CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 novembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1B0D0B53 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA6C752FC { width:3.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF0D62E79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s299839C6 { width:212.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION               CASE OF YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 7265/10)           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   8 November 2011   FINAL   04/06/2012     This judgment has become final under Article   44 §   2 (c) of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yakubov v. Russia , The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18   October 2011, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 7265/10) 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 an Uzbek national, Mr Umid Alimdzhanovich Yakubov (“the applicant”), on 4 February 2010. 2.     The applicant was represented by lawyers of the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 4 February 2010 the President of the First Section decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Government that the applicant should not be expelled to Uzbekistan until further notice, and granted priority treatment to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 4.     On 11 March 2010 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article   29   §   1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently residing in the town of Ryazan. A.     The background to the case and the applicant’s arrival in Russia 6.     In 1999 the applicant, who was residing in Uzbekistan at the material time, started studying Islam and visiting a mosque in Tashkent. On an unspecified date in 1999 a neighbour informed on the applicant, alleging that he was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir (hereinafter also “HT”), a transnational Islamic organisation banned in Russia, Germany and some Central Asian States. 7.     In the applicant’s submission, he was not a member of HT. 8.     After the neighbour’s denunciation, the applicant was arrested by the local police. While in custody, he was deprived of food and water and severely beaten, his spine was injured and he had to seek medical treatment after his release. Although he was able to pay a sum of money to avoid criminal prosecution, on 20 November 1999 the Tashkent City Court found him guilty of the administrative offence of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir and placed him under preventive police surveillance (“ профилактический учет ”). 9.     In the applicant’s submission, between 1999 and 2008, within the framework of the police surveillance, the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities repeatedly detained him for various periods of time, beating and torturing him on those occasions to obtain information about other members of HT. The applicant was not provided with food and water and was not permitted to have outside walks while in police custody. On each occasion he was released only because he paid the authorities off. 10.     Having realised that his persecution would continue, in autumn 2008 the applicant left Uzbekistan for Belarus. In May 2009, because of the economic crisis, he moved to Moscow and in August 2009 he settled in Ryazan where he started his own business trading in fruit and vegetables 11.     Upon his arrival in Russia the applicant applied for a residence permit and a work permit via a private company which specialised in assisting foreign nationals in dealing with migration formalities and which obtained the above-mentioned documents for him. B.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant in Uzbekistan 12.     On 7 September 2009 the Uzbek authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having participated in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir and having unlawfully left the territory of Uzbekistan. In the relevant decision HT was referred to as a “banned religious extremist, separatist and fundamentalist organisation”. 13.     On 26 October 2009 the applicant was charged in absentia with having participated in Hizb ut-Tahrir (Article 244-2 of the Uzbek Criminal Code (UCC), under which the offence of establishing, leading or participating in religious extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other prohibited organisations is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to fifteen years) and illegal departure from the country (Article 223 of the UCC). 14.     On 27 October 2009 the Yunusabadskiy District Department of the Interior (“the Yunusabadskiy ROVD”) put the applicant’s name on a wanted list. On 28 October 2009 the Yunusabadskiy District Court of Tashkent ordered the applicant’s placement in custody. The decision noted, among other things, that on 20 November 2009 the applicant had been already found guilty of an administrative offence of participation in HT and that he had been placed under preventive police surveillance. However, in 2005 he had continued his unlawful activities and had unlawfully left Uzbekistan. C.     Extradition proceedings 15.     On 4 January 2010 the applicant was arrested in Ryazan in connection with his eventual extradition to Uzbekistan. 16.     On 6 January 2010 the Ryazan prosecutor of the Moscow transport prosecutor’s office remanded the applicant in custody with a view to securing his extradition. 17.     In a decision of 14 January 2010 the Ryazan prosecutor of the Moscow transport prosecutor’s office found that the prosecution for the offences imputed to the applicant by the Uzbek authorities had become time-barred under Russian law and refused his extradition to Uzbekistan. By the same decision he ordered the applicant’s release. D.     Expulsion proceedings 18.     By a letter of 22 January 2010 the head of the Ryazan Department of the Federal Security Service (“the Ryazan FSB”) informed the Ryazan Department of the Federal Migration Service (“the Ryazan FMS”) that the applicant was wanted by the Uzbek authorities on suspicion of membership of HT. The letter stressed that in 2004 the Russian Supreme Court had banned HT as a terrorist organisation. The Ryazan FMS was invited to consider annulling the applicant’s work and residence permits. 19.     On 25 January 2010 officers of the Moskovskiy District Department of the Interior of Ryazan arrested the applicant on suspicion of having committed minor disorderly acts. 20.     By a letter of 25 January 2010 the Ryazan FMS informed the applicant that it had revoked his work permit because he represented a “threat to the security of the Russian Federation [and] its nationals”. The letter stated that the applicant was to leave the Russian territory within three days of receipt of the letter. 21.     By a decision of 26 January 2010 the Justice of the Peace of the 59th Court Circuit of the Moskovskiy District of Ryazan found the applicant guilty of having committed minor disorderly acts and sentenced him to seven days’ administrative detention. 22.     On 1 February 2010 the Ryazan FMS issued an administrative offence report (“ протокол об административном правонарушении ”), stating that the applicant had submitted false information when applying for residence and work permits. 23.     By a decision of 1 February 2010 the Sovetskiy District Court established that the applicant had submitted false documents when applying to the Ryazan FMS for residence and work permits. The court imposed an administrative fine on the applicant and ordered his expulsion from Russia. 24.     On 5 February 2010 the applicant appealed to the Ryazan Regional Court against the decision of 1 February 2010 ordering his expulsion. He submitted, among other things, that he had left Uzbekistan in 2008 because of his persecution by the Uzbek authorities, which had accused him of membership of a proscribed religious organisation. Between 1999 and 2008 he had been repeatedly ill-treated by Uzbek law-enforcement officers who had injured his spine and had deprived him of food and water while he had been in their custody. As a result of the beatings, the applicant had developed kidney problems and suffered from recurring pain in his head and back. Because of his spine condition he had had to be administered anaesthetic injections while in custody in Russia. The applicant stressed that, if expelled to Uzbekistan, he would be arrested immediately and subjected to ill-treatment again. 25.     On 5 February 2010 the President of the First Section granted the applicant’s request and indicated to the Russian Government under Rule   39 that the applicant should not be expelled to Uzbekistan until further notice. 26.     On 8 February 2010 the applicant’s lawyer, K., lodged with the Ryazan Regional Court a further appeal against the expulsion order. She referred to the unsuccessful extradition proceedings against her client and stated that his expulsion was in reality a disguised extradition. She cited the cases of Mr Muminov and Mr Kamaliyev, whom the Russian authorities had first refused to extradite and had then expelled to Uzbekistan, thereby enabling the Uzbek authorities to try and convict them of the offences for which their extradition had been refused. Relying on reports of various NGOs and an information note of the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, K. stated that use of torture against detainees was widespread in the Uzbek penitentiary system. She averred that the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities had already tortured the applicant by beating him and refusing him food and water and that his spine had been injured as a result of those beatings. 27.     According to a written statement by K. dated 11 February 2010, she visited the applicant in facility TETs-2 on 9 February 2010. The applicant had difficulty moving unaided because of his spine injury. He suffered from acute pain in his back and was receiving anaesthetic injections for it. 28.     By a decision of 17 February 2010 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the expulsion order. It noted that the applicant’s submissions that his expulsion would endanger his life and health were unsubstantiated because he had failed to furnish “indisputable evidence” (“ бесспорные доказательства ”) to that effect. The court did not provide any further details on that point. E.     Asylum proceedings 29.     On 7 February 2010 the applicant applied to the Ryazan FMS for refugee status. In his application he submitted, in particular, that in 1999 he had started studying the Koran and visiting a mosque in Tashkent. After a neighbour had informed on him, alleging that he was a member of HT, the local police had arrested him. While in their hands, the applicant had been deprived of food and water and severely beaten, his spine had been injured and he had had to seek medical treatment after his release. Although he had been able to pay a sum of money to avoid criminal prosecution in 1999, he had been nonetheless found guilty of the administrative offence of membership of HT and placed under preventive police surveillance. 30.     The applicant further stated that between 1999 and 2008 he had been repeatedly arrested by the law-enforcement authorities, held in detention for several days, beaten up and requested to inform on other presumed members of HT. On each occasion he had been released only because he had paid the officers off. Convinced that his persecution would continue, in autumn 2008 the applicant had left Uzbekistan for Belarus. In May 2009, because of the economic crisis, he had moved to Moscow and in August 2009 he had settled in Ryazan where he had started his own business trading in fruit and vegetables. 31.     Referring to the widespread practice of the use of torture against detainees and persons suspected of membership of proscribed religious organisations, the applicant submitted that, if returned to Uzbekistan, he would also be subjected to torture. In that connection he relied, among other things, on recent reports of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in respect of Uzbekistan; the United Nations (UN) Secretary General’s report “Situation of human rights in Uzbekistan” (A/61/526); the concluding remarks of the UN Committee against Torture, issued in November 2007 in respect of Uzbekistan; the information note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation; and the judgment of the Strasbourg Court in the case of Ismoilov and Others v. Russia . Lastly, he pointed to his own experience of torture at the hands of law-enforcement authorities in Uzbekistan and stated that he ran a real risk of being subjected to it again, if returned to his home country. 32.     On 5 May 2010 the Ryazan FMS dismissed the applicant’s asylum request. In its decision the migration authority stated that the applicant had unlawfully left Uzbekistan and had failed to apply for asylum in due time after his arrival in Russia. Despite his alleged persecution in Uzbekistan in 1998-2009 he had continued living there, without applying to the Uzbek authorities for protection. Moreover, the applicant’s allegations did not match any of the forms of persecution on religious grounds set out in the “Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Geneva Convention”. According to a document issued on an unspecified date by the Russian Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”) and entitled “On some aspects of ensuring freedom of religion in Uzbekistan”, since 1992 that country had joined a number of international agreements on human rights and the State policy in respect of religion was to support the activities of various religious organisations. Moreover, since 1996 Uzbekistan has been a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture. The migration authority concluded that the applicant had requested asylum solely on the ground that he feared criminal prosecution in his home country in connection with his participation in HT. The decision contained no reference to the applicant’s arguments concerning the use of torture against detainees in Uzbekistan and the bulk of the information from international governmental and non-governmental organisations to which he referred, or to his submission about his own alleged experience of ill ‑ treatment at the hands of the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities. 33.     On 28 May 2010 the applicant appealed against the decision of 5   May 2010 to the FMS. He claimed that the Ryazan FMS had based its decision on irrelevant grounds, such as his allegedly unlawful departure from Uzbekistan. He stressed that it had also disregarded credible information from independent sources concerning the widespread use of torture by the Uzbek authorities against detainees and their persecution of persons accused of participation in prohibited religious organisations, such as HT, as well as the relevant findings made by the Strasbourg Court in its recent judgments concerning similar situations. The applicant also averred that the Ryazan FMS had based its conclusions on the information contained in one single and undated document, issued by the FMS, which was most probably outdated. The applicant further stressed that his expulsion had been initiated by the FSB after an unsuccessful attempt to extradite him. That authority had explicitly instructed the Ryazan FMS, in a number of letters, that the applicant, as a member of HT, a prohibited organisation, should be expelled from Russia and that they considered that granting him asylum would be “inappropriate” ( нецелесообразный ). 34.     By a decision of 8 June 2010 the Sovetskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s release. 35.     On 20 July 2010 the FMS dismissed the applicant’s complaint and upheld the Ryazan FMS decision of 5 May 2010, reiterating almost verbatim the text of the decision by the latter authority. 36.     On 19 August 2010 the applicant complained to the Basmanny District Court of Moscow about the FMS decision of 20 July 2010, reiterating the arguments raised in his complaint about the Ryazan FMS decision of 28   May 2010. He particularly emphasised that there was a real risk of him being subjected to ill-treatment, that the Uzbek authorities had already tortured him and that as a result of the torture he was suffering from vertebral compression fractures. He enclosed a medical certificate dated 16   June 2010 and stating that a tomography of his spine revealed “after ‑ effects of compression fractures of the 1, 2 and 5 vertebrae”. 37.     By a letter of 3 September 2010 the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) informed the applicant’s lawyer that it had carefully examined her client’s application for international protection. The examination had ascertained that the applicant was outside his country of nationality due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted by the authorities of his country for reasons of imputed political opinions and that, owing to that fear, he was unable to return to Uzbekistan and was eligible for international protection under the UNHCR mandate. 38.     On 10 November 2010 the Basmanny District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the migration authorities’ refusal to grant him asylum. The court noted that the applicant had failed to apply for asylum in due time after his arrival in Russia and had informed the authorities of his fears of religious persecution in Uzbekistan only after his arrest in administrative proceedings. It further pointed out that the applicant had failed to adduce convincing reasons confirming his fear of unlawful religious persecution, without providing any further details. The decision was silent on the applicant’s arguments concerning the risk of him being subjected to torture in the event of his return to his home country, as well as his reference to information on the widespread use of torture by law ‑ enforcement authorities, as contained in the reports enclosed with his complaint. 39.     The applicant appealed against the decision, reiterating the arguments raised in his previous complaints and stressing that the trial court had failed to examine his submissions concerning the risk of ill-treatment. 40.     On 22 March 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 10   November 2010. The court reasoned that the migration authorities had conducted a thorough check of the applicant’s allegations and had correctly dismissed them. The applicant’s submission that the previous decisions had disregarded his arguments concerning the individualised risk of persecution was not valid because he had applied for asylum only after having been arrested in administrative proceedings. The court noted that the applicant had failed to adduce facts which would confirm his fear of religious persecution, without providing any further details. 41.     On 1 April 2011 the applicant filed with the Ryazan FMS a request for temporary asylum, claiming that he would run a real risk of ill-treatment if expelled to Uzbekistan. The outcome of the proceedings is unclear. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 42.     For a summary of the relevant domestic law provisions regarding the asylum proceedings see Muminov v. Russia (no. 42502/06, §§ 58 ‑ 61, 11   December 2008), and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (no.   2947/06, §§   92 ‑ 95, 24 April 2008). III.     REPORTS ON UZBEKISTAN 43.     For relevant reports on Uzbekistan in the time span between 2002 and 2007 and, in particular, on the situation of persons accused of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, see Muminov (cited above, §§ 67 ‑ 72 and 73 ‑ 74, respectively). 44.     In Amnesty International Report 2009 – Uzbekistan, published in May 2009, that organisation stated that it continued to receive persistent allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment, stemming from persons suspected of being members of banned Islamic groups or having committed terrorist offences. The report stressed that the Uzbek authorities continued to actively seek extradition of those persons and, in particular, presumed members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, from the neighbouring countries, including Russia, and that most of those returned to Uzbekistan were held incommunicado, which increased their risk of being tortured or ill-treated. 45.     In November 2010 the United States Department of State released its International Religious Freedom Report 2010 which, in its chapter on Uzbekistan, in so far as relevant, reads: “... The main laws under which authorities charge citizens for religious activity are article 159 (anticonstitutional activity); ... and article 244, section 2 (establishment, direction of, or participation in religious extremist, separatist, fundamentalist, or other banned organizations) of the criminal code. ... Restrictions on Religious Freedom ... The government bans Islamic organizations it deems extremist and criminalizes membership in them. Chief among the banned organizations are Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), Akromiya, Tabligh Jamoat, and groups the government broadly labeled "Wahhabi." ... The HT Islamist political movement remained banned under the extremism law. Because HT is primarily a political organization, albeit motivated by religious ideology, and because it does not condemn terrorist acts by other groups, authorities’ actions to restrict HT and prosecute its members are not a restriction on religious freedom per se. However, convictions of individuals associated with HT and similar organizations have lacked due process and have also involved credible allegations of torture. The number of convictions of HT members has decreased for the third consecutive year. ... The government continued to commit serious abuses of religious freedom in its campaign against extremists or those participating in underground Islamic activity. In many cases authorities severely mistreated persons arrested on suspicion of extremism, using torture, beatings, and harsh prison conditions. ... Family members of prisoners convicted on charges related to religious extremism report that prisoners were often not allowed to read the Qur’an or pray privately. Most defendants convicted of extremism charges received sentences ranging from three to 14 years; a smaller number received sentences of 16 to 20 years. ... On June 28, 2009, Golib Mullajonov died in prison after reportedly being beaten by other inmates. Mullajonov had been serving a prison sentence for membership in HT. There were no updates in the following cases of inmates convicted of religious extremism who died under unclear circumstances: the May 2008 case of Odil Azizov and the November 2007 cases of Fitrat Salakhiddinov and Takhir Nurmukhammedov, all of whose relatives reported finding signs of torture on the bodies. There were several reports of beatings of prisoners serving sentences for religious convictions. In June and April 2010 family members of prisoners serving long sentences for charges related to extremism reported that other inmates had severely beaten their relatives in prison, at the instruction of a prison official. In summer 2009 two high-profile murders, one murder attempt, and one shoot-out took place in Tashkent that were alleged by the government to have religious links (for example, one target was the chief imam for the city of Tashkent). In the months that followed, as many as 200 persons were arrested allegedly in connection with these incidents; many were charged with membership in extremist religious organizations and attempting to overturn the constitutional order. Between January and April 2010 various courts in closed trials convicted at least 50 persons and imposed sentences ranging from suspended sentences up to 18 years in prison. There were unconfirmed reports that an additional 150 individuals were convicted in related trials. During the same time period, authorities opened hundreds more cases against alleged extremists (particularly those labeled "Wahhabists" and "jihadists") on charges unrelated to the killings. Human rights activists report that the families of several defendants accused authorities of using torture and coercion to obtain confessions, and many questioned whether due process guarantees were followed. ... There were limited reports of cases of arrest or detention based on alleged membership in the religious extremist organization HT, and the HT label was no longer extensively used as a pretext to arrest and imprison for other reasons. In an April 2009 report, the Moscow-based Memorial human rights group released a list of 1,452 individuals prosecuted by officials on allegedly politically motivated charges between 2004 and 2008. Nearly 95 percent of them were charged with religious extremism, many for alleged HT membership. The report cited 38 trials involving multiple religious extremism suspects in 2004, 54 in 2005, 43 in 2006, 18 in 2007, and 10 in 2008. It was impossible to verify the number of prisoners in detention for alleged HT membership; estimates from previous reporting periods were as high as 4,500. ... During the reporting period, only a small number of convictions for HT membership were reported, as the government turned its attention to other groups. Several of the people convicted in secret trials following the Tashkent killings were accused of being "Wahhabists," but the exact number convicted with this label was unknown. In the previous reporting period, at least 11 other persons were imprisoned for being "Wahhabists" or extremists from other religious extremist organizations. The government continued to pursue the extradition of suspected Uzbek religious extremists from third countries, particularly from Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Ukraine, including those who had sought asylum. During the previous reporting period, at least two individuals seeking political asylum in Kyrgyzstan were forcibly extradited to Uzbekistan and imprisoned on religious extremism charges. There were no updates in the following cases of individuals convicted of membership in HT and other extremist organizations during the previous reporting period: the June 2008 sentencing of two women--Ugiloy Mirzaeva and Rano Akhrorkhodzhayeva--to five years’ imprisonment for HT membership, recruitment, and dissemination of extremist literature; the February 2008 sentencing of 13   individuals to between 16 and 20 years in prison on charges of membership in a religious extremist organization, with allegations that at least one confession was obtained under duress; the January 2008 sentencing of Alisher Ubaydullayev to five years’ imprisonment for membership in an extremist organization, based on accusations of spreading Wahhabi ideas and on his participation in an antigovernment rally outside the Uzbek embassy in London in 2005; the December 2007 conviction of three men of membership in Tabligh Jamoat and sentencing of each to between 11 and 14 years in prison; the October 2007 sentencing of eight men, who were tortured during pretrial investigation according to human rights activists, to between three and 10   years’ imprisonment for membership in HT; and the July 2007 sentencing of Dilnoza Tokhtakhodjaeva to three years’ imprisonment and six other women to two ‑ year suspended sentences for membership in HT after reportedly being subjected to psychological pressure and threats.” 46.     In January 2011 Human Rights Watch released its annual World Report 2010. The chapter entitled “Uzbekistan”, in so far as relevant, states: “Uzbekistan’s human rights record remains abysmal, with no substantive improvement in 2010. Authorities continue to crackdown on civil society activists, opposition members, and independent journalists, and to persecute religious believers who worship outside strict state controls ... ... Criminal Justice, Torture, and Ill-Treatment Torture remains rampant in Uzbekistan. Detainees’ rights are violated at each stage of investigations and trials, despite habeas corpus amendments that went into effect in 2008. The Uzbek government has failed to meaningfully implement recommendations to combat torture that the United Nations special rapporteur made in 2003. Suspects are not permitted access to lawyers, a critical safeguard against torture in pre-trial detention. Police use torture and other illegal means to coerce statements and confessions from detainees. Authorities routinely refuse to investigate defendants’ allegations of abuse. ... On July 20, 37-year-old Shavkat Alimhodjaev, imprisoned for religious offenses, died in custody. The official cause of death was anemia, but Alimhodjaev had no known history of the disease. According to family, Alimhodjaev’s face bore possible marks of ill-treatment, including a swollen eye. Authorities returned his body to his family’s home at night. They insisted he be buried before sunrise and remained present until the burial. Authorities have not begun investigating the death. ... Freedom of Religion Although Uzbekistan’s constitution ensures freedom of religion, Uzbek authorities continued their unrelenting, multi-year campaign of arbitrary detention, arrest, and torture of Muslims who practice their faith outside state controls or belong to unregistered religious organizations. Over 100 were arrested or convicted in 2010 on charges related to religious extremism. ... Key International Actors The Uzbek government’s cooperation with international institutions remains poor. It continues to deny access to all eight UN special procedures that have requested invitations, including those on torture and human rights defenders ...” 47.     Chapter “Uzbekistan 2011” of the Amnesty International annual report 2011, released in May of the same year, in so far as relevant, states as follows: “ Reports of torture or other ill-treatment continued unabated. Dozens of members of minority religious and Islamic groups were given long prison terms after unfair trials ... ... Torture and other ill-treatment Despite assertions by the authorities that the practice of torture had significantly decreased, reports of torture or other ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners continued unabated. In most cases, the authorities failed to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into these allegations. Several thousand people convicted of involvement with Islamist parties or Islamic movements banned in Uzbekistan, as well as government critics and political opponents, continued to serve long prison terms under conditions that amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Uzbekistan again refused to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on torture to visit the country despite renewed requests. ... Counter-terror and security Closed trials started in January of nearly 70 defendants charged in relation to attacks in the Ferghana Valley and the capital, Tashkent, in May and August 2009 and the killings of a pro-government imam and a high-ranking police officer in Tashkent in July 2009. The authorities blamed the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU) and the Islamist Hizb-ut-Tahrir party, all banned in Uzbekistan, for the attacks and killings. Among the scores detained as suspected members or sympathizers of the IMU, the IJU and Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2009 were people who attended unregistered mosques, studied under independent imams, had travelled abroad, or were suspected of affiliation to banned Islamic groups. Many were believed to have been detained without charge or trial for lengthy periods. There were reports of torture and unfair trials. ... •   In April, Kashkadaria Regional Criminal Court sentenced Zulkhumor Khamdamova, her sister Mekhriniso Khamdamova and their relative, Shakhlo Pakhmatova, to between six and a half and seven years in prison for attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and posing a threat to public order. They were part of a group of more than 30 women detained by security forces in counter-terrorism operations in the city of Karshi in November 2009. They were believed to have attended religious classes taught by Zulkhumor Khamdamova in one of the local mosques. The authorities accused Zulkhumor Khamdamova of organizing an illegal religious group, a charge denied by her supporters. Human rights defenders reported that the women were ill-treated in custody; police officers allegedly stripped the women naked and threatened them with rape. •   Dilorom Abdukadirova, an Uzbek refugee who had fled the country following the violence in Andizhan in 2005, was detained for four days upon her return in January, after receiving assurances from the authorities that she would not face charges. In March, she was detained again and held in police custody for two weeks without access to a lawyer or her family. On 30 April, she was convicted of anti-constitutional activities relating to her participation in the Andizhan demonstrations as well as illegally exiting and entering the country. She was sentenced to 10 years and two months in prison after an unfair trial. Family members reported that she appeared emaciated at the trial and had bruises on her face. ... Freedom of religion The government continued its strict control over religious communities, compromising the enjoyment of their right to freedom of religion. Those most affected were members of unregistered groups such as Christian Evangelical congregations and Muslims worshipping in mosques outside state control. •   Suspected followers of the Turkish Muslim theologian, Said Nursi, were convicted in a series of trials that had begun in 2009 and continued into 2010. The charges against them included membership or creation of an illegal religious extremist organization and publishing or distributing materials threatening the social order. By December 2010, at least 114 men had been sentenced to prison terms of between six and 12 years following unfair trials. Reportedly, some of the verdicts were based on confessions gained under torture in pre-trial detention; defence and expert witnesses were not called; access to the trials was in some cases obstructed while other trials were closed. 48.     The 2010 United States Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Uzbekistan, released in April 2011, in so far as relevant, reads: “... c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Although the constitution and law prohibit such practices, law enforcement and security officers routinely beat and otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain confessions or incriminating information. Sources reported that torture and abuse were common in prisons, pretrial facilities, and local police and security service precincts. Reported methods of torture included severe beatings, denial of food, sexual abuse, tying and hanging by the hands, and electric shock. Family members of prisoners reported several cases of medical abuse, and one person reportedly remained in forced psychiatric treatment. The government reported that during the first six months of the year, it opened 226 criminal cases against 285 employees of law enforcement bodies. Of these, 75 persons were accused of charges related to abuse of power, and four were charged with torture or other brutal or degrading treatment. The remaining cases were for unspecified offenses. During the first nine months of the year, the government dismissed and brought criminal charges against 186 employees of law enforcement bodies for unstated reasons. The UN Human Rights Committee in its five-year review of the country under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR Review) expressed concerns in a March 25 publication that the country’s definition of torture in the criminal code is not in conformity with Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which the country is a party. In a joint statement submitted for the ICCPR Review, the Human Rights Alliance of Uzbekistan, the Committee for the Liberation of Prisoners of Conscience, and the Uzbek-German Forum for Human Rights stated that torture and abuse by police and investigating authorities remain "systematic, unpunished, and encouraged" by senior government officials. The report noted that judges and prosecutors routinely failed to investigate allegations of torture, and that the country’s leadership, including heads of law enforcement agencies, failed to condemn publicly the use of torture. In February an independent news Web site reported that family members of prisoner Sanjar Narmuradov, serving a 13-year sentence on extremism charges, stated he was tortured and mistreated in a Tashkent Region prison. In March, 12 of 25 defendants charged with religious extremism reported to a Jizzakh court that they were tortured in pretrial detention facilities. The court ordered an investigation of these claims, but concluded there was no evidence of torture. On March 29, a Bukhara court convicted Kurban Kadyrov of participation in anticonstitutional activity as a member of a religious extremist group, sentencing him to eight years in prison. The court did not address Kadyrov’s complaints that he only signed a confession because he was tortured during interrogation. On April 29, a regional Bukhara court upheld his conviction and sentence on appeal. In April the Initiative Group of Independent Human Rights Defenders of Uzbekistan (IGIHRDU) reported that prisoner Dilshodbek Amanturdiev complained to family members that during the first four months of the year fellow inmates subjected him to torture instigated by the prison administration. Amanturdiev reportedly stated that in one incident, he was beaten unconscious. ... Authorities reportedly meted out harsher than typical treatment to individuals suspected of Islamist extremism throughout the year, especially to pretrial detainees who were allegedly members of banned religious extremist political organizations or to the Nur group, which is not officially banned. Local human rights workers reported that authorities often offered payment or other inducements to inmates to beat other inmates suspected of religious extremism. ... Relatives of prisoners reported the deaths of several prisoners serving sentences, most of whom received sentences related to religious extremism. In some cases, family members reported that the body of the prisoner showed signs of beating or other abuse, but authorities pressured the family to bury the body before examination by a medical professional. Reported cases that fit this pattern included those of Nurullo Musaev and Shavkat Alimhojaev. There were no updates to the reported cases in 2009 that fit this pattern, including the deaths of Abdulatif Ayupov, Ismat Hudoyberdiyev, Negmat Zufarov, and Golib Mullajonov. ... Authorities continued to arrest persons arbitrarily on charges of extremist sentiments or activities and association with banned religious groups. Local human rights activists reported that police and security service officers, acting under pressure to break up extremist cells, frequently detained and mistreated family members and close associates of suspected members of religious extremist groups. Coerced confessions and testimony in such cases were commonplace. Many of the year’s arrests related to religious extremism resulted from two high ‑ profile killings, an additional homicide attempt, and one exchange of gunfire that took place in Tashkent during the summer of 2009. Between January and April, courts convicted at least 50 persons on charges of extremism in closed trials, issuing verdicts ranging from suspended sentences to 18 years in prison. There were reports that as many as 150 other persons were convicted in related trials across the country. The families of several defendants accused authorities of using torture and coercion to obtain confessions, and many raised questions regarding due process provisions. ... According to 2009 reforms to the criminal procedure code, defense attorneys may access government-held evidence relevant to their clients’ cases once the initial investigation is completed and the prosecutor files formal charges. There is an exception, however, for evidence that contains information that if released could pose a threat to state security. During the year courts invoked that exception frequently, leading to complaints that its primary purpose is to allow prosecutors to avoid sharing evidence with defense attorneys. In many cases, prosecution was based solely upon defendants’ confessions or incriminating testimony from state witnesses, particularly in cases involving suspected religious extremists. Lawyers may, and occasionally did, call on judges to reject confessions and investigate claims of torture. Judges often did not respond to such claims or dismissed them as groundless. ... On January 18, a Kashkadarya court sentenced human rights activist Gaybullo Jalilov for membership in an extremist religious group that allegedly planned terrorist attacks against a regional airport. Jalilov, who had been active in assisting others accused of extremism, claimed officials mistreated him while he was in custody and coerced him into signing a confession. On March 9, the Kashkadarya Regional Criminal Court upheld his conviction and sentence. Jalilov reportedly came to his appellate hearing with a swollen eye and told relatives that he had been punched and kicked repeatedly in his cell. In a closed hearing on August 5, the Kashkadarya court extended his sentence by four years for conducting anticonstitutional activities in prison. On April 30, an Andijan court sentenced Diloram Abdukadirova to 10 years in prison for illegal border crossing and threatening the constitutional order. Abdukadirova fled the country after witnessing the 2005 Andijan events. She returned to the country i