They reiterated their previous submissions regarding the risk of ill-treatment in the event of the applicant's expulsion (see paragraphs 40 and 44 above) and, in addition to the international material referred to in their previous submissions, referred to a global report issued by Human Rights Watch January 2014 (see paragraph 69 below). The conditions of the applicant's detention in the temporary detention cell of the local police station and his transfer to a.
RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A. Extradition proceedings and refugee status
They must include the testimony of the person concerned and that of any witnesses, any assurances given by the requesting country, and information about the country provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by competent United Nations institutions and by the European Committee for the Prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Expulsion proceedings
The Committee notes with concern the continued reports of torture and ill-treatment, the limited number of convictions of those responsible and the generally low sanctions imposed, including simple disciplinary measures, as well as indications that those responsible for such acts amnestied and, in general, the inadequate or inadequate nature of investigations into allegations of torture/ill-treatment. It is also concerned about reports of the use of coerced evidence by courts, despite the Supreme Court's 2004 ruling on the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence. The Committee is concerned about restrictions and restrictions on freedom of religion and belief, including for members of non-registered religious.
It is also concerned about the criminalization, under Article 216-2 of the Penal Code, of 'conversion of believers from one religion to another (proselytism) and other missionary activities'.
UN Committee against Torture
Panel with information on cases where judges have ruled confessions inadmissible on the grounds that they were obtained by torture, or with information on the number of cases where judges have sought investigation into allegations made by defendants that they have confessed to a crime as a result. on torture (art. 15). 18 While the Committee notes the confirmation by the State party that all places of detention are monitored by independent national and international organizations and that they would welcome further inspections, the Committee remains concerned about the information it has received indicating that in practice there is no independent and regular monitoring of places of detention. The Committee is further concerned by the information it has received about measures taken by the State party that have hindered the work of several independent human rights organizations that previously worked in the State party.
The Committee is troubled by the announcement in April 2013 by the International Committee of the Red Cross that it was suspending its visits to places of detention in the State party on the grounds that it had been unable to follow its working procedures, rendering such visits "pointless '.".
Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch found that in the four years since its enactment, habeas corpus exists largely on paper. It has persistently refused to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other UN human rights experts to visit the country, despite their repeated requests for access, and does not allow international human rights groups or independent media to operate." Human Rights Watch continues to receive regular and credible reports on torture, including suspicious deaths in pre-trial and post-sentence custody.
Methods include beatings with sticks and plastic bottles, hanging by the wrists and ankles, rape and sexual humiliation. Authorities refuse to investigate allegations of torture, and Human Rights Watch continues to receive credible reports of torture, including suspicious deaths in custody. In April, the Independent Human Rights Defenders Initiative estimated that 12,000 people were currently imprisoned on vague and overbroad charges related to "religious extremism", with more than 200 convicted this year alone.
Amnesty International
As in previous years, the authorities failed to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations of such reports and complaints filed with the Office of the Attorney General. The authorities continued to seek the extradition of suspected members of Islamic movements and Islamist groups and parties banned in Uzbekistan in the name of security and the fight against terrorism. They also requested the extradition of political opponents, government critics and wealthy individuals favored by the regime.
Those forcibly returned to Uzbekistan faced incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment and, after unfair trials, long prison terms in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions. However, nowhere have they had any significant success in eradicating the practices of torture and other ill-treatment commonly used in relation to people suspected of common crimes, and routinely used in relation to political opponents and persons suspected of involvement in extremism and terrorism related activities or in banned religious groups. Those held in closed detention centers run by national security forces on charges related to national security or 'religious extremism' are at particular risk of torture and other ill-treatment.
Other relevant material
The applicant further referred to Amnesty International's report published on 3 July 2013 entitled “Eurasia: Return to Torture: Extradition, Forced Returns and Displacement in Central Asia”. Over the past two decades, thousands of people across the region have claimed to have been arrested and tortured or arbitrarily ill-treated in custody to extract a forced confession or money from relatives. In this period, most Central Asian countries have introduced piecemeal reforms aimed at strengthening the accountability of law enforcement agencies and improving the protections available in the criminal justice system.
In all five republics, detainees are often tortured and ill-treated while held incommunicado for initial interrogations.
THE LAW
The parties’ submissions
He also referred to the Court's case law (cited in paragraph 14 above), as well as the cases of Umirov v. In their further comments, the Government argued in response that the evidence referred to by the applicant was clearly inadmissible. First, the Court's jurisprudence cited by the applicant, as well as the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch annual reports issued in 2011, contained an assessment of the situation in Uzbekistan for the period before 2009, and were therefore outdated.
Second, the government was skeptical of the NGO reports on the situation in Uzbekistan to which the applicant refers. In the government's view, the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports contained general allegations that were not supported by specific factual information. The Government maintained that the reports did not prove that there was a risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, either in the applicant's case or in general.
The Court’s assessment
- ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION
- ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 112. The applicant complained that the domestic authorities, both
- ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
- RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF COURT
- APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 153. Article 41 of the Convention provides
However, the Court accepts the claim of the applicant that no other option was considered during the administrative procedure. The Court therefore concludes that the applicant's forced return to Uzbekistan, in the form of expulsion or otherwise, would result in a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Government admitted that the conditions of the applicant's detention in the temporary detention cell of the Mozhaiskiy police station were in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court thus acknowledges that the applicant's detention pending deportation pursued one of the legitimate objectives set out in Article 5 § 1 (f), namely to protect him. The question is whether the duration of the applicant's detention pending administrative removal was reasonable. Therefore, the applicant's detention during this period can be attributed mainly to a temporary suspension.
In light of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention with regard to the detention of the applicant pending administrative removal. The Court further notes that there was no automatic periodic extension of the applicant's detention or any judicial review thereof during the relevant period.
Damage
It is of the opinion that the indication made to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see above § 4) not to deport or otherwise involuntarily remove the applicant from Russia to Uzbekistan should remain in force until the present judgment becomes final or until the Court takes a further decision in this regard. The Government argued that just satisfaction would only be awarded for the violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the period between 24 and 30 July 2013. The Court notes that it found, in respect of one of the applicants s complaints under article 3, that the applicant's forced return to Uzbekistan, if implemented, would give rise to a violation of that provision.
Accordingly, there has not yet been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under this heading in this case. The Court further notes that it found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the conditions of the applicant's detention, as well as a violation of the first and fourth paragraphs of Article 5 of the Convention in this case. The court therefore awards the complainant EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage, together with all taxes that could be charged, and rejects the rest of the claims from this title.
Costs and expenses
They noted that nothing should be awarded in respect of the complaint under Article 3 regarding the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, and contested the rest of the allegations as exaggerated and unfounded. The Court finds that its finding on this complaint under Article 3 constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction under Article 41. It accepts that the claimant has suffered a non-pecuniary injury which cannot be compensated solely by the finding of a violation.
Default interest
