European Court of Human Rights

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

CASE OF TURPULKHANOVA AND KHASIYEVA v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 53284/13 and 22543/15)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

17 March 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 

 

In the case of Turpulkhanova and Khasiyeva v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Alena Poláčková, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 25 February 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in two applications (nos. 53284/13 and 22543/15) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Ms Layla Turpulkhanova and Ms Lilya Khasiyeva (“the applicants”), on 25 July 2013 and 30 April 2015 respectively.

2.  The applicants were represented by Stichting Russian Justice Initiative and the Committee Against Torture, NGOs operating in Moscow and Nizhniy Novgorod respectively. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

3.  Notice of the complaints was given to the Government on 5 February 2018.

4.  The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5.  Both applications concern the abduction and subsequent disappearance of the applicants’ daughters in Grozny in November 2011 and July 2013 respectively. Both incidents were investigated by the same authorities, that is by police station no. 4 in the Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny and then by the Staropromyslovskiy district department of the investigative committee.

A.    Turpulkhanova v. Russia (no. 53284/13)

1.    Disappearance of the applicant’s daughter

6.  The applicant, Ms Layla (also spelled as Leyla) Turpulkhanova, was born in 1970 and resides in Grozny, Chechnya. She is the mother of Ms Luiza Mezhidova, who was born in 1988.

7.  At the material time the applicant lived with her daughter, Luiza Mezhidova, who was divorced and another daughter, Ms A.T., in a block of flats in Grozny. Luiza Mezhidova worked as a sales assistant in a local shoe shop.

8.  At about 9 p.m. on 31 October 2011 Luiza Mezhidova returned home from work. Then she had an argument with the applicant on account of her late return home. After midnight, she received several telephone calls. Leaving her personal belongings, including her mobile telephone, at home, she went out to meet someone. According to the applicant, her daughter left the house to meet a police officer, Ibragim M. from the Shali district police station. Luiza Mezhidova did not return home and has been missing ever since.

9.  According to the applicant and information obtained during the subsequent investigation, since 2009 Luiza Mezhidova had been in a romantic relationship with Ibragim M. which they were keeping a secret, as the officer was afraid of retaliation from her male relatives.

10.  On 6 December 2011 Luiza Mezhidova’s profile on the social network “Odnoklassniki” was accessed and some posts were made. According to the applicant, third parties accessed her missing daughter’s profile.

2.    The official investigation into the disappearance

11.  On 7 November 2011 the applicant lodged an official complaint regarding her daughter’s disappearance with police station no. 4 in the Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny. On an unspecified date between 1 and 8 November 2011 she provided the police with details of the three telephone numbers to which her daughter’s mobile telephone had been connected prior to her disappearance. She also provided three SIM cards for the telephone numbers used by Luiza Mezhidova.

12.  On 7 November 2011 the police interviewed the applicant. Her statement was similar to her subsequent submission before the Court.

13.  On 7 November 2011 the police interviewed the applicant’s other daughter, Ms A.T., whose statement was similar to that of the applicant.

14.  On 7 November 2011 the police interviewed a colleague of Luiza Mezhidova and the taxi driver who had taken her home from work on the evening of 31 October 2011. Neither of them had any information as to her whereabouts or theories concerning the reasons for her disappearance.

15.  On 8 November 2011 the applicant complained to the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor about her daughter’s disappearance and stated that a man named Kazbek from Urus-Martan, who had called Luiza prior to her disappearance, could have been involved in the incident.

16.  On 16 November 2011 a woman’s hand was found on the premises of a local school. The police arrived and collected the evidence, but they did not examine the premises. The evidence was never officially logged and has gone missing under unclear circumstances (see below).

17.  On 17 November 2011 the Grozny police station refused to open a criminal case into Luiza Mezhidova’s disappearance for the lack of evidence of a crime.

18.  Between 18 November and 3 December 2011 the police interviewed several of Luiza Mezhidova’s colleagues. None of them had any information as to her possible whereabouts or theories concerning her disapperance.

19.  On 17 November 2011 Luiza Mezhidova’s name was included in the Russian federal database of missing persons.

20.  On 5 December 2011 the investigators questioned the applicant, who gave a similar submission to that subsequently provided to the Court. In addition, she stated that she had provided the police with a detailed statement of the telephone calls made from Luiza Mezhidova’s mobile telephone.

21.  On 8 December 2011 the police commissioned an expert technical examination to establish what IP address had been used to connect to Luiza Mezhidova’s profile on the social network “Odnoklassiniki” on 6 December 2011.

22.  On 12 January 2012 the Leninskiy inter-district investigative committee in Grozny (“the investigators”) opened criminal case no. 13002 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).

23.  On 16 January 2012 the investigators questioned the applicant, who gave a statement similar to her subsequent submission before the Court.

24.  On 26 January 2012 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who added to her previous statements that since her daughter’s disappearance she had been carrying out her own investigation. On or about 22 January 2012 she had spoken with her niece, Ms R.T., who had been a close friend and confidant of Luiza Mezhidova. According to Ms R.T., Luiza Mezhidova’s former suitor of two years, Ibragim M., a police officer from the Shali district, had broken up with her as he was married and had minor children. However, after the break-up Ibragim M. had maintained close contact with Luiza Mezhidova, who at times had borrowed money from him. According to Ms R.T., he had continued to work as a police officer despite having been involved in a number of incidents, including a murder and a sex crime. Due to the nature of his work, Ibragim M. had participated in special operations against members of illegal armed groups. According to the applicant, Ibragim M. was a dangerous person and was mostly likely involved in her daughter’s disappearance.

25.  On 26 January 2012 the investigators requested that the police assist them in establishing the identities of Ibragim M. and two of his acquaintances.

26.  On 30 January 2012 the investigators examined the crime scene at the applicant’s flat and collected Luiza Mezhidova’s blouse in order to extract her DNA profile.

27.  On 30 January 2012 the investigators questioned Ms R.T. who confirmed the applicant’s statement of 26 January 2012 and also stated that after Luiza Mezhidova’s disappearance she had asked Ibragim M. for assistance in the search for her. He had refused, saying that he had no idea where to look for Luiza and had tried to reassure Ms R.T. that Luiza had left of her own free will. According to Ms R.T., Luiza Mezhidova and Ibragim M. had not been romantically involved.

28.  On 13 February 2012, upon a request from their superiors, the investigators issued a statement summarising the steps taken in the criminal case. According to the document, the investigation had examined two theories in relation to Luiza Mezhidova’s disappearance: “[1] the crime could have been committed as a domestic or sex crime by a person known to her; or [2] the crime could have been committed by one of her relatives owing to her immoral lifestyle”. According to the findings of the investigation, Luiza Mezhidova had used two telephone numbers, and the last telephone number from which she had received a call had been established. A number of Luiza Mezhidova’s acquaintances had been identified, including Ibragim M. from Senzhen-Yurt in the Shali district, who had been born in 1988, and whose involvement in her disappearance was being looked into.

29.  On 29 February 2012 the investigators issued another summary of the steps taken, which stated, in particular, that they had established the identity of the owner of the last telephone number from which Luiza Mezhidova had received calls. The owner of that number was a retired Ms L.S. from Grozny, who had not had any idea that telephone number 8‑928‑897‑XXXX had been registered in her name. She presumed that a copy of her passport, available at the police station, must have been fraudulently used for that purpose.

30.  On 13 February 2012 the Staropromyslovskiy district court authorised the tapping of the last telephone number from which Luiza Mezhidova had received calls prior to her disappearance.

31.  On 12 April 2012 the investigators questioned several of Luiza Mezhidova’s acquaintances. No new information was obtained.

32.  On 12 April 2012 the investigators suspended the investigation into the criminal case for a failure to identify the perpetrators and informed the applicant thereof.

33.  On 2 May 2012 the investigators resumed the proceedings owing to orders issued by their superiors, prompted by a complaint lodged by the applicant, which included an order to question a number of witnesses.

34.  On 20 May 2012 the deputy Chechnya prosecutor issued a “statement concerning violations of criminal procedure legislation” in respect of the investigators. The document stated that despite being four months into the investigation, the investigators “have failed to take effective steps to identify and prosecute the perpetrators, and have failed to duly coordinate their actions with the bodies carrying out the operational search measures [the police]”. In particular, the investigators had not taken steps to:

“... establish the whereabouts and question the former husband of Ms Mezhidova, Mr A.S., as well as to question her step-father, Mr T.V., about the circumstances of her disappearance.

The criminal case file does not contain information on the movements of Luiza Mezhidova on the day of her disappearance, or on possible suspects, which could have been obtained from CCTV cameras close to her residence.

The investigators failed to identify any eyewitnesses, including neighbours in the block of flats, who could have seen Ms Mezhidova when she left home and confirmed with whom she spoke on the day of her disappearance ...

The investigators failed to verify Ms Turpulkhanova’s theory that a man named Kazbek from Urus-Martan could have been involved in the disappearance; his whereabouts and identity have not been established. No steps have been taken to question Ibragim M., with whom Luiza Mezhidova had been friends for the last two years ... Involvement of those persons in the crime has not been verified ...

The information in the investigation case file concerning the commission by Ibragim M. of crimes – murder, rape, violent acts of a sexual nature – have not been officially registered nor subjected to a [compulsory] preliminary inquiry.

The case file does not contain the conclusions of the genetic expert evaluation or the technical computer examination ...

All those procedural violations, together with the procrastination in the investigation and a failure to take urgent steps which should have been taken at the very beginning of the investigation, have led to violations of the rights of [the victims in the criminal case] and, therefore, have provided grounds for their complaints.

On the basis of the above, you are requested to take steps to eliminate the procedural violations in criminal case no. 13002 ... and to take steps to ensure the due investigation of the case ...”

35.  On 4 June 2012 the investigation of the criminal case was suspended again without the enumerated steps having been taken. The applicant was informed thereof.

36.  On 22 June 2012 the deputy prosecutor of the Staropromyslovskiy district requested that the violations of procedural regulations during the investigation be eliminated in a document which criticised the investigators’ failure take the steps enumerated on 20 May 2012 by the deputy Chechnya prosecutor (see paragraph 34 above).

37.  On 19 June 2012 the investigation was resumed.

38.  On 26 June 2012 the Chechnya Department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) informed the investigators of the following, enclosing the relevant witness statements:

“... the Chechnya Department of the FSB carried out an inquiry into the possible involvement of officers at a high operating level from police station no. 4 in Grozny (in the Staropromyslovskiy district) into the abuse of their official authority, who, in order to increase the statistical results of solved crimes, intentionally covered-up information about the commission of serious and particularly serious crimes in the area of their jurisdiction. In addition, in order to avoid having “cold cases”, the information on such crimes was intentionally not submitted to the report room of the Chechnya Ministry of Interior [the police headquarters], therefore, its compulsory registration in the official daily brief was not carried out.

In particular, there is a search file at police station no. 4 concerning the disappearance of Luiza Mezhidova ... who left home on 1 November 2011 and did not return.

The inquiry established that at about 11.30 a.m. on 16 November 2011 the principal of school no. 26, [Ms L.I.], called police station no. 4 and informed them that the pupils had found fragments of a human body in the vicinity of their school. The team of police officers who arrived at the scene consisted of:

1)  Captain [S.S.]

2)  Senior Lieutenant [M.N.]

3)  Senior Lieutenant [I.B.] and

4)  Senior Lieutenant [Kh.B.]

They established that the object found had been a part of a human left hand (presumably of a female). The state of the remains showed that the hand had been recently severed and that the death of the person to whom the hand belonged had occurred approximately at the beginning of November 2011.

After the team reported the findings to their superiors [over the telephone], they were verbally ordered to get rid of the remains at all costs. After that the police officers collected the object and left.

In violation of the relevant procedure, the information on the discovery of the remains was not registered in the official daily brief.

The school’s principal and its guard [Mr S.Kh.] stated that the fragment found had had ... long nails ...

According to operational information, [Ibragim M.] could have been involved in the disappearance of Luiza Mezhidova, as he had met with her late that night ...”

39.  From the documents submitted it transpires that no reply was given to the above FSB letter.

40.  On 28 June 2012 the investigators questioned the applicant’s sister, Ms Ya.T., who gave a similar statement to that subsequently given by the applicant before the Court.

41.  On 5 July 2012 the investigators commissioned a genetic expert evaluation to determine the applicant’s DNA markers.

42.  On 6 July 2012 the expert submitted a report on the applicant’s DNA.

43.  Between 10 and 16 July 2012 the investigators questioned several of the applicant’s neighbours and colleagues of Luiza Mezhidova. Their statements did not provide any new information.

44.  On 11 July 2012 the investigators’ superiors again issued orders concerning the investigative steps to be taken in the criminal case. In particular, they requested that the investigators:

“...

- question [Mr S.Kh.], [Ms L.I.] and the pupils from school no. 26 in Grozny concerning the discovery of the female left hand;

- take a procedural decision in respect of the discovery of the female hand;

- take a procedural decision in respect of the police officers from police station no. 4 (ОП-4) in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny concerning the cover-up of the information concerning the discovery of the female left hand to avoid it being officially registered;

- ... take steps to verify the involvement of [Ibragim M.], [Mr Magomed] ... in the crime, in particular, question them about their connection to Luiza Mezhidova, where and when they saw her for the last time ...

- obtain results of the genetic and computer examinations ...”

45.  On 14 July 2012 the investigators again questioned the applicant’s niece, Ms R.T., who stated that Ibragim M. worked at a law-enforcement agency, that he had told her that he had killed a man and that he had participated in counter-terrorism operations. Even though she had previously stated that Ibragim M. was a dangerous person, he would not have been capable of hurting Luiza Mezhidova as they had had a friendly relationship.

46.  On 15 July 2012 the investigators questioned the applicant’s neighbour, Ms Z.A., who stated that next to their block of flats she had regularly seen Luiza Mezhidova talking to a young man in a green police camouflage uniform and that she would be able to identify that man.

47.  On 16 July 2012 the investigators questioned Mr Ibragim M. who stated that he worked as a policeman at the Shali district police station, was married and had two children. He confirmed that he had been romantically involved with Luiza Mezhidova since 2010, but they had hidden it from the public out of fear of retaliation from, or a blood feud instigated by, her male relatives. On the date of her disappearance, late in the evening, he had received a telephone call from her. He had been drinking with his friends, and then, at night, he had arrived at Ms Mezhidova’s block of flats and picked her up. He had driven with her to a side of the Staropromyslovskiy highway in Grozny and they had stayed in the car drinking alcohol. His two friends, Mr Zelemkhan M. and Mr Said-Emi A. had driven up in their car and they had all been chatting and drinking. Then he had driven away with Luiza Mezhidova for about twenty to thirty minutes, during which time she had told him that she loved him and complained of her relationship with her parents. Then they had had sex, after which she had asked him to marry her as she had not wanted to return to her parents. He had told her that he was already married and that he did not intend to divorce his wife. Then they had returned to the place where the car with Mr Zelemkhan M. and Mr Said‑Emi A. was parked. After that he had driven Luiza Mezhidova to the taxi stand where there had been a taxi awaiting passengers – next to the traffic light at Mayakovskogo Street, on the Staropromyslovskiy highway. As he had been afraid to be seen with her and she had been very upset with him, he had not got out of the car when Luiza Mezhidova had got into the taxi. Then he and his two friends had driven to their respective homes. During the questioning, Ibragim M. also stated that contrary to the rumours, he had not killed his friend A., who had died as a result of mishandling a gun. He also confirmed that he had sometimes lent Luiza Mezhidova some money and that she had always repaid him. He further stated that he had been surprised to learn that she had gone missing as he had seen her on the night of her disappearance. According to Ibragim M., it was possible that she had had some other men in her life as she had “liked drinking and quick to get into a sexual relationship”.

48.  On 18 July 2012 the investigators questioned Mr Zelemkhan M. and Mr Said-Emi A., both of whom confirmed the statement of Mr Ibragim M. in general terms concerning the circumstances of their meeting with Luiza Mezhidova on the night of her disappearance. They had not, however, witnessed her getting out from Ibragim M.’s car and getting into the taxi.

49.  On 19 July 2012 the investigators suspended the investigation for a failure to identify the perpetrators and informed the applicant thereof.

50.  On 27 July 2012 the investigators’ superior overruled the suspension as unlawful and premature and ordered that a number of steps be taken.

51.  On 28 July 2012 the investigators questioned several colleagues and acquaintances of Luiza Mezhidova, whose statements did not provide any new information.

52.  On 30 July 2012 the investigators decided not to open a criminal case “on inquiry no. 55 пр-12 of 19 July 2012” into the actions of the police officers in connection with the discovery of the human remains on the school premises for a lack of corpus delicti. The refusal stated, in particular, that according to the officers’ statements, the severed female hand found on the school premises had in fact been a fake hand made of rubber. The document did not specify what had happened to that hand after the police had collected it from the scene or whether any expert examinations of it had been carried out (see paragraph 38 above).

53.  On 27 August 2012 the investigators again suspended the proceedings for a failure to identify a suspect.

54.  Meanwhile, on 6 September 2012 the Chechnya FSB replied to the investigators that according to their information, Luiza Mezhidova was not involved in illegal armed groups.

55.  On 4 December 2012 the applicant complained to the Staropromyslovskiy district court in Grozny of the investigators’ failure to take basic steps, such as questioning a number of witnesses and obtaining the CCTV footage from nearby buildings – the relevant request had been made by the investigators only on 1 June 2012 but no footage had actually been obtained. She requested that the suspended proceedings be resumed and the necessary steps taken.

56.  On 7 December 2012 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint as, on the day before – 6 December 2012 – the criminal investigation had been resumed.

57.  On 17 and 18 December 2012 the investigators questioned the principal and the guard of the school concerning the discovery of the remains. Neither of them could say whether the hand found had been fake or real (see also paragraph 38 above).

58.  On 6 January 2013 the investigators once again suspended the proceedings.

59.  On 29 January 2013 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who made a statement similar to that before the Court. In addition, she reiterated her suspicion of the involvement of Mr Ibragim M. in Luiza Mezhidova’s disappearance, as he had been the last person to see her. The applicant stressed that even if her daughter had wanted to leave her family unannounced, she would have taken her mobile telephones, documents and some money with her. However, she had gone missing leaving everything she had behind.

60.  On 3 February 2013 the investigators sought to verify the statement of Mr Ibragim M. in the field by taking him along the route he had described in his statement of 16 July 2012 (see paragraph 47 above).

61.  On 5 and 6 February 2013 the investigators again questioned Mr Ibragim M., who gave a short statement in general terms that he had had nothing to do with Luiza Mezhidova’s disappearance, he denied ever having had a romantic relationship with her, and having been alone with her on the night of her disappearance and suggested that she must have gone missing due to her immoral lifestyle.

62.  On 6 February 2013 the investigators questioned the applicant’s husband, Mr T.V., who gave a statement in similar terms to the applicant’s submission before the Court. In addition, he denied that Luiza Mezhidova had had an immoral lifestyle and pointed out that she had disappeared after having gone out to meet Ibragim M.

63.  On 6 February 2013 the investigation was suspended again and the applicant was informed thereof. According to the applicant, the investigators failed to provide her with access to the investigation file despite her repeated requests.

64.  On 15 February 2013 the deputy head of the Chechnya investigative committee criticised the investigation into the criminal case and requested that the Staropromyslovskiy district prosecutor carry out an inquiry into the lack of collaboration between the police and the investigators in the case. In particular, he stated that:

“... the examination of the criminal case file shows a low level of collaboration between the investigator and the services responsible for the investigation’s operational support. The investigator’s orders are either executed only in part, or only in outward form or inappropriately. There is no initiative from the operational service [of the police] to establish either the whereabouts of Ms Luiza Mezhidova or the perpetrators of the crime committed against her.

The operational services [the police] have not taken any steps to establish her whereabouts, to verify theories [about her disappearance], or to establish her social circle, including friends, acquaintances and networks.

 The operational search activity in that connection has not been organised, which is, in our opinion, possibly owing to a lack of supervision on the part of superior officers at police station no. 4 in Grozny ...

In connection with the above, it is requested that you carry out an inquiry into the operational search file [in criminal case no. 13002] ...”

65.  On 15 February 2013 the investigators’ superiors examined the criminal case file and found in general terms, contrary to the above detailed criticism, that the investigation had been suspended lawfully.

66.  On 31 October 2013 (although in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 5 November 2013) the investigation was resumed and the applicant was informed thereof. The decision stated that the suspension of 6 February 2013 had been unlawful and premature and that the investigation at that stage had failed to establish relevant factual circumstances of the case. In particular, the telephones belonging to Luiza Mezhidova had not been collected as evidence.

67.  On 31 October 2013 the investigators’ superior ordered a number of steps to be taken by the investigation, including collecting and examining Luiza Mezhidova’s mobile telephones, commissioning a forensic examination of Ibragim M.’s car for traces of blood, verifying the statements of his friends who had seen him with Luiza Mezhidova on the night of her disappearance, looking into the last login to her profile on the social network (see paragraph 10 above) and establishing the actual owner of the telephone number which had been the last to connect to Luiza Mezhidova’s telephone.

68.  On 21 November 2013 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who reiterated her previous statements.

69.  On 5 December 2013 the investigation in the criminal case was suspended again and the applicant was informed thereof.

70.  On 30 December 2013 the applicant complained to a number of State authorities, including the investigators’ superiors and the Chechnya prosecutor, stating that the investigation into her daughter’s disappearance was ineffective. She stressed, in particular, that Luiza Mezhidova’s telephones had not been collected in the course of the investigation, that the investigators had failed to comply with the compulsory orders given by their superiors (see paragraph 36 above), that no forensic examination of the human hand found on the school premises had been carried out and that no comparative examination between its DNA and that of the applicant had been commissioned. Finally, she pointed out that despite his contradictory statements concerning the circumstances of his meeting with Luiza Mezhidova on the night of her disappearance, Ibragim M. had not been questioned as a suspect and the discrepancies in his statements had not been explained away.

71.  On 29 January 2014 the investigators’ superior overruled the suspension of the investigation as unlawful and premature and ordered that it be resumed for the investigators’ failure to comply with the orders of 22 June 2012 and 31 October 2013 (see paragraphs 36 and 66 above). On the same date the investigation was resumed.

72.  On 28 February 2014 the investigation was suspended again without any of the steps ordered having been taken. The applicant was informed of that decision.

73.  On 25 April 2014 the investigators’ superiors yet again overruled the suspension of the investigation as unlawful and premature and ordered that it be resumed for the investigators’ failure to comply with the orders of 22 June 2012 and 31 October 2013.

74.  On 16 May 2014 the investigation was resumed and then again suspended on 13 June 2014 without any steps having been taken. The applicant was informed of the suspension.

75.  On 20 September 2014 the investigation was resumed again.

76.  On 18 October 2014 the investigators questioned a woman of Luiza Mezhidova’s acquaintance, Ms S.N., whose statement did not provide any pertinent information.

77.  On 20 October 2014 the investigation was suspended again.

78.  On 15 December 2014 the investigators’ superiors yet again overruled the suspension of the investigation as unlawful and premature and ordered that it be resumed for the investigators’ failure to comply with the previous orders. On the same date the proceedings were resumed.

79.  Between 15 and 18 December 2014 the investigators questioned officers S.S., M.N., I.B. and Kh.B., who had been the police officers who had attended the school to collect the human hand found on its premises (see paragraph 38 above). Citing poor memories, none of the officers could recall any of the events of that day. Only officer M.N. stated that, as far as he could recall, the hand had turned out to be a fake.

80.  On 24 December 2014 (although in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 24 February 2014) the investigators again decided not to open a criminal case for the lack of corpus delicti with relation to the actions of the police officers upon the discovery of the human remains on the school premises. The text of the decision was similar to that of the refusal of 30 July 2012 (see paragraph 52 above) and referred to the statements of the police officers implicated (see the paragraph above). No information was given as to what had happened to the hand after it had been collected by the police.

81.  On 30 December 2014 the investigation was suspended again before being resumed on 19 May 2015 for the investigators’ failure to take the previously ordered steps.

82.  Between 26 May and 8 June 2015 the investigators questioned a customer of the shoe shop where Luiza Mezhidova had worked prior to her disappearance and two of her colleagues from the shop. No new information was obtained.

83.  On 19 June 2015 the investigation was suspended again before being resumed on 21 June 2015 for the investigators’ failure to take the previously ordered steps.

84.  On 3 July 2015 the investigators’ superior ordered that a number of steps be taken, including recovering the human hand found on the school premises, establishing the call history between Luiza Mezhidova and Ibragim M. and questioning him again about the circumstances of his meeting with her on the night of her disappearance.

85.  On 21 July 2015 the investigation was suspended again before being resumed on 5 August 2015 for the investigators’ failure to take the previously ordered steps.

86.  On 5 September 2015 the investigation was suspended once more. It appears that the investigation is still pending.

B.     Khasiyeva v. Russia (no. 22543/15)

87.  The applicant, Ms Lilya Khasiyeva, was born in 1964 and resides in Grozny, Chechnya. She is the mother of Ms Khadizhat Elimkhanova, who was born in 1993.

1.    Disappearance of the applicant’s daughter

88.  At the material time, the applicant lived with her daughter, who was divorced, in a block of flats in the Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny.

89.  At about 6.30 p.m. on 6 July 2013 when Ms Khadizhat Elimkhanova was walking by the neighbouring property (no. 147), a silver-coloured VAZ-Priora car with the registration number “У 541 ОН” pulled over, two men jumped out and started beating her around the head and to the torso. Then they forced her into their car and drove off. A number of local residents witnessed the incident. Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s mobile telephone was immediately switched off. She has been missing ever since.

2.    The official investigation into the disappearance

90.  On the same date, 6 July 2013, the applicant complained of her daughter’s abduction to police station no. 4 in Grozny. According to the applicant, her complaint was registered as having been lodged on 8 July 2013.

91.  On 8 July 2013 the police interviewed the applicant, who stated that at about 6.10 p.m. on 6 July 2013 her daughter Khadizhat Elimkhanova had left home and gone to a block of flats nearby, at no. 147, to see an acquaintance, Ms Z. T. On her way back home, the residents of that block of flats had seen a silver-coloured VAZ-Priora car pull over, two men emerge and force Khadizhat Elimkhanova into the vehicle. One of the men had been armed and in a military uniform. When one of the residents had tried to intervene, the armed man had threatened him with a handgun and said that he was Khadizhat’s relative. According to the witnesses, when being forced into the car, Khadizhat kept screaming: “Muslim, leave me alone!” The applicant further stated that one of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s father’s relatives, namely Mr Muslim E. (although in the documents submitted his name was also expressed as Mamed E.), worked at the federal military base in Khankala and that he had a silver-coloured VAZ-Priora car. Then the applicant provided the investigators with Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s mobile telephone number and stressed that soon after the abduction the telephone had been switched off. According to the applicant, on 7 July 2013, she had called her brother who had confirmed that Muslim Edilkhanov had been near her house on 6 July 2013.

92.  On 8 July 2013 the police interviewed Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s acquaintance, Ms Z.T., who stated that in the evening of 6 July 2013 Khadizhat had come by to pick something up and then both women had talked for about five minutes at the entrance to the block of flats, next to the shop. Then she had gone into her flat and had only learnt of Khadizhat’s abduction after the fact.

93.  On 8 July 2013 the police interviewed military officer Mamed E. (also known as Muslim) who stated in general terms that he was Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s relative on her father’s side, that he had last seen her in 2009 or 2010 and stated that on 6 July 2013 he had been at work in Khankala, about 20 km away. He further stated that according to his relatives, from the point of view of “the Chechen mentality” Khadizhat Elimkhanova had had an immoral lifestyle.

94.  On 12 July 2013 the applicant complained to the head of the Chechnya investigative committee. She stated that despite all of the information provided to the police, the authorities had not opened a criminal case into her allegations and had even altered the date of her complaint of the abduction to read 8 July 2013 and not 6 July 2013, when it had actually been lodged. She stated, in particular, that there had been numerous witnesses to the abduction from the neighbouring blocks of flats, who had provided her with the abductors’ car’s registration number. She further stated that the incident had been recorded by the CCTV camera of the shop located next to the place of the abduction and that she herself seen the footage of her daughter’s abduction from that camera.

95.  On 14 July 2013 the police interviewed the applicant, who reiterated her previously given statements and stressed that she suspected Muslim E. of the abduction, which he could have perpetrated out of revenge for her daughter’s allegedly immoral lifestyle. The applicant stated that the numerous witnesses to the abduction had heard Khadizhat Elimkhanova screaming and calling one of the abductors “Muslim”.

96.  On 17 July 2013 the police interviewed Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s friend, Ms P.D., who stated that she had learnt of the abduction from others and that Khadizhat Elimkhanova had told her on several occasions that a relative of hers named “Muslim” had threatened her by saying that if he “were to hear of [her] immoral lifestyle, then [her] life would end there”.

97.  On 18 July 2013 the police interviewed Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s relative, Mr N.-A.A, who stated that Khadizhat had allegedly had what it takes to drink alcohol and take recreational drugs and that he had learnt of her abduction from her relatives.

98.  On 18 July 2013 the police again interviewed Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s friend, Ms Z.T. (see paragraph 92 above), who stated that Khadizhat Elimkhanova had not taken either alcohol or drugs.

99.  On 18 July 2013 the police examined the abduction scene. No evidence was collected. The transcript stated that there was a CCTV camera on the building next to the crime scene.

100.  On 21 July the police interviewed the applicant’s relative, Mr I.E., who stated that he had learnt of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s abduction from his relatives. According to him, Khadizhat had been known to have an immoral lifestyle. In the past, she had been forcibly taken to her grandfather, Mr Sh.E., in the Pervomayskay settlement for about two weeks, where her relatives had tried to explain to her that she should not have such a lifestyle, which had disgraced their family name. Then the applicant had arrived and taken Khadizhat back home. He also confirmed that they had a relative named Muslim who was a serviceman.

101.  On 22 July 2013 the police interviewed the applicant’s relative, Mr R.E., who stated that he had learnt of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s abduction from his relatives and that she had been known to have an immoral lifestyle, which reflected poorly on their family. He said that he did not know who could have abducted Khadizhat, but that “her immoral lifestyle was not liked by many members of our family.”

102.  On 22 July 2013 the police also interviewed the applicant’s relative Mr Ru.E. who stated that he had heard of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s abduction from his relatives and that she had been known to have a dissolute lifestyle, which had reflected poorly on their family. In his opinion, the crime committed against Khadizhat Elimkhanova could have been as a result of her immoral behaviour.

103.  On 22 July 2013 the police interviewed one of the residents of the block of flats situated next to the crime scene, Ms T.N., who stated that on the evening of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s abduction, on the way to the shop located in the nearby building, she had been approached by two men. One of them, in a camouflage uniform, had asked her whether the applicant and her daughter, Khadizhat Elimkhanova, had lived in that building. The witness had not known for sure, then the man had asked another woman who had been passing by and she had provided him with the information. Then the witness had gone into the shop for a few minutes. On her way back home, she had seen the men forcing a young woman into a silver-coloured VAZ-Priora car and the woman had been screaming: “Muslim, let me go, let me see my mother for a last time”, but to no avail.

104.  On 24 July 2013 the investigators of the Staropromyslovskiy district department of the investigative committee opened criminal case no. 42040 into Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s abduction under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (aggravated abduction).

105.  On 26 July 2013 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned. She reiterated her previously given statements and added that at about 6.30 p.m. she had been talking a walk with her friend, Ms L., when she had dialled her daughter’s number, but her telephone had been switched off. Then both women had gone to the applicant’s home, where in the courtyard of their block of flats, a number of local residents had described to them the circumstances of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s abduction and given them the registration number of the abductors’ car as “У 541 ОН”. Then the applicant had seen, on CCTV footage taken from the nearby shop, two men forcing her daughter into their car. The applicant emphasised that she suspected her relative Muslim E. was responsible for the abduction.

106.  On 26 July 2013 the investigators questioned the applicant’s friend, Ms L., whose statement corroborated that of the applicant. In addition, she stated that, during the abduction, the man in military uniform whom Khadizhat Elimkhanova had called “Muslim”, had told the onlookers that he was Khadizhat’s cousin and that therefore they had to keep out of it. The second abductor had been short and dressed in civilian clothing.

107.  On 28 July 2013 the investigators again examined the abduction scene. They collected the hard drive from the CCTV camera unit in the local shop.

108.  Between 29 July and 1 August 2013 the investigators questioned the applicant’s relatives, Mr Ru.E, Mr R.E. and Mr N.-A.A., all of whom reaffirmed their previously given statements verbatim.

109.  On 1 August 2013 the investigators’ superior ordered that the investigators take a number of steps in the criminal case. In particular, the investigators were to:

“1.  Seize as evidence the CCTV video footage from the grocery shop ...;

2.  Commission an examination of the video footage;

3.  Obtain information on the owner or user of a silver-coloured VAZ-Priora with the registration number У 541 ОН from the database of the traffic police and question him about the abduction;

4.  Question eight witnesses ...;

5.  Identify the man known as Kazbek, to whom Khadizhat Elimkhanova had been married in 2008 and question him ..;...

7.  Obtain information from the Nadterechniy military commander’s office on the place of work and the position of Mr Muslim E.;

8.  Establish Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s mobile telephone number and obtain judicial authorisation to access its call history.”

110.  On 2 August 2013 the investigators took a sample of the applicant’s blood for future examination for a possible match in the database of unidentified bodies. On 5 August 2013 the sample was forwarded for an expert evaluation of the applicant’s DNA markers.

111.  On 4 August 2013 the investigators questioned Ms Z.A. who stated that in the evening of 6 July 2013 she had gone to a grocery shop, where she had seen a crowd of people surrounding a woman (the applicant) who had been watching something on the shop’s computer and crying heavily. After that she had found out that the woman’s daughter had been abducted.

112.  On 5 or 6 August 2013 the investigators questioned Ms E.A. who stated that she resided in the same block of flats as the applicant. In the evening of 6 July 2013 she had been walking to her flat from the courtyard, when on the staircase two men, one of whom had been bald, had asked her whether she had known where Ms Khasiyeva (the applicant) lived with her daughter called Khadizhat. She had told them that the women lived on the 7^th floor. She had learned of the abduction later on.

113.  On 9 August 2013 the investigators questioned Ms Z.T. who reaffirmed her previously given statements (see paragraphs 92 and 98 above).

114.  On 10 August 2013 the investigators commissioned an expert evaluation of the video footage collected from the grocery shop.

115.  Between 11 and 23 August 2013 the investigators questioned several of the applicant’s neighbours and relatives, all of whom stated that they had learnt of the abduction from others and did not know whether Khadizhat Elimkhanova had had an immoral lifestyle.

116.  On 23 August 2013 the investigators examined the applicant’s flat. No evidence was collected.

117.  On 25 August 2013 the investigators’ superior approved the plan of investigation proposed in the criminal case. The document stated, amongst other things, that according to the primary theory, the abduction of Khadizhat Elimkhanova had been perpetrated by her relatives owing to her immoral lifestyle.

118.  Between 26 and August 2013 the investigators questioned several of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s friends and acquaintances. No new information was obtained.

119.  On 27 August 2013 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court authorised the investigators’ request for information from the mobile telephone carrier as to the call history of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s mobile telephone for the period between 4 July and 4 August 2013.

120.  On 28 August 2013 the investigators questioned Ms T.N., who stated that on 6 July 2013 in the courtyard of their block of flats she had seen two men, one of whom had hit a young woman in the head, and then both men had forced her into their car. The young woman had been Khadizhat Elimkhanova.

121.  On 28 and 29 August 2013 the investigators questioned several of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s neighbours. Some of them had heard the commotion in the courtyard and women yelling “What are you doing?!” and had then learned of the abduction.

122.  On 29 August 2013 the investigators’ superior ordered that the investigators take a number of steps in the criminal case. In particular, they were to:

“... question [a number of witnesses] ...;

6.  Examine the vehicle belonging to Mr Muslim E. in order to search for traces of hair and fibres from Khadizhat Elimkhanova or her clothing; ...

12.  Request the head of the department of the Federal Security Service in military unit no. 54844 to take operational steps to verify whether Mr Muslim E. was involved in the crime;

13.  Request information from the commander of military unit no. 27777 concerning the service of a lance sergeant in the special surveillance unit of the special task force battalion, namely Muslim E., over the last three months;

14.  Obtain replies to information requests concerning the owner of the vehicle with the registration number У 541 ОН and question him ...;

123.  On 3 and 4 September 2013 the investigators questioned three of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s acquaintances. No new information was obtained.

124.  On 15 September 2013 the investigators again questioned the applicant who affirmed her previously given statements. She added that she was carrying out her own search for her daughter and had spoken with a number of eyewitnesses to the abduction, who had told her that they had not given official statements about the abduction out of fear for their personal safety.

125.  On 17 September 2013 the investigators questioned Ms A.Ch. who identified Khadizhat Elimkhanova by photograph and stated that she had known her as a friend of her daughter Ms Elmira Sh., who had also gone missing from Grozny at the end of June or beginning of July 2013. The two young women, along with a young woman named Kheda, who had also gone missing, but from the town Gudermes (some 35-40 km from Grozny), had been friends. According to some rumours, all of the women could have been seen to be leading an “immoral lifestyle” contrary to Chechen culture and could even have been involved in prostitution.

126.  On 18 September 2013, the investigators questioned an officer of the intelligence unit of the special task unit in military unit no. 27777, Mr Mamed E., also known as Muslim E. He stated that the applicant and her daughter Khadizhat Elimkhanova were his relatives, but he had no relationship with them as “from the Chechen cultural point of view, they lived an incorrect lifestyle” and that he had last seen Khadizhat in 2009. On the evening of 6 July 2013 he had been at work at the military unit in Khankala, but the unit did not have a registration log or attendance sheet to mark the employees’ presence or absence at work. He did not have a silver-coloured VAZ-Priora car, but about half of his colleagues had one. He denied any involvement in Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s abduction and stated “if I wanted to abduct her, I would have done it without witnesses in the light of my experience as a special task unit intelligence officer”.

127.  On 19 September 2013 the investigators questioned Mr I.B., Mamed E.’s colleague and the commander of the intelligence unit of the special task unit in military unit no. 27777, who stated that in the evening on 6 July 2013 Mr Edilkhanov had been at work.

128.  On 20 October 2013 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who affirmed her previously given statements and provided the investigators with information about the mobile telephone numbers used by Khadizhat Elimkhanova.

129.  On 21 October 2013 the investigators seized Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s mobile telephone as evidence.

130.  On 24 October 2013 the investigators suspended the proceedings.

131.  On 14 January 2014 the investigators’ superior ordered that the investigation be resumed as it had been suspended prematurely and that a number of necessary steps had to be taken. In particular, the investigators were to verify the information given by Ms A.Ch. (see paragraph 125 above). The investigators were to provide weekly progress reports about the investigation.

132.  On 20 January 2014 the investigation was resumed following the order.

133.  On 28 January 2014 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who affirmed her previously given statements and added that she neither suspected her former husband (the father of Khadizhat Elimkhanova) nor Khadizhat’s ex-husband of the abduction.

134.  On 20 February 2014 the investigators again suspended the proceedings.

135.  On 2 April 2014 the applicant complained to the head of the Chechnya investigative committee that the investigation was ineffective. She pointed out, in particular, that for some reason the investigators had failed to take the most basic steps, such as ordering a forensic examination of Mamed E.’s vehicle, commissioning the examination of the video footage of the abduction taken by the CCTV camera in the shop, obtaining information on the call history associated with Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s SIM card and making a composite sketch of the abductors despite the witnesses’ detailed descriptions of the abductors’ appearance.

136.  On an unspecified date between 14 and 30 April 2014 the investigators’ superior ordered that the investigation be resumed as it had been suspended unlawfully as the previously given orders had not been complied with. In addition, he issued a number of very detailed orders concerning the steps to be taken by the investigators. In particular, they were to question the applicant and ask her whether she had identified anyone from the CCTV footage of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s abduction and query why her neighbours who had witnessed the abduction had been afraid to give their statements to the investigation. The investigators were also to verify whether Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s abduction was connected to the disappearance of the two other girls with whom she had been friends and to find out whether Mamed E. had a car in his possession.

137.  On 14 May 2014 the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on 14 June 2014 without the orders having been carried out.

138.  On 12 December 2014 the applicant’s representatives complained of the ineffectiveness of the investigation to the investigators’ superiors. It appears that shortly thereafter the investigation was resumed before being suspended again on 31 December 2014.

139.  On 12 May 2015 the investigators’ superior ordered that the investigation be resumed as it had been suspended unlawfully. He pointed out that the investigators had failed to comply with the orders previously given and to take the most basic steps in the criminal case. In particular, the investigators had not seized and examined the CCTV footage of the abduction, they had failed to establish the telephone numbers used by Mamed E. and whether he had in fact had a car, as well as to identify any other of the applicant’s relatives known as “Muslim”.

140.  On 15 May 2015 the applicant’s representatives requested permission to access the investigation file. On 19 August 2015 the request was refused.

141.  On 12 May 2015 the investigators’ superior ordered that the investigation be resumed as it had been suspended unlawfully and the investigators take the steps which had been ordered previously (see paragraphs 109, 122, 131 and 136 above).

142.  Between 25 May and 17 June 2015 the investigators questioned three owners of vehicles with registration numbers similar to that of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s abductors. No new information was obtained.

143.  On 20 June 2015 the investigation was suspended again, resumed on 28 July 2015 and then suspended once more on an unspecified date.

144.  On 30 September 2015 the applicant’s representatives requested that the investigators provide them with the last four decisions to suspend the investigation. Their request was granted on 26 October 2015.

145.  On 8 October 2015 the investigators’ superior, upon the applicant’s complaint, yet again ordered that the investigation be resumed as it had been suspended unlawfully and pointed out that the investigators were to carry out the previously given orders, including those issued on 1 August 2013, 29 August 2013 and 18 April 2014 (see paragraphs 109, 122, 131, 136 and 141 above).

146.  On 16 October 2015 the investigation was resumed and then suspended on an unspecified date. Then on 30 August 2016 it was resumed again.

147.  On 15 September 2016 the investigators again questioned the applicant, who confirmed her previously given statements and stated that her own efforts to establish the whereabouts of her daughter had not yielded any positive results.

148.  Between 16 and 28 September 2016 the investigators again questioned three of the applicant’s neighbours, who did not provide any new information.

149.  On 30 September 2016 the investigation was suspended again.

150.  On 16 May 2017 the investigators’ superior examined the investigation file and pointed out that the suspension was premature as a number of steps should have been taken to establish the full circumstances of the abduction.

151.  On 9 November 2017 the investigation was resumed.

152.  On 1 December 2017 the applicant was questioned again. She confirmed her previously given statements.

153.  On 9 December 2017 the investigation was suspended once again. It appears that the investigation is still pending.

3.    Relevant civil proceedings

154.  On 11 September 2016 the applicant lodged a claim with the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny asking for compensation for non‑pecuniary damage caused by the ineffective investigation into her daughter’s abduction. In her claim she pointed out numerous deficiencies in the investigation along with its repeated unlawful suspensions and stressed that the criminal proceedings fell short of the Convention standards.

155.  On 23 November 2016 the court rejected her complaint as unsubstantiated.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

156.  For a summary of the relevant domestic regulations see Turluyeva v. Russia (no. 63638/09, §§ 56-64, 20 June 2013).

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

157.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

158.  The applicants complained that the investigation into their daughters’ disappearance had been ineffective, in violation of Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“1.  Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2.  Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a)  in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b)  in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c)  in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

The parties’ submissions

159.  In both cases, the Government alleged that the applicants had failed to comply with the six-month time limit by lodging their complaints with the Court belatedly after the events in question, as they should have realised that the investigation into their daughters’ disappearance had been ineffective long before that date.

160.  The Government did not comment on the merits of the applicants’ complaints.

161.  The applicants submitted that they had complied with the admissibility criteria by lodging their complaints without undue delay.

162.  The applicants further alleged that the investigation into their daughters’ disappearance had fallen short of the Convention standards.

1.    Admissibility

163.  The documents submitted show that the domestic investigation in the case of Turpulkhanova (no. 53284/13) has been ongoing for less than three years and in Khasiyeva (22543/15) for less than two years prior to the lodging of the respective applications with the Court. The applicants complained to the authorities shortly after their daughter’s disappearance, provided detailed statements to the investigators, handed over evidence and took other steps, such as making complaints to the investigators’ superiors, to expedite the proceedings.

164.  Considering the overall time frame of lodging the applications with the Court (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 165, ECHR 2009), along with the applicants’ active stances in the proceedings, the Court does not find that the lack of progress in the criminal investigation of their daughters’ disappearance should be held against the applicants or interpreted as either a failure on their part to demonstrate due diligence or comply with the six-month requirement (see, by contrast, Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, 31 May 2016).

165.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicants complied with the six-month time limit.

166.  The Court further notes that the applications are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2.    Merits

167.  For a summary of general principles reflecting the Court’s approach to the examination of allegations of a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey ([GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015), and Mazepa and Others v. Russia (no. 15086/07, §§ 69-70 and 74, 17 July 2018).

168.  The Court observes that the same police station in Grozny (see paragraphs 11 and 90 above) carried out, along with the investigative committee, the investigations into the disappearance of both young women. It observes a number of similarities in the investigators’ approach to the investigation of both disappearances.

169.  Firstly, the Court notes that in both cases, from the very beginning of the investigation, the police interviewed a number of witnesses who either described the perpetrators or gave statements concerning their identity (see paragraphs 12, 13, 20, 24, 27, 91, 92, 95 and 96 above). However, despite those consistent statements, no tangible steps were taken to follow up on those leads in either case.

170.  Secondly, the discovery of the object that was potentially a female hand, the failure to log this evidence and compare it to the applicant’s DNA in Turpulkhanova (no. 53284/13) (see paragraphs 38, 80 and 84 above), as well as the failure to identify the perpetrators from the actual video footage of Khadizhat Elimkhanova’s abduction in Khasiyeva (no. 22543/15) (see paragraphs 99, 105, 109, 136 and 139 above) demonstrate one of the numerous instances of the negligence shown by the investigating authorities in those cases (see paragraphs 34, 36, 64 and 94, 135, 139 respectively).

171.  Thirdly, the Court observes all of the shortcomings – including the police’s persistent failure to take basic steps and their unwillingness to cooperate with the investigators from the investigative committee along with the investigators’ persistent inexplicable failure to comply with the orders issued – were regularly criticised by their superior officers and the supervising bodies (see paragraphs 34, 50, 64, 66, 81, 84 and 109, 122, 131, 139, 141, 145, 150 respectively). However, it appears that despite the investigators’ clear unwillingness to comply with the given instructions, no steps were taken by their superiors to ensure their compliance, other than reiterating the unexecuted orders once again.

172.  Given the shortcomings of the investigations indicated above and the Government’s lack of comment on the matter, the Court holds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearances of Ms Luiza Mezhidova and Ms Khadizhat Elimkhanova, in breach of Article 2 in its procedural aspect.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

173.  The applicants complained that they did not have effective remedies in respect of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. Article 13 reads:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

174.  The Government did not comment.

175.  The Court observes that this aspect has already been examined in the context of the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention. Having regard to the finding of the violation, the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention is admissible, there is no need for a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see Mutayeva and Ismailova v. Russia, no. 33539/12, § 78, 21 June 2016, and Salikhova and Magomedova v. Russia, no. 63689/13, § 94, 26 January 2016).

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

176.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A.    Damage

177.  The applicants in both cases claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in an amount to be determined by the Court.

178.  The Government did not comment.

179.  The Court awards each of the applicants 26,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax chargeable thereon.

B.     Costs and expenses

180.  The applicant in Turpulkhanova (no. 53284/13) also claimed EUR 2,439 euros for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court and requested that the award be paid to her representatives’ account as indicated in her submission.

181.  The applicant in Khasiyeva (no. 22543/15) did not make a claim under this head.

182.  The Government submitted that the amount of expenses claimed in Turpulkhanova (no. 53284/13) was exaggerated and unnecessary to the extent claimed.

183.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant in Turpulkhanova (no. 53284/13) the sum of EUR 1,500 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax which may be chargeable on that amount. The award is to be paid into the applicant’s representative’s bank account as indicated by the applicant.

C.    Default interest

184.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the applications admissible;

3.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Ms Luiza Mezhidova and Ms Khadizhat Elimkhanova disappeared;

4.      Holds that there no need to examine Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention;

5.      Holds

(a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)         EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand euros), to each of the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)       EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in Turpulkhanova (no. 53284/13), in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid into the applicant’s representative’s bank account as indicated by the applicant;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 March 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Stephen Phillips                                                                    Alena Poláčková
       Registrar                                                                              President