statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and to the domestic investigative authorities. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in Appendix I. 10.  The applicant, Ms Petimat Ismailova (in the documents submitted also referred to as Baskhanova), was born in 1980, and lives in Katyr‑Yurt in the Achkhoy-Martan district, the Chechen Republic. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. 11.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov, who was born in 1980. 12.  At the material time, the applicant and her husband Mr Ruslan Baskhanov lived in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. Their house was situated in proximity to the Achkhoy-Martan district military commander’s office. 13.  At about 3 a.m. on 6 January 2004 a group of about fifteen masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house in two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and took Mr Ruslan Baskhanov away. 14.  There has been no news of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov since that day. 15.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 16.  On 9 January 2004 the applicant reported the abduction, and on 15 January 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 38002. 17.  On 15 January 2004 investigators examined the crime scene and collected three bullet cartridges. The expert examination they carried out subsequently concluded that they had been fired from various types of firearms. 18.  On 26 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 replied to the investigators, denying that military servicemen had been involved in the abduction. 19.  On 15 May 2004 the investigation was suspended. 20.  From the documents submitted, it appears that on an unspecified date in July 2007 the investigation was resumed, several witnesses were questioned (see paragraph 29 below) and the proceedings were then suspended. 21.  On 11 June 2008 the investigation was again resumed, and on 16 July 2008 it was again suspended. The applicant was not informed thereof. 22.  On 24 March 2009 the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed as the investigators had failed to take a number of basic steps, such as establishing the owners of the APCs used by the abductors and granting the applicant victim status in the criminal case. On the same date the orders were given, the applicant was granted victim status and the proceedings were resumed. 23.  On 28 March 2009 the investigation was suspended again. The applicant was informed thereof. 24.  On 21 April 2012 the investigation was resumed again. It is still pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 25.  On 9 January 2004 the investigators questioned five of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, all of whom stated that they had learnt of the circumstances of the abduction from the applicant. 26.  On an unspecified date in January 2004 the investigators questioned the applicant, whose statement concerning the events was similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, she told the investigators that the perpetrators of her husband’s abduction had been federal servicemen. 27.  On 22 January 2004 the applicant’s relative and the aunt of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov, Ms A.M., wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, stating that on an unspecified date between 6 and 21 January 2004 she had been invited by the head of the Achkhoy-Martan District Department of the Interior (ROVD) to a meeting with law-enforcement and military officers at the police station. During the meeting, she had pointed out to those present that the military commander had acknowledged that Mr Ruslan Baskhanov had been detained on 6 January 2004 by a law-enforcement agency. From the documents submitted, it transpires that no steps were taken by the investigators to verify this information. 28.  Between February 2004 and May 2005 the investigators questioned about thirty of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, all of whom provided statements similar to the account furnished by the applicant to the Court. 29.  On 18 July 2007 the investigators questioned another four of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, whose statements did not yield any new information. 30.  On various dates between 1 and 10 July 2008 the investigators questioned several more of the applicant’s relatives and neighbours, whose statements did not yield any new information either. 31.  On 24 March 2009 the applicant was questioned again. She reiterated her previous statements.
(c)  The applicant’s contact with the authorities 32.  On 3 June 2004 the investigators replied to a request by the applicant for information, stating that they had taken a number of steps to establish the whereabouts of her abducted husband and that even though on 15 May 2004 the proceedings had been suspended, the measures to identify the perpetrators and establish her husband’s whereabouts were still in progress. 33.  On 26 November 2008 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court declared Mr Ruslan Baskhanov missing. 34.  On 24 February 2009 in reply to a request by the applicant of 27 January 2009, the investigators informed her that she had the right to review only certain documents from the investigation file, but not its entire contents. 35.  On 11 October 2010 the Achkhoy-Martan District Court partially allowed a complaint by the applicant against the decision to suspend the investigation of 28 March 2009 and ordered the investigators to take all necessary steps. 36.  The applicants are:
(1)  Ms Khava Idigova, born in 1961,
(2)  Mr Ibragim Khamzatov, born in 1999, and
(3)  Ms Marem Khamzatova, born in 2000. 37.  The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 38.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Magomed Khamzatov, who was born in 1959. The first applicant is his wife, and the second and third applicants are his children. 39.  At the material time, the applicants and Mr Magomed Khamzatov lived at 93 Saltykova‑Szhedrina Street in the Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny. 40.  At about 5 a.m. on 5 December 2004 the first applicant saw from her window a group of about ten to twelve armed servicemen in military uniforms, masks, bulletproof vests and helmets running down the street and breaking into a nearby house, which belonged to the applicants’ relatives. 41.  Shortly afterwards, the armed men went to the applicants’ house and demanded that the first applicant open the door. They said that they were the police and were conducting identity checks. The intruders, who spoke unaccented Russian, took Mr Magomed Khamzatov outside, along with his passport and some clothing. The first applicant followed the abductors and saw that they had arrived in the neighbourhood in a UAZ minivan parked on a neighbouring street. A number of the applicants’ neighbours saw the servicemen forcing Mr Magomed Khamzatov into the vehicle and driving off. 42.  On the same night the same group of servicemen broke into a neighbouring house occupied by Ms A.T. and her family. The men quickly checked the family’s identity documents and searched the premises. 43.  The applicants have not seen Mr Magomed Khamzatov since his abduction on 5 December 2004. 44.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 45.  On 6 December 2004 (in the documents submitted also referred to as 5 December 2004) investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 46.  On 15 December 2004 (in the documents submitted also referred to as 7 December 2004) the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 33090. On 18 December 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status. 47.  On 15 February 2005 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 48.  On 20 May and then on 24 June 2005 an operational search officer reported to the investigators that Mr Magomed Khamzatov had been an active member of illegal armed groups, which could have been the reason for his detention by law-enforcement agencies. 49.  On 26 May 2005 the investigation was resumed. 50.  On 26 June 2006 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 51.  On 25 December 2007 the supervising prosecutor criticised the way the investigation was being conducted and ordered that it be resumed. 52.  On 2 February 2008 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 2 March 2008. The applicants were informed thereof. 53.  On 24 March 2008, again upon criticism and orders from the supervising prosecutor, the investigation was resumed. 54.  On 25 April, 8 August and 3 October 2008 the investigation was suspended again, and was resumed on 7 July, 3 September and 24 November 2008 respectively upon orders from the supervising prosecutor. The applicants were informed of the last suspension. 55.  On 28 January 2009 the investigation was again resumed and then suspended on 27 February 2009. 56.  On 23 April 2012 the investigation was again resumed. It is still pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 57.  On 5 December 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant and eight of her relatives and neighbours. The witnesses’ descriptions of the abduction were similar to the account furnished by the applicants to the Court. 58.  On 18 December 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who reiterated her previous statement. 59.  Between 25 December 2004 and 20 January 2005 the investigators questioned eight of the applicants’ relatives and neighbours, whose statements did not yield any new information. 60.  On 26 March 2008 the investigators questioned six of the applicants’ neighbours, who did not provide any new information about the circumstances of the abduction.
(c)  The applicants’ contact with the authorities 61.  On 24 February 2005 the father of Mr Magomed Khamzatov, Mr Kh., wrote to the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences, asking them to confirm whether his son was being detained on the premises of the main Russian military base in Khankala, Chechnya. No reply was given to this request. 62.  On 1 April 2005, in reply to a request by the first applicant of 25 March 2005 concerning the progress of the proceedings, the investigators informed her that they were ongoing. 63.  On 12 July 2005 the first applicant requested that the investigators take steps to establish her husband’s whereabouts and resume the proceedings if they had been suspended. 64.  On an unspecified date in October or November 2008 the applicants’ relative and the mother of Mr Magomed Khamzatov, Ms Kh. Kh., complained to the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny that the investigators had failed to take a number of basic steps to solve her son’s abduction and requested that the proceedings be resumed. On 28 November 2008 the District Court rejected the complaint, stating that the investigation had already been resumed that day. 65.  On 25 May 2010, upon a request by the first applicant, the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny declared Mr Magomed Khamzatov dead. 66.  The applicants are:
(1)  Mr Zaurbek Vezirov, born in 1954,
(2)  Ms Aminat Vezirova, born in 1957,
(3)  Ms Raisa Bibulatova, born in 1979,
(4)  Ms Eliza Vezirova, born in 1990,
(5)  Ms Elina Vezirova, born in 1990,
(6)  Ms Rukiyat Vezirova, born in 1986 and
(7)  Ms Zhansari Vezirova, born in 1980. 67.  The first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants live in the settlement of Ilyinovskoye (also spelt Ilyinovka) in the Naurskiy district, the Chechen Republic. The sixth applicant lives in the Rostov region and the seventh applicant lives in Grozny. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 68.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Kharun Vezirov, who was born in 1977, and Mr Askhab Vezirov, who was born in 1979. The first and second applicants are their parents, and the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are their sisters. The third applicant is the wife of Mr Askhab Vezirov. 69.  At the material time the applicants, along with Mr Kharun Vezirov and Mr Askhab Vezirov and other relatives, lived at 4 Nagornaya Street in Ilyinovskoye. 70.  At about 4 a.m. on 7 July 2003 a group of about ten servicemen arrived at their house in several UAZ vehicles and a GAZEL minivan. The servicemen, who were armed and in camouflage uniforms and masks, checked the identity documents of the family members and then dragged Mr Kharun Vezirov to the backyard, where they subjected him to beatings, demanding in unaccented Russian that he show them the firearms he had allegedly hidden in the house. Having searched the house, the servicemen forced Mr Kharun Vezirov and Mr Askhab Vezirov into the minivan and drove off in the direction of Argun, a nearby town. 71.  The applicants have not seen the two brothers since that date. 72.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 73.  On 27 February 2004 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 34025. 74.  On various dates in March and April 2004 the investigators requested that the Grozny ROVD assist them in the search for the Vezirov brothers stating, amongst other things:
“[...] on 7 July 2003 in Ilyinovskoye, a special operation involving a large number of military servicemen and policemen was carried out...” 75.  On 9 March 2004 the third applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case, and on 25 May 2004 the first applicant was also granted that status. 76.  On 27 May and 29 July 2004 the investigation was suspended and then on 22 June and 17 August 2004 respectively it was resumed upon orders from the supervising prosecutor. 77.  On 12 March 2007 and 14 April 2011 the applicants were informed that the investigation had been suspended on 19 September 2004 for failure to identify the perpetrators. 78.  From the documents submitted, it appears that the investigation was resumed on or around 29 May 2012 and is still pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 79.  On 25 February 2004 the investigators questioned the first, second and third applicants, whose statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, the second applicant provided the investigators with a detailed description of the appearances and uniforms of two of the abductors. 80.  On March 2004 the investigators questioned the first and third applicants and one of the applicants’ neighbours, Mr Kh.-A.A. again, whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the applicants’ account submitted to the Court. 81.  On 2 September 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who stated that he suspected that the abduction of his sons had been perpetrated by State agents because of his family’s kinship with a certain Mr Abubakar, who had been an active member of illegal armed groups. He also stated that his son Mr Kharun Vezirov had fought against the federal forces during the first military campaign in Chechnya in 1996. 82.  On 6 September 2004 the investigators questioned the third applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements. 83.  On 9 September 2004 the investigators questioned the head of a local state enterprise, Mr A.A., who stated that there were no detention facilities on their premises.
(c)  The applicants’ contact with the authorities 84.  On 9 June 2004 the third applicant wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, asking for assistance in the search for her abducted relatives. 85.  On an unspecified date between January and March 2007 the applicants requested information on the progress of the investigation. They were informed in reply on 12 March 2007 that the proceedings had been suspended on 19 September 2004 (see paragraph 77 above). 86.  Between 24 and 27 July 2009 the applicants requested their representatives to assist them in dealing with the investigative authorities and establishing the circumstances of the abduction. 87.  On an unspecified date between January and March 2011 the applicants again requested information on the progress of the investigation. They were informed in reply on 14 April 2011 that the proceedings had been suspended since 19 September 2004 (see paragraph 77 above). 88.  The applicants are:
(1)  Ms Khazan (also spelt as Khaza) Ismailova, born in 1957,
(2)  Ms Medni Isayeva, born in 2003, and
(3)  Ms Zina Ismailova, born in 1939.
The first and second applicants live in Goyty, and the third applicant lives in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 89.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Aslambek Isayev, who was born in 1981. The first applicant is his aunt, the second applicant is his daughter, and the third applicant is his grandmother. 90.  At the material time, the applicants and Mr Aslambek Isayev lived together in flat no. 8 (in the documents submitted also referred to as no. 11) in a block of flats at 54 Tobolskaya Street in Grozny. The applicants’ neighbourhood was surrounded by military checkpoints and the area was under curfew. 91.  At about 3 a.m. on 16 April 2003 a group of about ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the block of flats in two UAZ vehicles. They broke into the applicants’ flat, asked the applicants in unaccented Russian whether any firearms were hidden on the premises and quickly searched it. Afterwards, they told the applicants that identity checks had been conducted in the area and that more than fifty people had already been arrested as a result. They then said that they would check Mr Aslambek Isayev’s identity, put him in one of the UAZ cars and drove off. 92.  The applicants have not seen Mr Aslambek Isayev since 16 April 2003. 93.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 94.  On 1 May 2003 the Grozny town prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 40070. 95.  On 19 May 2003 the wife of Mr Aslambek Isayev, Ms M.M., was granted victim status in the criminal case. 96.  On 22 May 2003 the crime scene was examined. No evidence was collected. 97.  On 1 August 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. The applicants were informed thereof. 98.  On 12 May 2005 the decision to suspend the proceedings was overruled for failure on the part of the investigators to take basic steps and the proceedings were resumed. On 15 June 2005 they were again suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 99.  From the documents submitted, it appears that on an unspecified date in 2012 the investigation was resumed and that it is still pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 100.  On 15 May 2003 the investigators questioned the third applicant, whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, she told the investigators that Mr Aslambek Isayev’s abductors had informed her of the identity checks in the area resulting in the arrest of about fifty local residents. 101.  On the same date, 15 May 2003, the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative and Mr Aslambek Isayev’s wife, Ms M.M., who stated that on the morning of 16 April 2003 Mr Aslambek Isayev had been arrested by military servicemen who had arrived in two UAZ vehicles. 102.  On 19 May 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement about the events was similar to the one given by Ms M.M. on 15 May 2003. 103.  On 8 June 2005 the investigators questioned Ms M.M. again, who reiterated her previous statement.
(c)  The applicants’ contact with the authorities 104.   On 12 May 2003 Ms M.M. requested that the Chechnya prosecutor’s office assist her in the search for her husband. 105.  On 7 June and 21 December 2005 and then in March 2006 the first applicant complained to a number of law-enforcement authorities, including the Chechnya military prosecutor’s office and the Chechnya prosecutor’s office, that Mr Aslambek Isayev had been abducted by “representatives of power structures” and that the investigation into the matter had been ineffective. 106.  On 20 January 2008 Ms M.M. complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Grozny that the investigation had been ineffective. The complaint was left without examination. 107.  On 15 April 2009 the first applicant requested that the investigators allow her to access the investigation file. On 16 April 2009 the investigators replied that she was allowed to make copies of only certain documents from the file. 108.  On 26 January 2011 the applicants complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court, stating that the investigation into the abduction had been ineffective. The outcome of this complaint is unknown. 109.  The applicants are Ms Maret Nuraliyeva, who was born in 1970 and lives in Grozny, and Ms Aset Nuraliyeva, who was born in 1972 and lives in Dyshne‑Vedeno, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. 110.  The applicants are sisters of Mr Daud Nuraliyev, who was born in 1979, and Mr Khalid Nuraliyev, who was born in 1974. 111.  At the material time, the applicants, their two sisters and four brothers, including Mr Daud Nuraliyev and Mr Khalid Nuraliyev, lived together in Chechen-Aul in the Grozny district. 112.  Between 10 and 24 June 2002 the federal military forces conducted a ‘sweeping-up’ operation in Chechen-Aul. The temporary headquarters of the operation were stationed on the outskirts of the village. 113.  On 16 June 2002 a group of about ten armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in two APCs. The servicemen, some of whom were masked, searched the house and demanded Mr Daud Nuraliyev in unaccented Russian to proceed with them for an identity check; Mr Daud Nuraliyev was put into one of the APCs, which drove off towards the temporary military headquarters. 114.  On 23 June 2002 by the corner of Sadovaya Street and Sovkhoznaya Street the same group of military servicemen in APCs detained Mr Khalid Nuraliyev and took him to the temporary headquarters. 115.  The applicants have not seen their brothers since their abduction. 116.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 117.  On 28 June 2002 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 56099. The document stated that Mr Khalid Nuraliyev had been abducted “by unidentified persons during [a] special operation”. 118.  On 6 January 2003 the applicants were informed that the investigation of the abduction had been suspended, but that operational‑search measures were being taken to establish the whereabouts of the abducted men and identify the culprits. 119.  On 30 November 2006 the investigation was resumed. 120.  On 19 December 2006 the applicants’ sister, Ms Ya.N., was granted victim status in the criminal case. 121.  On 30 December 2006 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended. The applicants were not informed thereof. 122.  On 17 September 2010 the investigation was resumed and on 21 September 2010 the crime scene was examined. No evidence was collected. 123.  On 11 November 2010 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 124.  On 18 October 2010 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 125.  On 11 November 2010 the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation and ordered its resumption. On the same date the first applicant was again granted victim status and questioned. 126.  On 14 November 2010 the investigation was again suspended. It appears, however, that the investigation has been resumed and that the proceedings are still pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 127.  On 29 June 2002 the investigators questioned the first applicant, whose statement about the circumstances of her brothers’ abduction was similar to the account furnished to the Court. She stressed to the investigators that, in her opinion, the abductors had been federal servicemen. 128.  On the same date, 29 June 2002, the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Ms R.T., whose statement was similar to the one given by the first applicant. 129.  On 19 December 2002 and then on 20 January 2003 the investigators questioned the second applicant, whose statement concerning the circumstances the abduction was similar to the one given by the first applicant. She also stressed that the abductors had been in the federal forces. 130.  On 19 December 2006 the investigators questioned the applicants’ sisters Ms Ya.N. and Ms Ma.N. and their relative Ms P.N., whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the ones given by the applicants. 131.  On 28 December 2006 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements and added that the district police officer had admitted participating in her brothers’ arrest. 132.  On 29 December 2009 the investigators questioned a local police officer, Mr A.I., who confirmed the conduct of the ten-day special operation in June 2002 in Chechen-Aul. 133.   On various dates in September and October 2010 the investigators questioned several of the applicants’ fellow villagers, whose statements did not provide any relevant information. 134.  On 7 October 2010 the investigators questioned the applicants’ sisters again, who reiterated their previous statements. 135.  On 11 November 2010 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements.
(c)  The applicants’ contact with the authorities 136.  According to the applicants, at some point in 2005 they heard a rumour that Mr Khalid Nuraliyev was allegedly being detained in a prison in the Rostov region. In the same year they forwarded a number of requests to various authorities asking them to verify this information. The replies given were in the negative. 137.  On 26 May 2010 the first applicant complained to the Grozny district prosecutor that the investigation of her brothers’ abduction by servicemen during the special operation had been ineffective, and requested to be informed of its progress. 138.  On 3 June 2010 the investigators replied to the applicant, stating that they were taking all possible measures to have the crime solved. 139.  On 24 February 2011 the first applicant complained to the Grozny District Court that the investigation of criminal case no. 56099 had been ineffective and requested the court to order the authorities to resume the proceedings and conduct an effective investigation into the abduction. 140.  On 14 March 2011 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint, stating that the investigation had already been resumed. On 13 April 2011 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Chechnya Supreme Court. 141.  The applicant, Ms Arbiyat Khamstkhanova, was born in 1960 and lives in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny. 142.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Iles Khamstkhanov, who was born in 1960 (in the documents submitted the date is also stated as 1955). 143.  At about 11 p.m. on 12 January 2006 a group of ten armed servicemen in bulletproof vests and special helmets (the uniform usually worn by special forces) arrived at the applicant’s house in Grozny in three UAZ vehicles. One of the vehicles was armoured, while the others were equipped with mobile radio stations. 144.  The servicemen smashed windows and broke their way inside. They grabbed Mr Iles Khamstkhanov and dragged him outside; two of the intruders held the applicant’s son Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov at gunpoint and ordered him not to move. The servicemen put Mr Iles Khamstkhanov in one of the vehicles and drove off in the direction of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in Grozny. Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov went to the ROVD with his relatives immediately; they were told at the police station that Mr Iles Khamstkhanov had been arrested by mistake and that he would be released soon. 145.  The applicant has not seen Mr Iles Khamstkhanov since 12 January 2006. 146.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 147.  On 12 January 2006 the applicant and her relatives reported the abduction in writing to the ROVD. 148.  On 13 January 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 149.  On 30 January 2006 the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office in Grozny opened criminal case no. 52007. On 31 January 2006 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings. 150.  On 20 May 2006 the applicant was informed that the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 151.  On 25 June 2007 the investigation was resumed and then suspended the next day. 152.  On 16 June 2008 the investigation was resumed and then suspended the next day. 153.  On 20 October 2008 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 21 November 2008. 154.  On 26 April 2011 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on 6 May 2011. 155.  On 23 April 2012 the investigation was resumed. The proceedings are still pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 156.  On 13 and 14 January 2006 investigators questioned the applicant, her young daughter and her son Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov. Their statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. In addition, the applicant told the investigators that one of the abductors had told her that they had been from the Federal Security Service. 157.  On 31 January 2006 the investigators questioned the applicant and her son Mr Khussein Khamstkhanov and their neighbour Ms P.U. again; their statements contained the same information concerning the abduction as the account submitted to the Court. 158.  On 28 April 2006 the investigators questioned the applicant’s daughter Ms P.Kh., Mr Iles Khamstkhanov’s brother, Mr Kh.Kh., and Mr Iles Khamstkhanov’s cousin, Mr A. Kh. Their statements concerning the incident were similar to the ones given by the applicant.
(c)  The applicant’s contact with the authorities 159.  On various dates between 1 January and March 2006 the applicant wrote to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office asking for assistance in the search for her husband. 160.  On 25 February 2011 the applicant complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Grozny that the investigation of her husband’s abduction by representatives of power structures had been ineffective and requested that it be resumed and carried out effectively. On 27 April 2011 the court rejected her complaint, stating that the investigation had been resumed on 26 April 2011. 161.  The applicants are:
(1)  Ms Khedi Aguyeva, born in 1960,
(2)  Mr Inderpash Ismailov, born in 1956,
(3)  Ms Marusa Aguyeva, born in 1921,
(4)  Ms Luiza Makhmadova (also spelt Makhamdova and Makhamadova), born in 1985, and
(5)  Mr Atama Ismailov, born in 2003.
The first and third applicants live in Malorechnaya in the Kurchaloy district, the second applicant lives in Tsotsi-Yurt (also spelt Tsotsen-Yurt) in the Kurchaloy district, and the fourth and fifth applicants live in Gudermes, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 162.  The applicants are close relatives of Mr Dzhandar (also spelt Zhandar) Ismailov, who was born in 1979, and Mr Dzhalil (also spelt Zhalil) Ismailov, who was born in 1982. The first and second applicants are their parents, the third applicant is their grandmother. The fourth applicant is the wife of Mr Dzhandar Ismailov and the fifth applicant is his daughter. 163.  At the material time, the town of Gudermes was under curfew; it was surrounded by military checkpoints. A special military unit, no. 291 of the 42nd regiment of the Motorised Infantry Division of the Russian Ministry of Defence, known as ‘Battalion Vostok’ (батальон 291-го мотострелкового полка 42-ой гвардейской мотострелковой дивизии Министерства Обороны РФ) was stationed in the settlement. According to the applicants, the battalion was involved in special operations of the Russian federal forces. Mr Dzhandar Ismailov and Mr Dzhalil Ismailov lived with their families, including the applicants, on the second floor of a block of flats at 52 Kavkazskaya Street in Gudermes. 164.  In the early hours of 21 January 2003 (in the documents submitted also referred to as 17 January 2003) a group of about ten to fifteen servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the applicants’ address in a grey UAZ vehicle with a smeared registration plate. The only serviceman without a mask had dark hair and a clearly visible scar on his left cheek. The intruders, who spoke Chechen, were armed with machine guns and dispersed themselves throughout each floor of the building. They then broke into the applicants’ flat and quickly searched it. They were in a rush and gave no explanation for their actions. After the search they took Mr Dzhandar Ismailov and Mr Dzhalil Ismailov outside, without allowing them to put on any warm clothing. They forced the brothers into the UAZ vehicle and drove off in the direction of Grozny. 165.   About two or three months after the abduction, the second applicant was informed by Mr A.Kh., an officer from Battalion Vostok, that his sons had been detained upon orders from the battalion’s commander Mr Dzhabrail Yamadayev. 166.  The applicants have not seen their relatives since that date. 167.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 168.  On 21 January 2003 the applicants reported the abduction of their relatives by federal servicemen to the local law-enforcement authorities. On 23 January 2003 the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 32005. 169.  On 24 January 2003 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 170.  On 23 April 2003 the investigation was suspended. On 2 December 2004 the applicants were informed thereof. 171.  On 8 May 2009, upon complaints by the applicant of a lack of information about the proceedings, the investigators informed them that the investigation had established that representatives of the law-enforcement agencies had possibly been involved in the abduction. 172.  On 11 June 2009 the investigation was resumed. 173.  On 26 November 2011 the investigation was suspended again. The proceedings were subsequently resumed and are apparently still pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 174.  On 23 January 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant’s neighbour, Ms M.S., whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the account provided by the applicants to the Court. 175.  Between 23 and 25 January 2003 the investigators questioned the second, third and fourth applicants, whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. 176.  On 11 February 2003 the investigators questioned the second applicant again. He reiterated his previous statement and added that Ms Zukhra S. had contacted him to say that his abducted sons had been detained in Khankala (where the main military base of the federal forces was stationed at the time) and that they would be released in exchange for 10,000 American dollars (USD). 177.  On 21 February 2003 the investigators questioned Ms S. Zukhra, who stated that she had servicemen contacts and had tried to use them to expedite the release of abductees. 178.  On 24 April 2009 the investigators examined the crime scene. 179.  On various dates in 2009 the investigators questioned a number of witnesses concerning the activities of Ms S. Zukhra, who had used several other identities. All of the witnesses confirmed that she had had servicemen contacts and assisted in organising the release of detainees in exchange for money. In August or September 2009 Ms S. Zukhra absconded from the authorities.
(c)  The applicants’ contact with the authorities 180.  Between January and February 2003 the applicants and their relatives requested assistance in the search for their relatives from various authorities. 181.  From the documents submitted, it appears that between December 2004 and August 2008 the applicants did not contact the authorities. 182.  On 11 September 2008 the first applicant complained to the Gudermes inter-district investigations department of the prosecutor’s office of a lack of information on the progress of the investigation and requested permission to review the case file. On 11 October 2008 the investigators replied that the proceedings had been suspended on 23 April 2003 and that she could review the file at their office. 183.  On 23 March 2009 the investigators informed the first applicant that she could not review the case file as she did not have victim status in the criminal case. 184.  On 5 April 2009 the first applicant again complained to the investigators of a lack of information and requested to be allowed to review the case file. On 21 April 2009 she was granted victim status in the criminal case. 185.  On 1 June 2009 the first applicant’s lawyer requested that the investigators grant him access to the case file. No reply was given to this request. 186.  On 14 February 2011 the first applicant requested that the investigators provide her with an update on the progress of the proceedings. No reply was given to this request. 187.  The applicants are:
(1)  Ms Zulay Sangariyeva, born in 1957,
(2)  Ms Zulikhan Sangariyeva, born in 1986,
(3)  Ms Aminat Sangariyeva, born in 1983,
(4)  Mr Islam Sangariyev, born in 1981,
(5)  Ms Raisa Sangariyeva, born in 1950, and
(6)  Mr Said-Magomed Sangariyev, born in 1950.
The applicants are two related families. All of them live in Stariye Atagi in the Grozny district, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 188.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Said-Ibragim Sangariyev, who was born in 1978, and the second, third and fourth applicants are his siblings. The fifth and sixth applicants are the parents of Mr Idris Sangariyev, who was born in 1977. 189.  On the night of 11 February 2001 two cousins, Mr Said-Ibragim (also referred to as Ibragim) Sangariyev and Mr Idris Sangariyev, were staying at their uncle Mr Said‑Khussein Sangariyev’s house in Stariye Atagi. 190.  At 6 a.m. a group of about forty to fifty military servicemen arrived at the house in three APCs. Other military vehicles and URAL lorries cordoned off the neighbourhood, and the servicemen ordered the neighbours to stay inside. 191.  The servicemen climbed over the fence and broke into the house. Threatening to blow up the dwelling, they took Mr Said-Khussein Sangariyev outside and made him kneel against the wall, demanding that he tell them where his nephews Mr Said-Ibragim Sangariyev and Mr Idris Sangariyev were. The servicemen then searched the house looking for the two cousins; about an hour later they found them and dragged them outside. The servicemen then reported the arrest to their superiors via portable radios using the code numbers ‘22-23-43’. Afterwards, they took Mr Said-Ibragim Sangariyev’s car, a VAZ-2107 with registration number C96 AP 20RUS, put both cousins inside and drove them off in the direction of Grozny. According to the documents submitted, the applicants’ relatives were taken to Khankala, the headquarters of the Russian federal forces in Chechnya. 192.  Less than a month after the abduction, the fourth applicant saw that Mr Said-Ibragim Sangariyev’s car was being driven around by a group of military servicemen of Slavic appearance, whose uniform had small stars on the shoulder straps. 193.  The applicants have not seen their relatives since 12 February 2001. 194.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 195.  On 14, 19, 22 and 28 March 2001 the applicants reported their relatives’ abduction by military servicemen to a number of law-enforcement agencies. 196.  On 9 April 2001 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 19045 (in the documents submitted also referred to as no. 42229). From the documents submitted, it appears that criminal case no. 19045 was opened in connection with not only the abduction of the applicants’ relatives, but also the abduction of a number of other residents of Stariye Atagi perpetrated by the same group on the same date. 197.  On 17 May 2003 the investigation was suspended again and then on 13 December 2003 it was resumed. 198.  On 20 January 2004 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 199.  On 25 March 2004 the investigation was suspended again and then on 27 September 2004 it was resumed, following orders from the supervising prosecutor to that effect. 200.  On 14 November 2006 the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 201.  The investigation was subsequently suspended on several occasions, including on 26 November 2005, 26 August 2006 and 5 April 2008. It was most recently suspended on 25 December 2011. 202.  The criminal proceedings appear to be still pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 203.  On 5 and 20 April 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant and three of the applicants’ relatives, Ms Kh.R.D., Ms Kh.D.D. and Ms Ya.S., whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the account submitted by the applicants to the Court. 204.  On various dates between April and June 2001 the investigators questioned the first and sixth applicants and six of their relatives and neighbours, whose statements corroborated the account of events they submitted to the Court. 205.  On 6 June 2001 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements and added that the same group of abductors had also abducted a fellow elderly villager, Mr K.I., who had been released three days later. According to the latter, he had been detained with the applicants’ relatives somewhere in the vicinity of a very large tent, helicopter runway and tarmac; it had most probably been the main military base of the federal forces in Khankala. 206.  On 22 January 2004 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who added to her previous statements that she and her relatives had attempted to obtain the release of their abducted relatives in exchange for money, but on 15 March 2001 both her son and nephew had been taken from Khankala to elsewhere. 207.  On 6 March 2004 the investigators questioned the sixth applicant, whose statement was similar to the one given by the first applicant. In addition, he stated that after the abduction he had visited the military base in Khankala, where an officer named Sergey had told him that his relatives had been transferred elsewhere. In 2002 the witness had learnt that Mr Said‑Ibragim Sangariyev and Mr Idris Sangariyev had been allegedly detained in remand prison (SIZO) no.60/1 in Rostov-on-Don; he had gone there, but the information had turned out to be incorrect. 208.  On various dates between July and December 2004 the investigators questioned a number of local residents and the local police officers, whose statements did not yield any new information. 209.  On 17 October 2005 the investigators questioned Mr K.I., whose statement corroborated that of the first applicant given on 6 June 2001 (see paragraph 205 above). 210.  On 20 October 2005 the investigators questioned the first and sixth applicants, who reiterated their previous statements and added that they had been aware that their abducted sons had been members of illegal armed groups. 211.  On 14 November 2006 the investigators questioned the sixth applicant and three of his relatives again, whose statements did not yield any new information. 212.  On 19 March 2008 the first applicant was questioned again by the investigators. She provided a detailed description of the events and stated that the abductors had been military servicemen who had used armoured vehicles. On the same date the second applicant and three of the applicants’ relatives were questioned; they too asserted that the abductors had been military servicemen.
(c)  The applicants’ contact with the authorities 213.  On 21 December 2001 the first applicant complained to the Chechnya prosecutor’s office that the investigation of the abduction had been ineffective and that the investigators had failed to provide her with updates as to its progress. 214.  On 1 August and 9 October 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office informed the applicants that on 6 June 2001 the investigation had been suspended, and that on 1 August 2002 the proceedings had been resumed for failure on the part of the investigators to take a number of steps. 215.  On 14 May 2003 the investigators informed the applicants that the investigation had been resumed. The letter also stated, amongst other things:
“... the investigation has been unable to establish exactly which law-enforcement agency abducted the two men... in connection with this it was suspended on 30 January 2003.” 216.  On various dates in November 2003 the Department of the Execution of Sentences for the Rostov and Volgograd Regions informed the applicants that their abducted relatives were not being detained in their detention facilities. 217.  On 27 December 2003 the Chechnya FSB replied to the applicants that Mr Said-Ibragim Sangariyev and Mr Idris Sangariyev were not listed in their database as people involved in illegal activities. 218.  On 5 May 2005 the applicants complained to the investigators of a lack of information about the proceedings. 219.  On 17 March and 17 May 2004 and 15 February 2005 various military prosecutors’ offices replied to the applicants that their inquiries had not established that military servicemen had been involved in the abduction. 220.  On various dates between 2002 and 2005 the applicants complained about the investigation to a number of public and military prosecutors’ offices, the police, the military commanders’ offices and different levels and departments of the Federal Security Service (the FSB). In their complaints the applicants described the circumstances of the abduction and stressed that the perpetrators had been working for the State authorities, driven around in military vehicles and used portable radios. In reply the authorities forwarded the applicants’ complaints to the investigators or other law-enforcement agencies for examination. 221.  On 14 February 2008 the first applicant complained to the Grozny District Court that the investigation had been ineffective and requested that it be resumed and conducted effectively. The complaint was allowed on 6 March 2008. 222.  On 14 February 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators to inform her of the progress of the criminal proceedings. No reply was given to the request. 223.  The applicants, Mr Sultan Nutayev, who was born in 1958, and Ms Tamara Nutayeva, who was born in 1959, live in Stariye Atagi in the Grozny district, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 224.  The applicants are the parents of Mr Saykhan Nutayev, who was born in 1983. 225.  At the material time, the village of Stariye Atagi was under curfew. It was surrounded by military checkpoints situated on all roads leading to and from the settlement. A military unit of the Russian federal forces was stationed on the outskirts of the village, on the premises of a former mill factory (“the mill”). According to the applicants, the mill was used as a filtering point by the military for the processing and detention of local residents detained during special operations (see Arzu Akhmadova and Others v. Russia, no. 13670/03, § 10, 8 January 2009). 226.  At about 5 a.m. on 26 February 2003 a group of about twenty armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants’ house in two grey UAZ minivans and two VAZ‑2121 (“Niva”) cars. The vehicles surrounded the house. Some of the servicemen were wearing masks; some of them had helmets on. They broke into the applicants’ house and ordered everyone to show them their identity documents. They then grabbed Mr Saykhan Nutayev, forced him outside and put him into one of the vehicles. The applicants, accompanied by a neighbour, got in a car and followed the abductors to the premises of the military unit at the mill. There they tried to gain access to the military compound, but to no avail. The servicemen on duty at the time denied having seen any cars leaving or entering the premises. 227.  The applicants have not seen their son since 26 February 2003. 228.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 229.  On 28 February 2003 the applicants reported their son’s abduction by military servicemen to the Grozny district prosecutor. On the same date the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 230.  On 11 March 2003 the Grozny district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 42043. 231.  On 22 March 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status. 232.  On 11 May 2003 the investigation was suspended. The applicants were informed thereof. 233.  On 16 March 2006 the investigation was resumed. The applicants were informed thereof. 234.  On 25 March 2006 the Chechnya Federal Security Service informed the investigators that Mr Saykhan Nutayev had been a member of illegal armed groups. 235.  On 15 April 2006 the investigation was again suspended. 236.  On 19 April 2012 the investigation was resumed. The proceedings are still pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 237.  On 28 February 2003 the investigators questioned the first and second applicants, whose statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to the account furnished to the Court. In addition, they told the investigators that immediately after the abduction, when they had followed the tracks left by the abductors with a neighbour, through the gates of the military compound they had seen the UAZ vehicle used to take their son away. 238.  On 28 February 2003 the investigators also questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Ms Ya.K., whose statement concerning the abduction corroborated the account submitted by the applicants to the Court. In addition, the witness added that she had followed the tracks left by the abductors’ vehicles with the applicants; they had led them to the premises of the military unit stationed on the outskirts of the village. They had not been allowed to enter the compound. 239.  On 27 March 2003 the investigators questioned the applicants and Ms Ya.K. again, all of whom reiterated their previous statements. 240.  On 22 March 2006 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated his previous statements. 241.  On 4 April 2006 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbour Ms Kh.T., who corroborated the applicants’ statements and added that on the night of the abduction she had seen four military vehicles and two APCs on their street. 242.  On 5 April 2006 the investigators questioned the second applicant again, who reiterated her previous statements.
(c)  The applicants’ contact with the authorities 243.  On 30 June 2008 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 replied to a request by the applicant that because of the rules of jurisdiction they did not have any information about the investigation. 244.  On 17 December 2009 and 17 August 2010 the applicants requested the investigators to update them on the progress of the proceedings. On 12 January and 23 August 2010 respectively the authorities replied that the investigation had been suspended and that the applicants had the right to review certain documents from the case file. 245.  On 11 March 2011 the applicants again requested the investigators to update them on the progress of the proceedings. No reply was given to this request. 246.  On 26 April 2011 the first applicant requested the investigators that the proceedings be resumed. No reply was given to this request either. 247.  The applicants, Ms Khadisht (also spelt Khadishat) Saltuyeva, born in 1955, and Mr Abdul-Khalim Saltuyev, born in 1946, live in Urus‑Martan, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by Mr Tagir Shamsudinov, a lawyer practising in Grozny. 248.  The applicants are the parents of Mr Aslanbek Saltuyev, who was born in 1981. 249.  At the material time, the town of Urus-Martan was under curfew; it was surrounded by military checkpoints. A number of law-enforcement agencies, including the military commander’s office, were operating in the settlement. 250.  At about 2.30 a.m. on 14 October 2002 a group of ten armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms wearing head torches broke into the applicants’ house and took away their son, Mr Aslanbek Saltuyev. The intruders, who were equipped with portable radios, took him to the UAZ minivan which was waiting in the street and drove off. The applicants saw that the servicemen had also arrived in an APC, a URAL lorry and another UAZ vehicle. 251.  The applicants have not seen their son since 14 October 2002. 252.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 253.  On 14 October 2002 the applicants reported the abduction to a number of law-enforcement agencies and on 7 November 2002 the Urus‑Martan district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 61141. 254.  On 27 December 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 255.  On 7 January 2003 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended and then resumed on 19 June 2003. 256.  On 9 July 2003 the investigators examined the crime scene. 257.  On 25 July 2003 it was again suspended and then resumed on 6 June 2005. The applicants were informed thereof. 258.  On 6 July 2005 the investigation was suspended again. It was subsequently suspended and resumed on several occasions; it was most recently resumed on 25 May 2011 and then suspended on 3 June 2011. The applicants were informed of that suspension. 259.  The investigation appears to be still pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 260.  On 15 October 2002 the investigators questioned the first and second applicants, whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. 261.  On 15 October 2002 the investigators also questioned the applicants’ neighbour, Ms Z.V.Kh., whose statement corroborated those given by the applicants. 262.  On 27 December 2002 and then on 11 June 2005 the investigators questioned the first applicant, who reiterated her previous statement. 263.  On 28 July 2005 the investigators questioned the second applicant, who reiterated her previous statement. 264.  On 28 July 2005 the investigators questioned the applicants’ neighbours, Ms Z.A.Kh. and Ms S.G., whose statements corroborated those of the applicants. 265.  On 28 June 2007 the investigators questioned the first and second applicants again, who reiterated their previous statements.
(c)  The applicants’ contact with the authorities 266.  From the documents submitted it appears that on various occasions between 2003 and 2007 the applicants complained to prosecutors at various levels of a lack of information about the progress of the criminal proceedings and the way they were being conducted. 267.  On 28 April 2011 the applicants complained to the head of the Achkhoy-Martan investigations department of a lack of information about the progress of the investigation and requested to be allowed to review the case file. On 5 May 2011 their complaint was rejected. 268.  On 17 May 2011 the applicants complained to the Urus‑Martan District Court that the investigation had been ineffective and requested that they be allowed to access the case file. On 25 May 2011 their complaint was allowed by the court. 269.  The applicants are:
(1)  Mr Khalit Salamov, born in 1938,
(2)  Ms Bikazhu Dzhambulatova, born in 1946, and
(3)  Mr Imran Salamov, born in 1977.
The first and second applicants live in Katyr-Yurt in the Achkhoy‑Martan district, the Chechen Republic. The third applicant lives in Grozny. The applicants were represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni. 270.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Usman Salamov, who was born in 1977. The third applicant is his brother. 271.  At the material time, the settlement of Katyr-Yurt was under curfew. The applicants lived with Mr Usman Salamov in Chapayeva Street. 272.  At about 4 a.m. on 12 November 2002 a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the applicants’ house in two APCs and a VAZ car. They broke into the house, quickly searched it, took Mr Usman Salamov outside, forced him into one of the APCs and drove off. 273.  On the same night at least one other resident of the village was allegedly abducted by the same group of servicemen (see the case of Ilyasova v. Russia, no. 26966/06, §§ 7 and 112, 10 June 2010). 274.  Later the same day at about 4 .30 p.m. the policemen from the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD arrived at the applicants’ house and dug two plastic barrels with firearms and ammunition out of their garden. 275.  The applicants have not seen their relative since 12 November 2002. 276.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 277.  On 29 January 2003 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 44015 and examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 278.  On 28 April 2003 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 279.  On 29 April 2003 the investigation was suspended and then resumed on 12 September 2004. The applicants were informed thereof. 280.  The investigation was again suspended on an unspecified date between 2004 and 2005 and resumed on 16 June 2008; then suspended again on 16 July 2008 and resumed on 15 June 2010. The applicants were informed thereof. 281.  On 8 July 2010 the investigators examined the crime scene again. 282.  On 15 July 2010 the investigation was suspended again. The applicants were informed thereof. 283.  The last suspension of the investigation took place on 13 September 2011 and on 21 April 2012 the proceedings were resumed. They are still pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 284.  On 24 January 2003 the investigators questioned the first and second applicants and their neighbour, Ms B.D., all of whom provided statements of their relative’s abduction similar to the account submitted to the Court. 285.  On 8 February 2003 the investigators questioned the applicants’ relative, Ms M.S., whose statement about the abduction corroborated those of the applicants. 286.  On 11 and 28 April 2003 the investigators questioned the first applicant again, who reiterated his previous statement. 287.  On the same date the investigators questioned two of the applicants’ neighbours, Mr R.R. and Mr Sh.Kh., whose statements corroborated those given by the applicants. 288.  On 26 and 27 June 2008 the investigators questioned seven of the applicants’ relatives and neighbours. No new information was obtained. 289.  On various dates in June and July 2010 the investigators questioned three of the applicants’ close relatives and three representatives of local authorities. No new information was obtained. 290.  On 12 September 2011 the investigators questioned the second applicant again, who reiterated her previous statement.
(c)  The applicants’ contact with the authorities 291.  On 16 July 2009 the applicants complained to the head of the Achkhoy-Martan investigations department that they did not have information about the progress of the investigation and requested to be allowed to review the case file. On the same date the investigators replied that the applicants could obtain copies of a few documents from the file and suspended the investigation. 292.  On 2 February 2010 the applicants complained to the Achkhoy‑Martan District Court that the investigation of their son’s abduction had been ineffective and requested that it be resumed. On 10 June 2010 this complaint was rejected by the District Court, as the investigation had been resumed on 7 June 2010. 293.  The applicants appealed against the decision to suspend investigation of 15 July 2010 to the District Court, which rejected the complaint on 30 August 2010. 294.  On 28 January 2011 the applicants again requested to be allowed to review the case file. On 9 February 2011 the investigators replied that the applicants could take copies of a few documents from the file. 295.  On 25 July 2011 the applicants again requested to be provided access to the case file. On 1 August 2011 their complaint was rejected by the investigators. 296.  The applicants are:
(1)  Mr Islam Dashtayev, born in 1991,
(2)  Mr Bislan Dashtayev, born in 1993,
(3)  Mr Yusup Dashtayev, born in 1994,
(4)  Mr Shamkhan Dashtayev, born in 1997,
(5)  Mr Khamzat Dashtayev, born in 1999,
(6)  Ms Kulsum Abubakarova, born in 1957,
(7)  Ms Yakhita Abdurzakova (also referred to as Akhmadova), born in 1954, and
8)  Mr Musaid Akhmadov, born in 1953.
The applicants live in Noviye Atagi, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from SRJI/Astreya. 297.  The first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants are the sons of Mr Imran Dashtayev, who was born in 1955; the sixth applicant is his wife. The seventh and eighth applicants are the parents of Mr Idris Akhmadov, who was born in 1982. 298.  According to the applicants, who all live on the same street, on 20 July 2003 the Russian federal forces conducted a sweeping-up operation in Noviye Atagi, as a result of which at least three local residents were arrested, including the applicants’ relatives. Military checkpoints were situated on all of the roads leading to and from the settlement. The area was under curfew. 299.  At about 5 a.m. on 20 July 2003 a convoy of military vehicles, consisting of at least three APCs (with hull numbers 100, 101 and F-121), one URAL lorry (with registration number 75-99 6 RUS) and a UAZ all‑terrain car, arrived at the applicants’ street. A group of about fifty heavily-armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles and broke into at least four houses in the street, including those of the applicants. 300.  A group of about fifteen servicemen climbed over the fence and broke into the house of the Akhmadov family. They checked the identity documents of the male residents, quickly searched the house without producing a warrant or giving any explanation for their actions and took Mr Idris Akhmadov outside. The servicemen also took some of the family’s valuables. They put Mr Idris Akhmadov into the UAZ minivan, and then they dragged him out and forced him into the APC and drove off. 301.  At about 5.30 a.m. a group of fifteen to twenty servicemen in a yellow UAL lorry with registration number 75 99 86 broke into the house of the Dashtayev family. Several APCs and a UAZ minivan were waiting on a neighbouring street. They found Mr Imran Dashtayev in the yard and demanded his passport. His passport had been submitted for renewal, so the servicemen told his relatives that they would take him away for an identity check. They then forced him into the yellow lorry and drove off. 302.  The applicants have not seen their relatives since 20 July 2003. 303.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.
(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators 304.  On 21 July 2003 the Shali district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 22106 and examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. 305.  On the same date the sixth and eighth applicants were granted victim status. 306.  On 21 September 2003 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators. 307.  On 23 March 2004 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on an unspecified date. 308.  On 21 July 2005 the eighth applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. 309.  On 6 July 2005 the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on 19 March 2008. 310.  On 26 June 2008 it was suspended again and then resumed on 23 April 2012. The criminal proceedings are currently pending.
(b)  Main witness statements taken by the investigators 311.  On 21 July 2003 the investigators questioned the sixth and eighth applicants, whose detailed accounts of the abduction were similar to the account submitted to the Court. 312.  On the same date the investigators questioned a local resident, Mr I.T., who had been detained by the same group of abductors on the same night. He stated that he had been beaten by them, questioned about his involvement in illegal armed groups and then released later that evening. 313.  The investigators also questioned the seventh applicant and two of the applicants’ neighbours, Mr Kh.S. and Ms E.M. that day, whose statements corroborated those of the sixth and eighth applicants. 314.  On 24 July 2003 the investigators questioned officer D.K. who manned checkpoint no. 112 in the vicinity of the applicants’ settlement. According to him, on the night of 19 July 2003 a convoy of forty vehicles from the Security Service of the Chechen President had passed though the checkpoint two times: during the evening and then the following morning. 315.  On 4 August 2003 the investigators questioned officer A.P., who was stationed with his military unit no. 2 on the premises of the old mill on the outskirts of Noviye Atagi. He denied having any knowledge of either a special operation in the settlement or the vehicles used by the abductors. 316.  On 22 June 2005 the investigators questioned the eighth applicant again, who reiterated his previous statement. 317.  On 14 and 17 April 2008 the investigators questioned the eighth applicant’s relative, Mr I.A., and his neighbour, Mr Sh.I., whose statements corroborated those of the eighth applicant.
(c)  The applicants’ contact with the authorities 318.  On 4 January 2004 the eighth applicant complained to the head of the military base in Khankala about his son’s abduction by federal servicemen. On 25 March 2004 the military authorities in Khankala replied that the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction had not been confirmed. 319.  On 8 February 2005 the eighth applicant complained to the Russian Prosecutor General about the abduction and the investigators’ failure to take important steps. In their reply of 25 April 2005, the investigators informed the applicant that the investigation had been resumed on 22 April 2005. 320.  On 3 July 2008 the sixth applicant’s relative, Ms K.D., complained to the investigators that the investigation had been ineffective. On 4 April 2008 the investigators replied that the proceedings were in progress. 321.  On an unspecified date in July or August 2011 the investigators replied to a request by the applicants for information of 24 July 2011, stating that the investigation had been suspended on 26 June 2008. 322.  In reply to numerous complaints by the applicants lodged on various dates between 2004 and 2011 about the abduction, the investigators gave similar replies to the effect that the investigation was in progress and that they were taking all possible measures to have the crime solved.


4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Šabac. 5.  The applicant was employed by “Zorka -mineralna đubriva” AD, a socially/State-owned company based in Šabac (hereinafter – “the debtor”). 6.  On 3 July 2003 the Šabac Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears and procedural costs. On the same date the judgment became final. 7.  On 17 May 2007 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court. 8.  On 18 May 2007 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order. 9.  On 19 February 2008 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring. 10.  On 2 March 2010 the applicant urged the court to continue the enforcement proceedings. 11.  On 1 June 2010 the court informed the applicant that the debtor was still undergoing restructuring and that therefore the enforcement proceedings could not be continued. 12.  On 10 July 2002 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process. The restructuring of the debtor is still ongoing.


7.  The first applicant, Mrs Regina Juozaitienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Kaunas. The second applicant, Mr Jonas Bikulčius, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Kaunas. 8.  In the late evening of Friday 24 July 1998 the first applicant’s son, Dalius Juozaitis, and the second applicant’s son, Darius Bikulčius, were found dead in a car with single gunshot wounds to their backs. The deaths had occurred as the police tried to chase a Ford Escort (hereinafter “the car”) driven by a private individual, RM, the applicants’ sons being the passengers in the car. RM was not killed during the incident. 9.  On 25 July 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against RM for manslaughter in regard to the deaths of the applicants’ sons (Article 109 of the Criminal Code as then in force) and for resisting the orders of the police (Article 201). The applicants submitted their civil claims and were recognised as complainants in those proceedings. 10.  On 15 March 1999 the Kaunas City District Court convicted RM of resisting the lawful orders of the police, an offence under Article 201-1 § 2 of the Criminal Code. 11.  The following account of the incident can be reconstructed from the evidence admitted by the court in those proceedings. On 24 July 1998, after 10.30 p.m., the police received a telephone call from a private individual, informing them about a car driving in the streets of Kaunas in breach of various road-traffic regulations. 12.  Officers AM and AR submitted that they had been patrolling in police car no. 548 when they had heard the information about the Ford Escort on the police radio and had unsuccessfully tried to stop it at around 11 p.m. Officers AM and AR had followed the car, but had soon lost sight of it. AR submitted to the court that, to his knowledge, two passengers and a driver had been in the car. 13.  The information about the car being driven in a dangerous manner was transmitted through the control centre to other patrol officers on duty, and two more policemen, NB and EP, in police vehicle no. 424, were involved in the chase. 14.  They were joined by three more policemen, RZ, SG and JM, patrolling in police vehicle no. 427. These officers submitted to the court that they had received information about the car via the police radio at around 11 p.m. and had followed the order to arrest the driver. They had therefore arrived as reinforcements and had joined car no. 424 in chasing the Ford Escort, which was fleeing at about 130 to 140 kilometres per hour. 15.  The two police cars had their light and sound signals turned on, and tried to block the Ford Escort, while orders to stop were given over the loudspeakers. However, the car tried to escape, attempting to push the police vehicles off the road. 16.  RZ fired two warning shots into the air, but the car only accelerated. 17.  A moment later, the driver of the car lost control of the vehicle, hitting the fence of a building. The car was brought to a halt. Police vehicle no. 427 stopped several metres behind the car, and vehicle no. 424 moved to its left, trying to block its way. Suddenly, the car started moving backwards, damaging police vehicle no. 427. The policemen left their vehicles and ran towards the car, shouting and gesturing at the driver to surrender. The Ford Escort turned right, hitting officer RZ, and began to drive away. An expert medical examination later confirmed that RZ had suffered slight bodily injuries, including several scratches and bruising to his left calf. 18.  When the car hit him, officer RZ fired a shot, apparently damaging its radiator, as he noticed that the cooling liquid was leaking. 19.  In addition, immediately after RZ had been hit, NB, who had left police vehicle no. 424, fired one shot towards the car’s wheels. RZ then fired several more shots towards the car as it escaped. Officer SG likewise fired a number of shots towards the fleeing car. The other policemen did not use their guns. 20.  Soon afterwards, the car was forced to stop in another area of Kaunas as a result of the leak of the cooling liquid from the radiator which had been damaged by RZ’s shot. Police officers AR and AM, who were driving vehicle no. 548, arrested RM while he was trying to flee. In the car, the policemen found the bodies of the applicants’ sons, whose deaths were confirmed on the arrival of a medical team at 11.56 p.m. RM was found to have been drunk and not in possession of any of the relevant documents permitting him to drive a car. 21.  The court did not specify how many shots had been fired by SG, even though it noted that two of his shots had caused the deaths of the applicants’ sons. The court took account of SG’s statements that he had suspected that one of the passengers of the car had a weapon which he thought he had seen through the front window which was wound down, and that he had fired only after having heard a first shot (in fact fired by his colleague RZ), and having no idea where that shot had come from. The court also noted that no firearms or other weapons had been found in the car. 22.  The court did not establish the exact time when the chase had started, concluding that the crime of which RM was convicted had been committed at around 11.30 p.m. 23.  RM was acquitted of the offence of manslaughter, the court having noted that the deaths had been caused not by his acts, but by the “lawful actions of a third person who had used an official weapon.” The court noted in this connection:
“the internal institutional inquiry shows that all the policemen acted in a lawful and reasonable manner. The court has no grounds to doubt the conclusions of the internal investigation, as they have been confirmed by the circumstances established during the criminal investigation. Article 42 of the Police Act authorised the policemen to use firearms against the vehicle and the offender. The acts committed by the defendant, including his resisting the police officers, constituted grounds for using firearms. The use of firearms was lawful and reasonable...” 24.  The applicants’ civil claims for damages against the police were not examined. The court nonetheless noted that it was open to the applicants to bring their claims by way of a separate set of civil proceedings. 25.  The court sentenced RM to six years’ imprisonment for resisting the lawful orders of the police, and ordered the confiscation of part of his property amounting to 200 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 58 euros (EUR)). 26.  On 18 May 1999 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld the judgment. It was also decided to institute criminal proceedings against SG for the manslaughter of the applicants’ sons (Article 109 of the Criminal Code as then in force) and for exceeding his authority (Article 287). In this connection, the court noted:
“in the situation under consideration, there were no circumstances permitting the use of a firearm against a person (Article 42(2) of the Police Act). The police officers had the right to use firearms against the vehicle only (Article 42(5) of that Act). ...
Nobody disputes that the police officer [SG] had the right to use a firearm against the car (Article 42(5) of the Police Act); however, despite the fact that two innocent people were shot, it has not been examined whether he used that right properly. In taking this decision, the court is seeking to establish the truth. It does not intend to weaken the determination of police officers when carrying out their duties. Nevertheless, the duty of professional integrity, self-control and endurance cannot be underestimated; when using firearms, police officers must seek to avoid severe consequences (Article 41(3) of the Police Act). ... The investigation should aim to examine [the elements pointed out by the applicants], inter alia, the allegedly poor visibility at the scene of the incident, and the fact that [SG] hit the interior of the car and not its tyres, which he had allegedly fired at. According to [the applicants], this fact alone indicated that [SG] had fired the shots while being guided by his anger and ill-temper. ...” 27.  On 12 October 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 18 May 1999. 28.  The criminal proceedings brought against SG by virtue of the decision of the Kaunas Regional Court on 18 May 1999 were discontinued by the prosecutor on 27 December 1999. The prosecution found no indication of any crime in the actions of officer SG. It was noted, in particular, that SG had used his gun in accordance with instructions, had targeted the wheels of the car and had had recourse to his firearm only after the driver had committed a crime by hitting one of his colleagues. The driver, RM, had apparently been predisposed to escape by any means, threatening the safety of other people. The deaths of the two victims had been the result not only of the shooting as such, but also of the unpredictable actions of the driver. 29.  The prosecution based their conclusions, inter alia, on the following sources of evidence: the submissions of the policemen; the records of the on-site examinations of the scene, conducted on 27 July 1998, 19 August 1998 and 21 September 1999; a letter from the meteorological service on weather conditions at the time of the events; illumination tests at the scene of the shooting; the results of the ballistic examination of 30 November 1999, and records of the on-site reconstruction of the event, including diagrams of the position and movement of the cars and policemen, drawn in accordance with the submissions of the officers concerned. 30.  On 19 April 2000 the Kaunas City District Court quashed the prosecutor’s decision. The court noted, inter alia, that the prosecutors had not made a detailed assessment of “the way” in which SG had used the gun with reference to the relevant domestic legal provisions. 31.  During the investigation, none of the policemen made clear submissions as to the moment when SG had begun shooting. 32.  On 9 June 2000 the prosecutor again discontinued the investigation, noting that no evidence of any crime had been found in the actions of SG. The prosecution referred to the evidence mentioned in the earlier decision of 27 December 1999 as well as the additional submissions of the policemen. 33.  The following order and impact of the use of firearms had been established. Two warning shots had been fired into the air by RZ during the chase; one shot by RZ had damaged the radiator after the car had hit the fence, and soon afterwards one shot fired by NB had hit the wheel of the car. Finally, seven shots had been fired by RZ towards the fleeing car and four by SG. The prosecutor found that two of SG’s shots had hit the applicants’ sons, causing their deaths. Some of the other shots had marked the car’s tyres, wheel rims, seats, front panel and windows, and the rear window was broken. The car body work also bore traces of bullets. 34.  Referring to the submissions of SG, taken at the scene of the shooting, the prosecution concluded that SG had directed the shots at the wheels of the moving car from a distance of 11.4 metres (the first shot) up to 27.5 metres (the fourth shot). He had fired the shots after the driver had hit his colleague RZ, that is, after he had committed an offence punishable by the criminal law (Article 201-1 § 2 of the old Criminal Code), of which he had already been convicted. Hence, it could not be alleged that the firearms had been used only because the car had been driven in defiance of traffic regulations. The prosecution took account of RZ’s statement that he had been hit by the car and thrown onto the bonnet and then the ground. For this reason the policemen could have reasonably considered it necessary to avert the danger which the car represented for other people, given in particular that RM had been drunk and had been seeking by dangerous means to escape arrest and punishment. 35.  It was stressed that SG had used the firearm not against the people in the car, but against the vehicle, and he had only tried to hit the tyres. There had been no significant obstacles to visibility, such as inadequate lighting or dust. However, the fact that the car had moved in sudden and swerving directions was emphasised as a cause of the deaths, rather than any breach of regulations governing the use of firearms. In view of these circumstances, and given that SG had had a valid reason to use the gun as a last resort in accordance with Article 42 of the Police Act, the prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence that he had committed a crime. 36.  Finally, the prosecution stated that, during the proceedings against RM, none of the three levels of jurisdiction had questioned the lawfulness of the use of the firearm by SG. 37.  The applicants appealed against the decision to discontinue the investigation. They alleged that SG had sought revenge against the driver of the car and had fired recklessly at the moving vehicle, disregarding the fact that he might hit the passengers. The applicants argued that SG had known about the presence of other people in the car and must have understood that innocent passengers might be killed; however, he had allowed this to happen, as he had fired at the vehicle. 38.  As to the quality of the investigation, the applicants stressed that the prosecution had failed to provide any explanation for the fact that one of the bullets fired by SG had hit the side window of the car, whereas it had been concluded that SG had first fired at the vehicle only after it had moved 11.4 metres away. 39.  On 17 October 2000 the Kaunas City District Court upheld the decision of the prosecution. The court mentioned that SG had fired at the moving car during a very a short period of time, within a perimeter of about 20 metres. The court held that SG had used the firearm lawfully, the shots being directed at the wheels of the car, not at the people sitting in it. It was found that the car had been moving in swerving directions, two shots having, as a result, hit the passengers. SG had thus not been able to foresee the consequences of his actions. At the same time the court noted that, even though the incident had taken place at about midnight, the street and the car had been well lit. 40.  The court emphasised that the ground for using firearms was the fact that RM had been driving while drunk, and had not only violated traffic regulations, but had tried to escape in a dangerous manner. His behaviour had put other people at risk. The policemen had tried all alternative means to stop RM, and firing at the tyres of the fleeing car had been used as a measure of last resort. 41.  The court also stated that there had been no causal link between the actions of SG and the impugned consequences, namely the death of the applicants’ sons. It held that manslaughter had not occurred as a result of the actions of SG; he had made an appropriate assessment of the circumstances and had not exceeded the requirements of the relevant legal provisions in using his gun. The death of the applicants’ sons had been an accident for which SG could not be held criminally responsible.


7.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Włodawa. 8.  On 28 June 2000 the Rzeszów District Court remanded the applicant in custody for two months. The court relied on a statement given on 27 June 2000 by the applicant's mentally ill son, G.M., who accused the applicant of homicide. The court also referred to the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on the applicant. 9.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed and requested that the preventive measure imposed on him be reduced in severity. He relied on his age (he was seventy-two years old at the time) and on the fact that he was undergoing medical treatment. 10.  On 12 July 2000 the Rzeszów Regional Court, relying on the same grounds as the District Court, upheld the challenged decision. 11.  On 23 August 2000 the Rzeszów Regional Prosecutor requested the court to extend the applicant's detention. 12.  On 25 August 2000 the Rzeszów District Court granted the request and extended the applicant's detention for another month, until 28 September 2000. 13.  On an unspecified date the applicant's lawyer appealed against that decision. 14.  On 12 September 2000 the Rzeszów Regional Court upheld the challenged decision. The court recognised that the only evidence against the applicant was the statement by the applicant's son, who had undergone a psychiatric examination. It stressed, however, that according to the results of the psychiatric report, the applicant's son's mental condition had improved. The court also relied on the risk that the applicant could obstruct the proceedings. 15.  The Rzeszów Regional Court, relying on the same grounds as previously, extended the applicant's detention on 22 September 2000 for three months, and then, on 22 December 2000 for a further three months. 16.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed against the latter decision. 17.  On 18 January 2001 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal gave a decision and released the applicant. The court referred to a psychiatric opinion of 2 January 2001 concerning the applicant's son and found that his statements could not be considered reliable evidence. 18.  On 20 December 2001 the Rzeszów Regional Court gave judgment and acquitted the applicant. 19.  On an unspecified date the Regional Rzeszów Prosecutor appealed against that judgment. 20.  On 9 May 2002 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment. 21.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for manifestly unjustified detention with the Rzeszów Regional Court. 22.  On an unspecified date the Rzeszów Regional Court gave judgment, against which the applicant appealed. 23.  On 22 December 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal remitted the case. 24.  On 29 June 2005 the Rzeszów Regional Court granted the applicant compensation in the amount of 10,360 Polish zlotys (PLN). 25.  The applicant appealed against that judgment, arguing that the instructions given by the Court of Appeal, which had remitted the case, had not been followed. 26.  On 22 September 2005 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal granted the appeal in part, amended the first-instance judgment and increased the compensation to PLN 10,809. The court considered that the compensation should also include the travelling costs borne by the applicant's family to visit him in prison. 27.  On 10 July 2000 J.M., the applicant's wife, and R.M., the applicant's second son, asked the Rzeszów Regional Prosecutor for permission to see the applicant. They also requested information on the applicant's state of health. 28.  According to the applicant's submissions the prosecutor did not reply to their request. 29.  On 3 August 2000 the applicant's lawyer requested the Rzeszów Regional Prosecutor to allow him to see his wife and son. He relied on the applicant's age and state of health. 30.  On 17 August 2000 the Rzeszów Regional Prosecutor refused to allow the applicant personal contact with his family. The refusal was motivated by the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation (z uwagi na dobro toczącego się śledztwa). 31.  On 21 September 2000 J.M. and R.M. again requested the prosecutor to allow them to visit the applicant. They submitted that for almost three months they had been denied personal contact with the close family members. Apparently this request remained unanswered. 32.  According to the findings of the Court of Appeal which examined the matter of the applicant's family's visits in prison for the purposes of calculating their travelling costs, the applicant's son visited him twice in the hospital wing of the Kraków Remand Centre on 14 October and 18 November 2000, and once, on 7 January 2001, in the Remand Centre itself. The applicant's wife was allowed to see her husband on 14 January 2001.