CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 October 2025   THIRD SECTION   Application no.   23293/21 Nodira Pulatzhonovna AZIMOVA and Others against Russia (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 2 October 2025, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The application concern complaints raised under Article 3 § 2 of the Convention relating to ineffective investigation into allegations of ill ‑ treatment committed by private individuals which are the subject of well ‑ established case law of the Court (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no.   32704/04, 17 December 2009, Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, 31   July 2012 and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, 9 July 2019).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Factual information, including medical evidence and domestic proceedings Specific grievances 23293/21* 29/04/2021 Household   Nodira Pulatzhonovna AZIMOVA 1984   Makhdi Ismonovich AZIMOV 2004   Usama Ismonovich AZIMOV 2002   Zayd Ismonovich AZIMOV 2006   The applicants are the wife and three sons of a Tajik national, Ismon, who disappeared in Russia in December 2013 following his abduction from his residence. He was wanted by the Tajik authorities in connection with an alleged anti-government Islamist conspiracy.   In April 2013, this Court found that his potential return to Tajikistan would violate Article 3 of the Convention, citing serious shortcomings in the Russian courts’ risk assessment (Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 143, 18 April 2013). Following that judgment, Ismon was granted asylum and released from immigration detention.   Citing security concerns—specifically, the risk of abduction and unlawful rendition, which had affected others in similar circumstances—he requested accommodation at a government-run facility for asylum seekers (the Serebreniki facility).   In December 2013, five men identifying themselves as police officers came to the facility. They took Ismon away, and he has not been seen or heard from since.   On 31 December 2013 the Investigative Committee opened an inquiry into the abduction. The investigation was repeatedly extended, adjourned due to the failure to identify suspects, and subsequently resumed. The applicants’ representative criticised the investigator on two points: first, for failing to ask Mr G., an FSB officer, why he wished to know who was living in which room at the Serebreniki facility on the eve of the abduction; and second, for failing to establish how a recycled number plate came to be used on a Lada Priora car suspected of being involved in the abduction. At the time the application was lodged, the investigation was still pending.   Shortcomings recognised by national authorities (Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, § 71, 31   July 2012)