CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 septembre 2012

.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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; 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 } .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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; 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 } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s57221CB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .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 } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF UMIROV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 17455/11 )             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   18 September 2012     FINAL   11/02/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Umirov 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 28 August 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 17455/11) 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 Sadirbek Shavkatovich Umirov (“the applicant”), on 17 March 2011. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms S.   Gannushkina, Chairwoman of the Civic Assistance Committee, which is a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 17 March 2011 the President of the First Section, acting upon the applicant’s request of the same date, decided to apply Rules 39 and 41 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Government that the applicant should not be extradited to Uzbekistan until further notice and to grant priority treatment to the application. 4.     On 31 May 2011 the application was communicated 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 1981 and resides in Moscow. A.     The applicant’s arrest and extradition proceedings 6.     In September 2009 the applicant arrived in Russia from Uzbekistan and settled in the Moscow Region. Until December 2009 he was officially registered with the Russian migration authorities in Moscow. According to the Government, he subsequently resided without formal registration in the Moscow region. According to the applicant, he always complied with the legal requirement for registration at one’s place of residence. 7.     In the meantime, on 20 November 2009 the Uzbek authorities charged the applicant in absentia under Articles 159 § 3(b) and 244-2 § 1 of the Uzbek Criminal Code, which punish calls to overthrow the constitutional order of Uzbekistan and involvement in religious, extremist, separatist and other banned organisations (see paragraphs 78-79 below). The applicant was accused of being member of a group called Warriors of Islam which, apparently, had been prohibited in Uzbekistan and had been classified as an extremist religious organisation by the Uzbek authorities. It is stated in the information note sent by the Uzbek authorities to their Russian counterparts that this group was a faction of the Islamic Party of Turkestan (formerly called the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan), which had been banned in Uzbekistan. 8 .     The Uzbek decision listing the charges against the applicant reads as follows: “... [The applicant] was actively engaged in spreading propaganda in the Navoi region. These activities were aimed at securing the confidentiality of information relating to the group’s actions, securing strict compliance with the orders issued by the group’s supporters, ensuring the return [of society] to the roots of Islam and making everyday life based solely on the rules of the Koran. His activities were also aimed at political and armed struggle against those who oppose the [group’s] ideas and [those] who are treated as enemies of Islam. His propaganda activities had the goal of uniting all Muslims and creating the united State of the “Islamic Caliphate” governed by rules of Shariah; [all the] while considering the democratic changes in Uzbekistan [brought about] by means of laws wrong and [illegitimate]. In particular, [the applicant] participated in the activities of “communes” run by his group in the Navoi region. Having joined others in an organised criminal group, he studied printed material produced by the group’s supporters. He was active in spreading propaganda among people having no stable opinion, encouraging them to join the group and promoting the group’s ideas. All these had as their subsequent aim the overthrow of the constitutional order ... Also, in 2008 together with his accomplices within the group [the applicant] participated in the group’s meetings, [which were] aimed at the armed overthrow of the constitutional order ...” 9.     On 20 November 2009 the applicant’s name was put on a wanted list. 10.     By a decision of 23 November 2009 the Navoi Town Court of Uzbekistan ordered the applicant’s detention and that he be held in remand centre no.   7 in the town of Kattakurgan. B.     Application for refugee status and temporary asylum in Russia 11.     According to the applicant, in November 2009 he called his relatives in Uzbekistan and learnt that he was wanted by the Uzbek authorities on criminal charges. 12.     In April 2010 the applicant requested that the regional migration authority grant him refugee status. The applicant was given a certificate confirming that his application for refugee status was being processed. 13.     The applicant submitted to the migration authority that he had left Uzbekistan because of numerous arrests since September 2009 in the village of Talkok, where he had been residing at the time. Several people had been arrested on various charges, for instance in relation to drug trafficking. The applicant also affirmed that: he was not a member of any political or religious organisation; he had not taken part in any opposition movement; and he had not distributed any political or religious literature. Lastly, he stated that he feared returning to Uzbekistan, where he would be placed in detention. 14.     On 21 May 2010 the applicant was arrested and detained in relation to the criminal proceedings pending against him in Uzbekistan (see paragraph 19 below). It is unclear whether the applicant amended – in any significant manner – his refugee application on account of the circumstances relating to these proceedings and the Uzbek extradition request. 15.     By a decision of 5 July 2010 the migration authority rejected the refugee application in the following terms: “The applicant has not presented any facts concerning his fear of political or religious persecution. He indicated during the interview that he did not know of any political parties and that he had not been a member of any religious or non-governmental organisations; he had not been the victim of any violent incidents. Having regard to the reasons for his departure from Uzbekistan, it does not appear that he was persecuted on account of his political views or religious beliefs. The applicant is of the Islamic faith, which is the dominant religion in his country. Nothing prevents him from praying and going to a mosque. He is not involved in any political activity. Also, regarding the allegation concerning the arrests in September 2009 and that the applicant had been ordered to go to a police station, it does not appear that any repressive measures were taken against him. The Federal Migration Authority (FMA) has provided the following information concerning the political, social, economic and migration situation in Uzbekistan: 80% of the population are Sunni Muslims. The FMA has no facts in its possession regarding persecution on religious or political grounds. Article 31 of the Uzbek Constitution and other laws provide for civic rights and freedoms for all citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity, religious beliefs or political views. The Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations Act contains clear rules concerning religious organisations, their interaction with the State and fully guarantees the right to manifest one’s religion, alone or in community with others ... Uzbekistan has ratified, without reservations, all six main UN treaties concerning human rights and regularly submits reports to the competent agencies of the United Nations. In total, Uzbekistan has ratified over sixty international treaties relating to human rights. Uzbekistan is not a party to the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees and its Protocol. However, in November 1999 they signed the Charter of European Security, thus undertaking to protect refugees. In 1996 Uzbekistan became a party to the UN Convention against Torture. There can be various understandable reasons compelling a person to leave the country of his origin, but only one qualifies [that person to fall within] the notion of refugee. The expression “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted” makes all other reasons irrelevant. The applicant has not adduced convincing grounds for leaving his country of nationality for reasons which would fall within the scope of section 1 § 1(1) of the Refugees Act ...” 16.     On 8 July 2010 the migration authority dispatched a letter notifying the applicant of the refusal. The letter also indicated that the refusal could be challenged before the FMA or a court and that in the absence of other legal grounds for staying on the territory of Russia the applicant would have to leave it. Apparently, the applicant received this letter but did not apply for judicial review. 17.     Instead, in October 2010 the applicant requested that the migration authority grant him temporary asylum in Russia (see paragraph 44 below).   The migration authority rejected this request on 20 December 2010. The applicant did not challenge this refusal before a court. 18 .     In March 2012 the applicant lodged a new application for temporary asylum. On 5 June 2012 the migration authority granted the applicant temporary asylum in Russia, considering that it was necessary in order to provide a legal basis for his continued presence in Russia and Russia’s compliance with the Court’s indication under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Such temporary asylum should remain in force until delivery of the final judgment by the Court and, in any event, no longer than until 5 June 2013. C.     Facts relating to the applicant’s arrest and detention in Russia with a view to extradition 19 .     The applicant was arrested in the town of Krasnogorsk in the Moscow Region on 21 May 2010. The actual circumstances leading to the applicant’s arrest remain unclear.   The arrest record reads as follows: “ Identity document : an information document concerning the search for the religious extremist (passport details); a document concerning a pending application for refugee status ... Grounds and reasons for arrest : [the applicant] is subject to an arrest warrant procedure; a detention order [has been] issued by [an Uzbek] court ... {In pre-printed letters} I have been informed that under Article 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure I am entitled to know the accusation against me, ... to have legal assistance from the moment indicated in Article 49 §§ 2 and 3.1 of the Code, to have meetings in private with counsel before my first questioning ... I have been informed that I am suspected of offences directed against the constitutional order of Uzbekistan and [of the] creation of a criminal community ...” The record bears the applicant’s signature and a note by him saying that he had read the documents and had no comment on them. 20.     On the same date, the Russian authorities contacted their Uzbek colleagues, informing them of the applicant’s arrest and seeking confirmation of the Uzbek authorities’ intention to request the extradition of the applicant.   That same day, the Uzbek authorities submitted a document requesting the applicant’s detention to the Russian authorities. 21.     The applicant also signed, apparently on 22 May 2010, another document entitled Notification of rights to the suspect .   On the same date, the applicant was interviewed by a deputy town prosecutor and confirmed to him in writing that he had been informed of his rights not to incriminate himself and to have the assistance of an interpreter. He waived the assistance of an interpreter, stating that he could read, speak and understand Russian. 22.     On 23 May 2010 the Krasnogorsk Town Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention, doing so with reference to the Uzbek detention order of 23   November 2009 and Article 61 of the 1993 Minsk Convention (see paragraph 75 below). 23.     According to the applicant, after his arrest his procedural rights were not explained to him and he was unable to have the assistance of a lawyer until some time later.   In the applicant’s submission, on 10 June 2010 the staff of the detention facility where he was being kept refused to allow lawyer L. to visit him, stating that he had no formal authorisation for that visit from the Krasnogorsk Prosecutor’s Office. 24 .     On 28 June 2010 the Prosecutor General’s Office received a formal extradition request from the Uzbek authorities, which contained the following statement: “We guarantee that, as required under Articles 16, 17 and 24 of the Uzbek Code of Criminal Procedure, [the applicant] will not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the extradition request is not aimed at persecuting him for political reasons, [or] on grounds relating to race, religious beliefs or nationality. In compliance with Article 66 of the [Minsk] Convention he will not be surrendered to another country without Russia’s consent ... Since 1 January 1998 the death penalty has been abolished in Uzbekistan ...” 25.     On 29 June 2010 the Krasnogorsk Town Prosecutor considered the applicant’s detention again and ordered, without specifying the duration, the applicant’s detention under Article 466   §   2 of the CCrP (see paragraph 56 below). 26.     On 20 July 2010 the town prosecutor applied to the Krasnogorsk Town Court, seeking authorisation of the applicant’s continued detention. By a decision of 21 July 2010 the Town Court confirmed the lawfulness of the prosecutor’s previous decisions ordering the applicant’s detention. Referring to Articles 109 and 466 §   1 of the CCrP, the court extended the applicant’s detention “until 21 August 2010 to amount in total to three months” (apparently, counting from the date of the applicant’s arrest). Lawyer B. was present at the detention hearing and acted as counsel for the applicant. 27.     Before the expiry of the previous detention order, on 13 August 2010 the acting town prosecutor sought an extension of the applicant’s detention because the extradition proceedings were still pending. On 27   August 2010 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 21   November 2010. Lawyer P. was present at the detention hearing and acted as counsel for the applicant. 28.     Before the expiry of the previous detention order, the regional prosecutor sought an extension of the applicant’s detention. On 18   November 2010 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 21 February 2011, to amount in total to nine months. Lawyer S. was present at the detention hearing and acted as counsel for the applicant. 29.     On 18 February 2011 the Town Court examined an extension request from the regional prosecutor and extended the applicant’s detention until 21   May 2011, to amount in total to twelve months. Lawyer M. was present at the detention hearing and acted as counsel for the applicant. 30.     Apparently, no request for participation in the above court hearings concerning the applicant’s detention had been submitted by lawyer L. The transcripts of the above hearings do not contain any request from the applicant to appoint L. or to dismiss the appointed lawyers for any reason. 31.     On an unspecified date, lawyer L. started to represent the applicant in the extradition proceedings. 32.     On 16 May 2011 the Moscow Regional Court examined submissions from L. and extended the applicant’s detention until 21 November 2011, concluding that, if at large, the applicant would flee justice. The court also noted that the Court had made an indication under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, thus (temporarily) preventing enforcement of the extradition order which had become final on 17 March 2011. The applicant appealed. On 7   July 2011 the Appeal Section of the Regional Court upheld the detention order. Apparently, the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal. 33.     On 21 November 2011 the acting town prosecutor ordered the applicant’s release from custody due to the expiry of the maximum eighteen-month statutory period of detention. The applicant was released on the same day. D.     Extradition proceedings 34.     In the meantime, on 5 October 2010 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office issued an extradition order in respect of the applicant. The order indicated that there were no obstacles to extraditing the applicant under Russian law and the international treaties binding Russia. 35.     According to the applicant, the Krasnogorsk Prosecutor’s Office did not allow his lawyer L. access to the extradition file until 12 October 2010, and, even after the lawyer was granted access to the materials in question, he was unable to obtain a copy of the extradition order. It appears that the applicant complained of these matters to higher prosecutor’s offices on several occasions. 36.     In a letter of 26 November 2010 the Moscow Region Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant’s lawyer, stating that his complaints against the detention centre and the Krasnogorsk Prosecutor’s Office had been examined and resolved. In particular, he had been authorised to meet with the applicant and obtain access to the materials concerning the extradition proceedings. The letter also stated that the applicant’s lawyer could receive the extradition order of 5 October 2010 from the applicant, or make a copy at his own expense from the extradition file. 37.     In a letter of 30 November 2010 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant’s lawyer that his complaints against the Krasnogorsk Prosecutor’s Office and the detention centre were being examined. The extradition order of 5   October 2010 was enclosed with this letter. 38.     The applicant challenged the extradition order before the Moscow Regional Court, stating that he had not been involved in the offences imputed to him, and, at the time of his departure from Uzbekistan, his name had not been on a wanted list. 39.     On 25 January 2011 the Regional Court held a hearing and heard submissions from the applicant and his lawyer, L. The Regional Court confirmed the extradition order in the following terms: “The Uzbek extradition request is in compliance with the European Convention on Extradition and Article 58 of the Minsk Convention ... The case file contains assurances from the requesting State that the extradition request does not aim at persecuting [the applicant] for political reasons, [or] on grounds relating to race, religion or nationality. The Uzbek authorities have given guarantees that in the event of his extradition [the applicant] would not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; he would be prosecuted only for the offences mentioned in the extradition request ... The migration authority has dismissed [the applicant’s] application for refugee status ... He has not sought judicial review of this refusal ... He has not sought judicial review of the refusal of temporary asylum ... The allegation concerning human-rights violations in Uzbekistan has been examined by this court. The general and political situation in that country has also been taken into consideration ... However, the [applicant’s] allegation in itself is not a reason for granting his challenge to the extradition order ... The extradition request contains a statement that [the applicant] was/is not being persecuted for political reasons or on grounds relating to race, religion or nationality and that he would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. [The applicant] and his lawyer have not adduced any objective reasons which would allow [this court] to doubt the assurances made by the Uzbek authorities ... When examining [the applicant’s] applications for refugee status and temporary asylum, the authorities established he had not adduced any well-founded reasons [to the effect] that he had left his country for reasons relating to fears of being persecuted on account of his race, religious beliefs, nationality or his belonging to a specific social group or due to his political views ...” 40.     On 17 March 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 25 January 2011, largely relying on the reasoning of the first-instance court. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Refugee proceedings 41.     The Refugees Act (Law no. 4258-I of 19 February 1993) defines a refugee as a person who is not a Russian national and who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it (section 1(1)(1)). The migration authority may refuse to examine an application for refugee status on the merits if the person concerned has left the country of his nationality in circumstances falling outside the scope of section 1(1)(1), and does not want to return to the country of his nationality because of a fear of being held responsible for an offence ( правонарушение ) committed there (section 5(1)(6)). 42 .     Persons who have applied for or been granted refugee status cannot be returned against their will to the State of which they are a national where their life or freedom would be imperilled on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion (sections 1 and 10(1)). 43 .     Having received a refusal to examine an application for refugee status on the merits and having decided not to exercise the right of appeal under section 10, the person concerned must leave the territory of Russia within one month of receiving notification of the refusal if he or she has no other legal grounds for staying in Russia (section 5(5)). Under section 10(5), having received a refusal to examine an application for refugee status on the merits or a refusal of refugee status and having exercised the right of appeal against such refusals, the person concerned must leave the territory of Russia within three days of receiving notification of the decision on the appeal if he or she has no other legal grounds for staying in Russia. If, after the appeal has been rejected, the person concerned still refuses to leave the country, he or she is to be deported (section 13(2)). 44 .     If the person satisfies the criteria set out in section 1(1)(1), or if he or she does not satisfy such criteria but cannot be expelled or deported from Russia for humanitarian reasons, he or she may be granted temporary asylum (section 12(2)). Persons who have been granted temporary asylum cannot be returned against their will to the country of which they are a national or to the country of their former habitual residence (section 12(4)). B.     Extradition proceedings 1.     Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 45.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security (Article 22 § 1). Detention is permissible only on the basis of a court order. The length of time for which a person may be detained prior to obtaining such an order must not exceed forty-eight hours (Article 22 § 2). 2.     Code of Criminal Procedure 46.     The term “court” is defined by the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) of 2002 as “any court of general jurisdiction which examines a criminal case on the merits and delivers decisions provided for by this Code” (Article 5 § 48). The term “judge” is defined by the CCrP as “an official empowered to administer justice” (Article 5 § 54). 47.     A district court has the power to examine all criminal cases except for those falling within the respective jurisdictions of a justice of the peace, a regional court or the Supreme Court of Russia (Article 31 § 2). 48 .     Chapter 13 of the CCrP governs the application of preventive measures. Detention is a preventive measure applied on the basis of a court decision to a person suspected of or charged with a criminal offence punishable by at least two years’ imprisonment when it is impossible to apply a more lenient preventive measure (Article 108 § 1). A request for remand in custody may be submitted to a court by an investigator ( следователь ) with the support of the head of the investigative authority or by the police officer in charge of the inquiry ( дознаватель ) with the support of a prosecutor (Article 108 § 3). A request for remand in custody should be examined by a judge of a district court or a military court of a corresponding level in the presence of the person concerned (Article 108 §   4). Appellate courts should examine appeals lodged against judicial decisions on remand in custody within three days (Article 108 § 11). The period of detention pending the investigation of a criminal case must not exceed two months (Article 109 §   1) but may be extended up to six months by a judge of a district court or a military court of a corresponding level. Further extensions up to twelve months may be granted with regard to persons accused of serious or particularly serious criminal offences (Article 109 §   2). Extensions up to eighteen months may be granted on an exceptional basis with regard to persons accused of particularly serious criminal offences (Article 109 § 3). 49.     A preventive measure can be applied with a view to ensuring a person’s extradition in compliance with the procedure established under Article 466 of the CCrP (Article 97 § 2). 50 .     Chapter 54 of the CCrP (Articles 460-468) governs the procedure to be followed in the event of extradition. 51.     Article 462 of the CCrP provides that an extradition order may be subject to judicial review, in which case the extradition order should not be enforced until the final judgment. 52.     A court is to review the lawfulness and validity of a decision to extradite within a month of receipt of a request for review. The decision should be taken in open court by a panel of three judges in the presence of a prosecutor, the person whose extradition is sought and the latter’s legal counsel (Article 463 § 4). 53 .     Article 464 § 1 lists the conditions under which extradition cannot be authorised. Thus, the extradition of the following should be denied: a Russian citizen (Article 464 § 1-1) or a person who has been granted asylum in Russia (Article 464 § 1-2); a person in respect of whom a conviction has become effective or criminal proceedings have been terminated in Russia in connection with the same act for which he or she has been prosecuted in the requesting State (Article 464 § 1-3); a person in respect of whom criminal proceedings cannot be launched or a conviction cannot become effective in view of the expiry of the statute of limitations or under another valid ground in Russian law (Article 464 § 1-4); or a person in respect of whom extradition has been blocked by a Russian court in accordance with the legislation and international treaties of the Russian Federation (Article 464 §   1-5). Finally, extradition should be denied if the act that serves as the basis for the extradition request does not constitute a criminal offence under the Russian Criminal Code (Article 464 § 1-6). 54 .     In the event that a foreign national whose extradition is being sought is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence for another criminal offence in Russia, his extradition may be postponed until the prosecution is terminated, the penalty is lifted on any valid ground or the sentence is served (Article 465 § 1). 55.     Upon receipt of a request for extradition not accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court, the Prosecutor General or his deputy is to “take measures” in order to decide on the preventive measure in respect of the person whose extradition is being sought. The preventive measure is to be applied in accordance with established procedure (Article 466 § 1). 56 .     Upon receipt of a request for extradition accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign judicial body, a prosecutor may place the person whose extradition is being sought under house arrest or in custodial detention without prior approval of his or her decision by a court of the Russian Federation (Article 466 § 2). 3.     Decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court and Supreme Court (a)     Decision of 17 February 1998 57.     Verifying the compatibility of section 31(2) of the Law on the Legal Status of Foreign Nationals in the USSR of 1981, the Constitutional Court ruled that a foreign national liable to be expelled from Russia could not be detained for more than forty-eight hours without a court order. (b)     Decision no. 101-O of 4 April 2006 58.     Assessing the compatibility of Article 466 § 1 of the CCrP with the Russian Constitution, the Constitutional Court reiterated its settled case-law to the effect that excessive or arbitrary detention, unlimited in time and without appropriate review, was incompatible with Article 22 of the Constitution and Article 14 § 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in all cases, including extradition proceedings. 59 .     In the Constitutional Court’s view, the absence of specific regulation of detention matters in Article 466 § 1 did not create a legal lacuna incompatible with the Constitution. Article 8 § 1 of the 1993 Minsk Convention provided that, in executing a request for legal assistance, the requested party would apply its domestic law, which in the case of Russia was the procedure laid down in the CCrP. That procedure comprised, in particular, Article 466 § 1 of the CCrP and the provisions in its Chapter 13 (“Preventive measures”), which, by virtue of their general character and position in Part I of the Code (“General provisions”), applied to all stages and forms of criminal proceedings, including proceedings for the examination of extradition requests. 60.     The Constitutional Court emphasised that the guarantees of the right to liberty and personal integrity set out 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 established in the CCrP or in excess of the time-limits fixed in the Code. (c)     Decision no. 158-O of 11 July 2006 on the Prosecutor General’s request for clarification 61.     The Prosecutor General asked the Constitutional Court for official clarification of its decision no. 101-O of 4 April 2006 (see above), for the purpose, in particular, of elucidating the procedure for extending a person’s detention with a view to extradition. 62.     The Constitutional Court refused the request on the grounds that it was not competent to indicate specific provisions of criminal law governing the procedure and the maximum periods for holding a person in custody with a view to extradition. That matter was within the competence of the courts of general jurisdiction. (d)     Decision no. 333-O-P of 1 March 2007 63 .     The Constitutional Court reiterated its settled case-law to the effect that the scope of the constitutional right to liberty and personal inviolability was the same for foreign nationals and stateless persons as for Russian nationals. A foreign national or stateless person may not be detained in Russia for more than forty-eight hours without a judicial decision. That constitutional requirement served as a guarantee against excessively long detention beyond forty-eight hours, and also against arbitrary detention, in that it required a court to examine whether the arrest was lawful and justified. 64 .     The Constitutional Court held that Article 466 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read in conjunction with the Minsk Convention, could not be construed as permitting the detention of an individual for more than forty-eight hours on the basis of a request for his or her extradition without a decision by a Russian court. A custodial measure could be applied only in accordance with the procedure established in the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure and within the time-limits fixed in the Code. (e)     Decision no. 383-O-O of 19 March 2009 65.     The Constitutional Court dismissed as inadmissible a request for a review of the constitutionality of Article 466 § 2 of the CCrP, stating that this provision “does not establish maximum periods for custodial detention and does not establish the reasons and procedure for choosing a preventive measure, it merely confirms a prosecutor’s power to execute a decision already delivered by a competent judicial body of a foreign state to detain an accused. Therefore the disputed norm cannot be considered to violate the constitutional rights of [the claimant] ...” (f)     Ruling no.   22 of 29 October 2009 by the Russian Supreme Court 66 .     In Ruling no. 22, adopted by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 29 October 2009 (“the Ruling”), it was stated that, pursuant to Article 466 § 1 of the CCrP, only a court could order the remand in custody of a person in respect of whom an extradition check was pending and where the authorities of the country requesting extradition had not submitted a court decision remanding him or her in custody. The judicial authorisation of remand in custody in that situation was to be carried out in accordance with Article 108 of the CCrP and following a prosecutor’s request for that person to be remanded in custody (paragraph 34 of the Ruling). In deciding to remand a person in custody, a court was to examine whether there were factual and legal grounds for the application of that preventive measure. If the extradition request was accompanied by a detention order of a foreign court, a prosecutor was entitled to remand the person in custody without a Russian court’s authorisation (Article 466 § 2 of the CCrP) for a period not exceeding two months, and the prosecutor’s decision could be challenged in the courts under Article 125 of the CCrP. 67.     In extending a person’s detention with a view to extradition, a court was to apply Article 109 of the CCrP. (g)     Ruling no.   11 of 14 June 2012 by the Russian Supreme Court 68 .     In Ruling no.   11 of 14 June 2012 the Plenary session of the Supreme Court indicated with reference to Article 9 of the CCrP and Article 3 of the Convention that extradition could be refused if exceptional circumstances disclosed that such extradition would entail a danger to the person’s life and health on account of, among others, his or her age and physical condition (paragraph 13 of the Ruling). Russian authorities dealing with an extradition case should assess the circumstances relating to the absence of serious reasons to believe that the person concerned could be subject to ill-treatment or that this person could be persecuted because of his or her race or political opinions (paragraph 14). 4.     Judicial decisions concerning the risk of ill-treatment in extradition cases 69.     By a judgment of 10 December 2010 the Supreme Court of Tatarstan annulled an extradition order in respect of Mr Soliyev. With reference to the international reports and other material submitted by the applicant and the European Court’s case-law on the matter, the court considered that there was a persistent practice of torture of detained suspects or convicts in Uzbekistan and that the applicant also faced a risk of such mistreatment. The court also noted that “in a number of judgments the European Court has held that the mere fact of detention in this country created a risk of ill-treatment”. On 3 February 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment of 10   December 2010, noting that there had been a material difference between the criminal offences mentioned in the extradition request and the corresponding offences under the Russian Criminal Code; that the extradition order had been issued before the final decision had been taken on the applicant’s refugee application; and that there had been indications of a risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, in particular in the absence of any relevant assurances on the part of the Uzbek authorities. 70.     By a judgment of 28 December 2010 the Saratov Regional Court annulled an extradition order in respect of Mr Khodzhamberdiyev, mainly because of inconsistencies and mistakes made in the comparative assessment of the relevant criminal offences under Uzbek and Russian law. In addition, the court made the following findings: “... The allegation of a risk of ill-treatment should be dismissed because the case file contains written assurances made by the deputy Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan, who affirmed that prosecution of the applicant would be in strict conformity with the Uzbek Code of Criminal Procedure ... The court has no reason to distrust these guarantees ... Article 464 of the Russian CCrP prohibits the extradition of a person who has been granted asylum in Russia on account of persecution in the requesting State because of his race, religion, citizenship, ethnic or social origin or political beliefs. Prior to the date of the extradition order, [the applicant] had applied for refugee status and had subsequently sought judicial review of the refusal of such status in Russia. Such review proceedings have not been completed. Taking into account paragraph 1 and 4 of section 10 of the Refugees Act, a person cannot be extradited before a court decision has been taken on judicial review of a refusal of refugee status. Thus, the extradition order was premature, in breach of the Refugees Act ...” On 4 March 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 28   December 2010. C.     Other relevant documents 71 .     By a decision of 14 February 2003 the Supreme Court of Russia classified as terrorist a number of organisations, including the Islamic Party of Turkestan (formerly known as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan). The Supreme Court prohibited the activity of these organisations on the territory of Russia. As regards the Islamic Party of Turkestan (“the IPU”), the decision contains the following information: “[T]he IPU was created in 1995. Its activities are sponsored and financed by foreign Islamist clerical centres, [and are] aimed at establishing extremist religious organisations in Uzbekistan and other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. The agenda of the party is to restore the Islamic Caliphate ... Its immediate goals include destabilisation of the internal political situation in Uzbekistan by way of terrorist acts, military actions, hostage taking ... Since early 1999 the IPU’s actions have become radically violent, including explosions and kidnappings. The IPU has active contacts with the Taliban Movement ...” III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATERIAL A.     The 1993 CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (“the Minsk Convention”) 72 .     When carrying out actions requested under the Minsk Convention, to which Russia and Uzbekistan are parties, an official body applies its country’s domestic laws (Article 8 § 1). 73 .     Extradition for the institution of criminal proceedings can be soug