und the amounts claimed excessive.
146. The Court has found a violation of Articles 2, 5 and 13 of the Convention on account of the unacknowledged detention and disappearance of the applicants' relatives. The applicants, except for the fifth applicant, have been found to have been victims of a violation of Article 3 the Convention. The Court accepts that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations. It awards the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants jointly EUR 35,000; the seventh, eighth and ninth applicants jointly EUR 35,000 and the tenth and eleventh applicants jointly EUR 35,000 plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
D. Costs and expenses
147. The applicants were represented by the SRJI. They submitted an itemised schedule of costs and expenses that included research and interviews in Chechnya and Moscow, at a rate of EUR 50 per hour, and the drafting of legal documents submitted to the Court and the domestic authorities, at a rate of EUR 50 per hour for SRJI lawyers and EUR 150 per hour for SRJI senior staff and experts. The aggregate claim in respect of costs and expenses related to the applicants' legal representation amounted to EUR 7,783.
148. The Government disputed the reasonableness and the justification of the amounts claimed under this heading. They also pointed out that the applicants had not enclosed any documents supporting the amounts claimed under postal costs.
149. The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220).
150. Having regard to the details of the contract, the Court is satisfied that these rates are reasonable and reflect the expenses actually incurred by the applicants' representatives.
151. Further, it has to be established whether the costs and expenses incurred for legal representation were necessary. The Court notes that this case was rather complex and required a certain amount of research and preparation. It notes at the same time, that due to the application of Article 29 § 3 in the present case, the applicants' representatives submitted their observations on admissibility and merits in one set of documents. The Court thus doubts that legal drafting was necessarily time-consuming to the extent claimed by the representatives. In addition, the case involved little documentary evidence, in view of the Government's refusal to submit the case file. Therefore, the Court doubts that research was necessary to the extent claimed by the representative.
152. Having regard to the details of the claims submitted by the applicants and acting on an equitable basis, the Court awards them the amount of EUR 5,500 together with any value-added tax that may be chargeable to them, the net award to be paid into the representatives' bank account in the Netherlands, as identified by the applicants.
E. Default interest
153. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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 to the merits the Government's objection concerning the non-exhaustion of criminal domestic remedies and rejects it;
2. Declares the complaints under Article 2, Article 3 in respect of the applicants, Article 5, Article 8 concerning the applicants' right to respect for family life and Article 13 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Rusl
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21