The court found that the circumstances of the applicant's case requiring his detention had not changed. The court found that the decision on the applicant's extradition had been legal and that it had become final.
It appears that the applicant's lawyer referred to several statements by eyewitnesses to the searches of the applicant's apartment. Contrary to the FMS arguments, the applicant applied to the Russian Department of the UNHCR in 2009.
Events of 19 November 2010
RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A. Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993
Code of Criminal Procedure
Arrest, detention and pretrial detention are permitted only on the basis of a court order. The period during which a person may be detained prior to obtaining such a warrant may not exceed 48 hours (Article 22(2)). Upon receipt of a request for extradition that is not accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court, the public prosecutor or his deputy must decide on the preventive measure against the person whose extradition is sought.
After receiving a request for extradition accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign judicial body, the prosecutor may place the person whose extradition is sought under house arrest or detention without prior approval of his decision by a court of the Federation Russian (Article 466 § 2). Extradition may be refused if the act that gave rise to the request for extradition does not constitute a crime under the Russian Criminal Code (Art.
Decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court emphasized that the guarantees of the right to liberty and personal integrity in Article 22 and Chapter 2 of the Constitution were fully applicable to detention with a view to extradition. Accordingly, Article 466 of the CCrP did not allow the authorities to apply a custodial measure without complying with the procedure set out in the CCrP or beyond the time limits set out in the Code. The Constitutional Court rejected the request on the grounds that it was not competent to specify specific provisions of the Criminal Code governing the procedure and time limits for the detention of a person for the purposes of extradition.
The Constitutional Court reiterated its established case law that the scope of the constitutional right to liberty and personal immunity is the same for foreigners and stateless persons as for Russian citizens. The Constitutional Court ruled that Article 466 § 1 of the CCrP, read in conjunction with the Minsk Convention, could not be interpreted as permitting the detention of a person for more than forty-eight hours on the basis of a request for his or her her extradition without a decision from a Russian court. The Constitutional Court rejected as inadmissible a request for review of the constitutionality of Article 466 § 2 of the CCrP, stating that this provision “does not set time limits for deprivation of liberty and.
Decisions of the Russian Supreme Court
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS 90. For relevant reports on Uzbekistan in the time span between 2002
The official cause of death was anemia, but Alimhodjaev had no known history of the disease. Despite claims by the authorities that the practice of torture had significantly decreased, reports of torture or other ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners continued unabated. Among the scores detained as suspected members or sympathizers of the IMU, the IJU and Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2009 were people.
They were believed to have attended religious classes taught by Zulkhumor Khamdamova in one of the local mosques. Suspected followers of the Turkish Muslim theologian, Said Nursi, were convicted in a series of trials that began in 2009 and continued into 2010. Reportedly, some of the convictions were based on confessions obtained under torture in custody; defense and expert witnesses were not called; access to the trial was in some cases blocked, while other trials were closed.”.
THE LAW
The parties’ submissions
In the proceedings relating to the applicant's challenge to the extradition order, the domestic courts had reached a reasoned conclusion that the General Prosecutor's Office had no information on human rights violations in Uzbekistan in 2010. He further submitted that the applicant and his representative had repeatedly referred to the applicant's previous experience in Uzbekistan in their appeals before domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction. The applicant further contested the government's reference to assurances that the trial against the applicant would be fair.
In fact, they had informed their Russian colleagues that the applicant was a criminal in their letter of 4 February. Finally, with respect to Article 13, the applicant submits that the domestic remedies relating to his complaint under Article 3 were ineffective. The domestic courts had rejected a reference to several reports by international observers as well as to the applicant's own previous experience in Uzbekistan.
The Court’s assessment 1. Article 3
- ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
First, the Court doubts whether the personal circumstances of the applicant have been rigorously examined by the national courts. The court furthermore takes note of the findings in the procedure on temporary asylum of the court of Zamoskvoretskiy of 22 February 2012, which the applicant. Finally, the Court notes that in the extradition proceedings the national courts readily accepted the guarantees of the Uzbek authorities as a hard guarantee against any risk that the applicant would be mistreated after his extradition (see paragraph 26 above).
The Court's task now is to determine whether there is a real risk of ill-treatment should the applicant be extradited to Uzbekistan. According to the Government's submission, the applicant's claim of risk of ill-treatment or torture remained unconfirmed by the local authorities. Secondly, the applicant complained that the authorities had not shown sufficient care in the conduct of the extradition proceedings.
Submissions by the parties
They claimed that on 4 February 2010 the applicant was arrested by local police officers in accordance with Article 91 § 2 of the CCrP. In fact, the information provided by the Uzbek authorities and in particular the information contained in the decision of the Samarkand Town Court of 24 June 2009 constituted reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant had committed criminal offences. They further pointed out that the prosecutor's decision had been challengeable in the courts under Article 125 of the CCrP.
Finally, on 28 June 2010 and 27 January 2011, the applicant's detention was legally extended by the domestic courts in accordance with the time limits set out in Article 109 of the KPCK, following the circumstances that had led to the initial decision on the applicant's restraining order had not changed. They further argued, in relation to the entire period of detention, that the applicant had been able to foresee the maximum statutory period of his detention with a view to extradition, that is until a decision was taken by the General Prosecutor's Office on the extradition request or until the expiration of the terms specified in the detention orders. They concluded that the applicant was able to foresee the period of his detention pending the suspension of extradition proceedings pursuant to the provisional measure and that the overall duration of detention was in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (f) of Convention.
The Court’s assessment
- ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
- ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 179. The applicant complained in his initial application that his
As regards the legality of the applicant's detention after 4 February 2011, the Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. Regarding the duration of the applicant's detention with a view to extradition and the care of the authorities in the development of extradition procedures. The Court considers that the appeal is not manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
In summary, the Court finds that the requirement of due care has been met in the present case and that the total duration of the applicant's detention was not excessive (cf. Al Hanchi v. The Court further finds that this complaint is not manifestly unfounded is within the scope of Article 35 § 3(a) of the Convention 4. As stated in the applicant's observations, the Court considers that there was no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the present case The treaty.
Arguments of the parties
- OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT
- APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 191. Article 41 of the Convention provides
The Court notes that insofar as these complaints are directed against Uzbekistan, which is not a High Contracting Party to the Convention, it follows that they are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35. §§ 3 (a ) and 4 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the claim is manifestly unfounded and must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. Finally, the applicant can be understood to complain of an unjustified interference with his right to individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention in relation to the events of 19 November 2010.
The Court notes that, in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, this judgment will not become final until (a) the parties declare that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber; or (b) no referral of the case to the Grand Chamber has been requested three months after the date of the judgment; or (c) the panel of the Grand Chamber denies any request for referral under article 43 of the Convention. It considers that the notice to the government should remain in force under Article 39 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court until this judgment becomes final. If the Court finds that there has been a breach of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the domestic law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial compensation, the Court shall, if necessary, award just satisfaction to the injured party party.".
Damage
Costs and expenses
Taking into account the above and the fact that the amount of EUR 850 has already been paid to the applicant by way of legal aid, the Court does not consider it necessary to make any further award under this head. Declare the complaints under articles 3, 5 § 1 in relation to the legality of the applicant's detention between 4 February and 4 August 2011 and the authorities' diligence in the extradition proceedings, under article 5 § 4 in relation to the scope of review in the extension proceedings of 27 January 2011, as well as in terms of articles 8 and 13 of the Convention admissible and the rest of the application inadmissible;. considers that, if the decision to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan were to be enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;.
judges that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention; rules that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention; Decides to continue to warn the government in accordance with Article 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable, in the interest of the proper conduct of the proceedings, not to extradite the applicant until this judgment becomes final or a further order is issued;.
