CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 25 avril 2013

.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 } .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 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8775F964 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s913531A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC155006A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s60956F2B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:60pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sD41064FF { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBA40560 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sAC3EA7B5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF023082F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .sF961BE1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .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 } .s1C40E3A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sA2F1D17B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:11pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s46D227BF { margin-top:11pt; margin-bottom:11pt } .sD90EC4A7 { margin-top:11pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .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 } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; 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 } .s92F94D70 { width:181.09pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION           CASE OF SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 71386/10)             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   25 April 2013     FINAL   09/09/2013   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TABLE OF CONTENTS   PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     The applicant’s background prior to his criminal prosecution B.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant in Tajikistan and the ensuing extradition proceedings in Russia C.     Application for refugee status and temporary asylum D.     Courts’ decisions concerning the applicant’s detention pending extradition E.     The applicant’s alleged abduction and transfer to Tajikistan 1.     The applicant’s account of the events 2.     Information provided by the Government F.     Requests to protect the applicant against the imminent risk of his forcible transfer to Tajikistan G.     Letter from the Registrar of the Court following the applicant’s abduction and transfer to Tajikistan H.     Official inquiry and repeated refusals to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the impugned events 1.     First refusal by the investigator to open a criminal investigation and its quashing by his superior 2.     Second refusal by the investigator to open a criminal investigation and its quashing by his superior 3.     Third refusal by the investigator to open a criminal investigation and its quashing by his superior 4.     Fourth refusal by the investigator to open a criminal investigation 5.     Subsequent inquiries I.     The applicant’s criminal trial in Tajikistan II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW A.     Extradition proceedings 1.     Code of Criminal Procedure 2.     Russian Supreme Court’s Ruling of 14 June 2012 B.     Detention pending extradition and its judicial review 1.     Russian Constitution 2.     CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 1993 (“the Minsk Convention”) 3.     Code of Criminal Procedure 4.     Case-law of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts of Russia C.     Status of refugees 1.     Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees of 1951 2.     Refugees Act 3.     Recommendation by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the right of asylum seekers to an effective remedy D.     Criminal investigation III.     REPORTS ON THE SITUATION IN TAJIKISTAN IV.     COUNCIL OF EUROPE TEXTS ON THE DUTY TO COOPERATE WITH THE COURT, THE RIGHT TO INDIVIDUAL PETITION AND INTERIM MEASURES A.     Parliamentary Assembly B.     Committee of Ministers V.     COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS’ DECISIONS UNDER ARTICLE   46 ON RELATED CASES CONCERNING RUSSIA THE LAW I.     ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Submissions by the parties 1.     The Government 2.     The applicant B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Admissibility 2.     Merits (a)     Whether the applicant’s return to Tajikistan exposed him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (i)     General principles (ii)     Application to the present case (α)     Domestic proceedings (ß)     The Court’s own assessment of the risk to the applicant (b)     Whether the authorities complied with their positive obligation to protect the applicant against the real and immediate risk of forcible transfer to Tajikistan (c)     Whether the authorities conducted an effective investigation (d)     Whether the respondent State is liable on account of the passive or active involvement of its agents in the applicant’s forcible transfer to Tajikistan (e)     Conclusions III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION V.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Admissibility B.     Merits VI.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION VII.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Damage B.     Costs and expenses C.     Default interest VIII.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION A.     General principles B.     Measures to comply with the present judgment 1.     Payment of just satisfaction 2.     Other remedial measures in respect of the applicant 3.     General measures to prevent similar violations OPERATIVE PART In the case of Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia , The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 71386/10) 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 a national of Tajikistan, Mr Savriddin Dzhanobiddinovich Dzhurayev (“the applicant”), on 6 December 2010. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms E. Ryabinina and Ms   D.   Trenina, lawyers practising 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.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that in the event of his extradition to Tajikistan he risked being subjected to ill-treatment and that judicial review of his detention pending extradition had not been conducted speedily. 4.     On 7 December 2010 the President of the First Section indicated to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited to Tajikistan until further notice. It was also decided to grant this case priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 5 .     On 16 December 2010 the Government informed the Court that the authorities had taken relevant steps to guarantee that the applicant would not be extradited to Tajikistan until further notice. 6.     On 31 January 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). 7.     On 2 November 2011 the President of the First Section asked the Government, under Rule 54 § 2 of the Rules of Court, to provide additional factual information to elucidate the circumstances of the applicant’s alleged abduction in Moscow. 8 .     On 17 January 2012 the Chamber invited the parties to submit further written observations in respect of the applicant’s alleged abduction and transfer to Tajikistan. In consequence, the parties provided the Court with several further submissions containing information about fresh developments in the case and further observations on the merits. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9.     The applicant was born in 1985. He is presently serving a prison sentence in Tajikistan. A.     The applicant’s background prior to his criminal prosecution 10.     Until 2006 the applicant was living in his native village of Navgilem in the Sogdiskaya Region of Tajikistan. He was a merchant at the local food market. 11.     The events preceding the applicant’s departure from Tajikistan were described by him as follows. 12 .     From 2002 to 2005 the applicant attended a mosque, where he was studying the Quran under the tutorship of Mr S. Marufov. The latter was detained by local police and died in detention in May 2006. Before his death Mr   Marufov had reportedly been ill-treated (see paragraph 102 below). 13.     Following Mr Marufov’s death, the Tajik authorities started targeting his followers. The applicant fled the country, fearing prosecution on grounds of his religious activities. 14.     The applicant arrived in Russia in June 2006 and made a living from various low-skilled jobs in the Moscow suburbs. B.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant in Tajikistan and the ensuing extradition proceedings in Russia 15.     On 7 November 2006 the Prosecutor’s Office of Tajikistan brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and authorised his detention pending trial. The applicant was charged under Articles 186 § 2 and 187 § 2 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan with forming, some time in 1992, together with several other individuals, a “criminal conspiracy” named “Bayat” ( Байъат ), which later joined a “criminal armed group” named “the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan” (“the IMU”). The second charge against the applicant concerned his alleged involvement in an armed attack carried out on 27 September 2006 on three members of the regional parliament. 16.     On the same date the Tajik Prosecutor’s Office issued a warrant for the applicant’s arrest based on the charges mentioned above and put his name on the list of “wanted persons”. 17 .     The Russian police apprehended the applicant on 21 November 2009 in Moscow pursuant to an international search warrant issued by the Tajik authorities. He remained in detention pending extradition until 21 May 2011 (see paragraphs 32 ‑ 36 below). 18.     On 21 December 2009 and 29 March 2010 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Tajikistan asked his Russian counterpart to order the applicant’s extradition to Tajikistan. 19.     On 17 June 2010 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia ordered the applicant’s extradition. He found, inter alia, that the applicant had been charged in Tajikistan with involvement since 1992 in a criminal organisation, the IMU. The Deputy Prosecutor General also noted that at the end of 2005 the applicant had moved to Russia, where he had founded an armed cell of the IMU and that in 2006 he had transferred up to 5,000 United States dollars per month to the IMU leaders in Tajikistan, thus fuelling their terrorist activities, such as the murdering of State officials. The Deputy Prosecutor General considered that the applicant’s acts were also punishable under the Russian Criminal Code and that his extradition could not be prevented by a crime he may have committed in Moscow, since no investigation or prosecution had been initiated in that respect. Nor did he find any obstacle to the applicant’s extradition in either international treaties or legislation of the Russian Federation. 20 .     The applicant complained about the extradition order to the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”), stating that the Tajik authorities would subject him to torture with a view to making him confess to a crime he had not committed. He cited extensive case-law of the Court establishing the risk of torture to which certain applicants in a similar position would have been subjected in the event of extradition to that country ( Khodzhayev v.   Russia , no. 52466/08, 12 May 2010, and Khaydarov v. Russia , no.   21055/09, 20 May 2010). The applicant also emphasised the contradictions and even the absurdity of certain charges brought against him in Tajikistan, according to which he had been actively involved in terrorist activities since 1992 when he was still a small child. 21.     The Deputy Prosecutor General provided the City Court with a letter signed by his counterpart in Tajikistan, which contained, inter alia, the following assurances: “We guarantee that in accordance with the norms of international law [the applicant] will be provided with all opportunities to defend himself in the Republic of Tajikistan, including through the assistance of a lawyer. He will not be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and relevant United Nations and Council of Europe conventions and protocols thereto). The Criminal Code of Tajikistan does not provide for the death penalty in respect of the crimes imputed to [the applicant]. The Prosecutor General’s Office of Tajikistan guarantees that the aim of the extradition request in respect of [the applicant] is not his persecution on political grounds, or for reasons of his race, religious beliefs, nationality or political opinions. ... Tajikistan undertakes to prosecute [the applicant] only for the crimes which constitute the basis of his extradition and that [the applicant] will not be handed over to a third State without the consent of the Russian Federation and will be free to leave the territory of the Republic of Tajikistan after having served his sentence.” 22 .     On 29 October 2010 the City Court held a public hearing. It allowed the request by the defence to question Ms E. Ryabinina, in her capacity as expert of the Russian Human Rights Institute, about the situation in Tajikistan. The expert responded to the questions at the public hearing, explaining the details of four recent judgments delivered by the Court in connection with the prospective extradition to Tajikistan of the applicants concerned and the legal implications for the Russian Federation ( Khodzhayev , cited above; Khaydarov , cited above; Iskandarov v. Russia , no.   17185/05, 23 September 2010; and Gaforov v. Russia , no. 25404/09, 21   October 2010). 23 .     By a judgment adopted on the same date, the City Court upheld the extradition order, finding no obstacle to the applicant’s extradition to Tajikistan. The applicant’s arguments, based on Russia’s obligations under the Convention and the Court’s case-law, were dismissed by the City Court in the following terms: “... the arguments that the applicant might be persecuted on religious grounds and regarding a serious risk of torture in the course of criminal prosecution in Tajikistan ... are considered by the court to be unfounded since those arguments constitute assumptions that are in no way corroborated; quite to the contrary, they are completely rebutted by the case materials, which have been examined by the court, and in particular by the written guarantees provided by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Tajikistan ... The arguments ... that torture and persecution on religious and political grounds take place in the Republic of Tajikistan as confirmed by documents of the European Court of Human Rights and other organisations for the defence of human rights ... are considered by the court to be unfounded, as those documents relate to other persons, but not to [the applicant]; moreover, those arguments are negated by the aforementioned written guarantees of the Tajik Prosecutor’s Office.” 24 .     On 9 December 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the City Court’s decision. The applicant’s argument that his extradition would violate Article   3 of the Convention was dismissed by the Supreme Court by sole reference to the text of the written guarantees provided by the Tajik Prosecutor’s Office. C.     Application for refugee status and temporary asylum 25.     On 22 December 2009 the applicant applied to the Moscow City branch of the Russian Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”) for refugee status. He argued that he had been persecuted in Tajikistan on the grounds of his religious beliefs and that he would be subjected to torture in the event of extradition. 26.     On 26 April 2010 the Moscow City branch of the FMS dismissed the application. The applicant was notified of the decision on 12 May 2010. 27 .     On 26 August 2010 the Deputy Director of the FMS dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision. He reminded the applicant that the IMU was considered by the supreme courts of both Tajikistan and Russia as an organisation carrying out terrorist activities. While noting the extensive international criticism of the use of torture and the impunity of the State officials responsible in Tajikistan, the Deputy Director of the FMS found no well-founded reason for fearing that the applicant would be persecuted on religious grounds. Noting that the great majority of the population of Tajikistan were Muslims, he found it unlikely that the applicant would be persecuted solely on the basis of his Islamic beliefs. As to the authorities’ attempt to strengthen control over religious beliefs, this was considered to be pursuing the understandable aim of limiting the influence of radical Islam, including the IMU. He concluded that the applicant was not eligible for refugee status and that his application had been motivated by his intention to escape criminal liability in Tajikistan. He noted at the same time that the existence of a well-founded fear of becoming a victim of torture or ill-treatment might be a ground for granting the applicant temporary asylum in Russia under section 12 of the Refugees Act. 28.     On 1 October 2010 the applicant appealed against the FMS’s decision to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. He argued that the FMS had not made a thorough and adequate analysis of the situation in Tajikistan and taken due account of the information provided by various international sources in that connection. He further submitted that the FMS had presumed him guilty of the offences that had been imputed to him by the Tajik authorities and had in effect upheld the version of the facts as presented by the Tajikistan Prosecutor’s Office. 29 .     On 10 November 2010 the Basmanniy District Court upheld the FMS’s decision of 26 August 2010. It referred to the arguments contained in that decision, finding them convincing and considering that the applicant had failed to provide evidence to the contrary. On 6 December 2010 the court’s decision was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court. 30 .     On 24 May 2011 the applicant applied to the FMS for temporary asylum in Russia. On 2 June 2011 the UNHCR Office in Russia informed the applicant’s representative that he met the criteria established by its statute and was eligible for international protection under its mandate. 31 .     On 6 September 2011 the Moscow City branch of the FMS granted the applicant temporary asylum in Russia and issued a certificate to that effect. The certificate was recorded under reference ВУ № 0004219 and delivered to the applicant on 8 September 2011 in his lawyer’s presence. D.     Courts’ decisions concerning the applicant’s detention pending extradition 32 .     Following the applicant’s apprehension in Moscow (see paragraph   17 above), on 23   November 2009 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow ordered his detention pending extradition. 33.     On 15 January 2010 the same court extended the applicant’s detention until 21 May 2010. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision on 1 February 2010. It was dismissed by the City Court on 22   March 2010. 34.     On 17 May 2010 the Meshchanskiy District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 21 November 2010. The applicant appealed against that decision on 19 May 2010. The City Court dismissed the appeal on 12 July 2010. 35.     On 19 November 2010 the City Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 21 May 2011. On 22 November 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Russia on 21 December 2010. 36 .     On 20 May 2011 the Meshchanskiy District Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s release under a personal guarantee provided by his lawyer in accordance with Article 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. E.     The applicant’s alleged abduction and transfer to Tajikistan 1.     The applicant’s account of the events 37 .     According to the applicant’s written testimony and the complementary information collected by his representatives from witnesses and other available sources, his abduction and transfer to Tajikistan took place as follows. 38.     At around 9 or 10 p.m. on 31 October 2011 the applicant and a friend were driving in the south-west district of Moscow when their car was blocked by a mini-van in Michurinskiy avenue. According to the details provided by the applicant’s lawyer to the police and investigative authorities, the incident took place between 11.30 and 11.45 p.m. at 15, Vernadskiy avenue in Moscow. The applicant and his friend got out of the car and tried to escape. They were followed by three or four unidentified men who fired two shots. The applicant’s friend managed to escape, while the applicant was stopped, beaten up with a truncheon and forced into the mini ‑ van by the same men, who did not identify themselves. 39.     The applicant was kept in the mini-van for a night and a day. The individuals who had apprehended him subjected him to torture and ill ‑ treatment. They beat him up, put a gun to his head and threatened to kill him unless he agreed to return to his home country. The applicant showed them the temporary asylum certificate delivered by the FMS, but they just laughed at him in response. The person who put questions to the applicant was of Tajik origin. 40.     In the evening of the following day the applicant was taken by his kidnappers directly to the airfield of Moscow’s Domodedovo airport, without going through the usual border and customs formalities and security checks. The applicant was handed over to a Tajik patrol, who forced him into a nearby aircraft without presenting a ticket or any travel documents. 41 .     At around 4 a.m. the next day, the aircraft arrived at the airport of Khujand in Tajikistan, where the applicant was handed over to the Tajik authorities. His requests for a lawyer were refused. According to the written testimony of the applicant’s father, the applicant was detained and questioned for an unspecified period of time at Khujand police station. The applicant’s father testified in writing that police officers, one of whom was identified as S.   M., had severely ill-treated the applicant in order to make him confess to crimes he had never committed and state that he had come back to Tajikistan voluntarily. He further testified that on 20 December 2012 the investigator, R.R., had refused to allow him to meet with his son in detention, referring to the father’s failure to help the authorities apprehend the applicant and bring him back to the country. 2.     Information provided by the Government 42 .     The Government’s submissions in respect of the applicant’s account of the facts were limited to the following. 43 .     Following enquiries from the Court, letters received from the Government dated 18 November 2011 and 29 February 2012 contained no information about the applicant’s whereabouts or his crossing of the State border. The Government further submitted that the applicant’s rights and freedoms had not been restricted in any way after his release on 20 May 2011, that the law had not obliged the authorities to ensure any surveillance over the applicant, that his extradition or expulsion had been suspended pursuant to the interim measures ordered by the Court and that he had not, therefore, been handed over to Tajikistan through the extradition procedure. 44 .     On 5 April 2012 the Government retransmitted the official information provided on 26 March 2012 by the Prosecutor General of Tajikistan to his Russian counterpart, according to which the applicant had “voluntarily surrendered” on 3 November 2011 to the Sogdiyskiy Regional Department for the Fight against Organised Crime ( РОБОП ) and had been detained in temporary detention facility no. 2 ( СИЗО №2 ) of Khujand. 45 .     According to the latest information received from the Government on 25 February 2013, the inquiry into the applicant’s abduction and transfer was still pending. F.     Requests to protect the applicant against the imminent risk of his forcible transfer to Tajikistan 46 .     Once informed of the applicant’s abduction on the evening of 31   October 2011, his representatives immediately contacted the competent Russian authorities, asking them to take urgent measures to prevent the applicant’s forcible removal from Russian territory. 47.     Between 3 and 5 a.m. on 1 November, Ms E. Ryabinina faxed four formal requests to that effect to the head of the Moscow City Police Department, the Director of the FMS, the Prosecutor General and the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court, respectively. She also solicited the assistance of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation. 48 .     In her letter to the head of the Moscow City Police Department, the applicant’s representative stated the circumstances of the applicant’s abduction. She also reminded him of the applicant’s legal status as a person to whom temporary asylum had been granted by the FMS and interim measures had been applied by the Court to prevent his extradition. The letter concluded as follows: “In view of [those circumstances] there are weighty reasons to fear that an abduction attempt has been made in respect of [the applicant] with a view to his subsequent illegal transfer from Russia to Tajikistan, whose authorities have requested his extradition for criminal prosecution. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the applicant’s brother [Sh. T.] disappeared on 8 September in Moscow and, according to the information provided by his wife, was remanded in custody on 13 September in Khujand, the Republic of Tajikistan, where he is still being detained. Some time earlier, on 23 August of this year, two other asylum seekers who had been protected against forcible transfer by [the interim measures decided by] the European Court, disappeared in Moscow: a Tajik national, S.K., and an Uzbek national, M.   A. They were both transferred to Tajikistan and remanded in custody. Any claim that they left voluntarily must be excluded as they did not have any documents permitting them to cross the State border of the Russian Federation: M.   A.’s national passport was being held by the Moscow branch of the FMS, while S.K. had lost his passport several years previously. ...” 49 .     On the same day, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation also sent a letter to the head of the Moscow City Police Department, which read as follows: “... There are well-founded reasons to fear that an attempt might be made illegally to transfer [the applicant] to Tajikistan, where his life is threatened. Today, 1 November 2011, [the applicant’s representative] asked you to take urgent measures in order to prevent [the applicant’s] forcible transfer from the territory of the Russian Federation, and above all, through the airports of Moscow. I ask you to consider the [above] request as soon as possible and to take all possible measures with a view to finding [the applicant] and preventing his forcible transfer from the territory of the Russian Federation. I ask you to inform me of the results following your consideration of the request.” 50.     There is no information about any protective measure taken by the authorities concerned in response to any of those requests. 51.     On 7 November 2011 the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court replied to the applicant’s representative that pursuant to the interim measures taken by the Court, the Russian authorities were abstaining from his extradition and that the relevant instruction had been sent to the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences ( ФСИН ), the Prosecutor General and the Ministry of the Interior. G.     Letter from the Registrar of the Court following the applicant’s abduction and transfer to Tajikistan 52 .     Following the applicant’s complaint about his abduction in the present case and similar events in certain other cases, on 25 January 2012 the Registrar of the Court sent a letter to the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court. The letter read as follows: “The President of the Court, Sir Nicolas Bratza, has instructed me to express on his behalf his profound concern at the applicant’s disappearance in Russia and his subsequent transfer to Tajikistan notwithstanding the interim measures indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The President has noted that since the Court’s judgment in the Iskandarov case (no.   17185/05, 23 September 2010) where it held the Russian Federation responsible for a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s unexplained abduction and transfer to Tajikistan by unidentified persons, the Court has been confronted with repeated incidents of that kind in four other cases, including the above-mentioned case (the other three cases are: Abdulkhakov v. Russia , no. 14743/11; S.K. v. Russia , no.   58221/10; and Zokhidov v. Russia , no. 67286/10). The explanations so far provided by the Government do not clarify how applicants could against their will be moved across the Russian State border notwithstanding the Government’s official assurances that no extradition would be effected pending examination of their cases by the Court. The President is deeply disturbed at those developments. He is particularly concerned about their implications for the authority of the Court and possible continuation of such unacceptable incidents in cases of other applicants to whom the interim measures still apply on account of the imminent risk of violation of their rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in the countries of destination. As an indication of the seriousness with which he views this turn of events, the President has asked that the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe be informed immediately. The President also notes that the Court’s Chamber has requested additional observations from the Government to address this worrying and unprecedented situation and expects the Russian competent authorities to provide the Court with exhaustive information about the follow-up given to the incidents in the Russian Federation. In the meantime, your authorities’ attention is drawn to the fact that interim measures continue to apply under Rule 39 in twenty-five other Russian cases concerning extradition or expulsion. Those cases are listed in appendix to the present letter.” 53.     On 5 March 2012 the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court informed the Registrar in response that appropriate information would be submitted “upon receiving the necessary data from the relevant authorities”. H.     Official inquiry and repeated refusals to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the impugned events 54.     On 30 November and 2 December 2011 the Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant’s representative that her complaint about the applicant’s abduction had been sent to the Moscow South-West Police Department ( УВД по Юго-Западному АО ГУ МВД России по г. Москве ) and then to the Gagarinskiy Inter-District Investigation Division of the South-West Administrative Circuit of Moscow ( Гагаринский МСО СУ по ЮЗАО ГСУ СК РФ ). On 30 December 2011 the latter decided to transmit the file to the Nikulinskiy Inter-District Investigation Division of the South-West Administrative Circuit of Moscow ( Никулинский МСО СУ по ЮЗАО ГСУ СК РФ по г. Москве – hereinafter referred to as “the Nikulinskiy Investigation Division”). 1.     First refusal by the investigator to open a criminal investigation and its quashing by his superior 55 .     Under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the senior investigator of the Nikulinskiy Investigation Division, P.K., conducted a pre-investigation inquiry ( проверка сообщения о преступлении – “the inquiry”). 56 .     On 21 March 2012 P. K. refused to open a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant’s alleged abduction on the grounds of absence of corpus delicti . After a brief recapitulation of the facts, as presented by the applicant’s representative, the senior investigator concluded as follows: “... having analysed the materials of the inquiry, the investigating authority finds at present no evidence of crime under Articles 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, because it has not been objectively established whether the applicant remains on the territory of the Russian Federation or has crossed the border of the Russian Federation. Information has also been received in the course of the inquiry that no shootings or abductions of persons have been reported on the territory where [the applicant] was allegedly abducted. The investigating authority does not exclude the possibility that following [the applicant’s] release from detention he might have staged his abduction with a view to escaping criminal liability for crimes he had committed on the territory of the Republic of Tajikistan.” 57 .     On the same day the head of the Nikulinskiy Investigation Division, S.K., quashed the above decision and sent the case back to the same senior investigator for a further inquiry. His decision was reasoned as follows: “The investigator’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings is unfounded and must be quashed. In the course of a further inquiry it is necessary to obtain replies to all requests for information that were sent on the matter and to proceed to an additional interview of [the applicant’s representative].” 58 .     On 27 March 2012 the head of the First Division for Procedural Supervision of the Moscow Directorate General of Investigation ( ГСУ СК России по г. Москве ) also requested a further inquiry into the matter. Furthermore, on 30 March 2012, the deputy to the Nikulinskiy Inter-District Prosecutor ( заместитель Никулинского межрайонного прокурора ) asked the investigator to ascertain whether the Russian authorities had been involved in the applicant’s alleged abduction. 2.     Second refusal by the investigator to open a criminal investigation and its quashing by his superior 59.     On 20 April 2012 the senior investigator, P.K., again refused to open a criminal investigation by a new decision, which repeated word for word his earlier decision of 21 March 2012 (see paragraph 56 above). 60.     On 23 April 2012 the deputy head of the Nikulinskiy Investigation Division, A.N., quashed that decision, also repeating word for word the previous decision by the head of the Nikulinskiy Investigation Division of 21 March 2012, which had quashed P. K.’s first decision of the same date (see paragraph 57 above). 3.     Third refusal by the investigator to open a criminal investigation and its quashing by his superior 61.     On 23 May 2012 the senior investigator, P.K., yet again refused to open a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant’s abduction. The text of that decision was not submitted to the Court. 62 .     On 9 June 2012 the deputy head of the Nikulinskiy Investigation Division, A.N., again quashed that decision and demanded that the following procedural steps be taken: “In the course of a further inquiry a second request must be sent to the law-enforcement bodies of the Republic of Tajikistan in order to elucidate the following questions: has [the applicant] crossed the border of Tajikistan; is [the applicant] being detained in a pre-trial detention facility; and have criminal proceedings been brought against [the applicant]? A separate set of proceedings needs to be instituted on the basis of the materials concerning the possible unlawful crossing of the Russian border by the applicant ... and the materials sent to the FSB with a view to carrying out an inquiry under Article 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ... [the applicant’s representative] needs to be questioned on the following points: is she still a representative of [the applicant] and can she clarify anything about [his] crossing of the border? A number of other verification measures need to be taken with a view to adopting a lawful and well-founded decision.” 4.     Fourth refusal by the investigator to open a criminal investigation 63 .     On 9 July 2012 an investigator of the Nikulinskiy Investigation Division, A.Z., refused to bring criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s abduction. After a brief statement of facts, the decision read as follows: “According to information received from the Border Control Department of the Federal Security Service of Russia (“the FSB”), the law of the Russian Federation does not provide for the names of persons crossing the State border of the Russian Federation to be recorded. In accordance with section 30(15) of the State Border of the Russian Federation Act, only the number of persons crossing the border is monitored. It is therefore impossible to confirm or refute the information about the crossing of the State border by [the applicant]. Following a request for information about [the applicant], a national of the Republic of Tajikistan, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Tajikistan answered that the aforementioned request could not be satisfied as it had been made in breach of the Convention of 22 January 1993 for legal assistance and legal relations in civil family and criminal cases. The police authorities in charge of the relevant territory have not received any information during the relevant period about unlawful acts involving either the use of a weapon or the abduction of persons in the circumstances indicated in the application. The Moscow City and Regional branch of the FSB has in its possession material relating to verifications of the possible unlawful crossing of the border of the Russian Federation by [the applicant]. Given that [the applicant] is subject to an international search warrant for the commission of crimes under Articles 186 § 2 and 187 § 2 of the Criminal Code [of Tajikistan], he might have staged his abduction with a view to escaping criminal liability for crimes he had committed on the territory of the Republic of Tajikistan. Thus, the preliminary inquiry has established no objective data indicative of [the applicant’s] abduction.” The investigator sent the above decision to the applicant’s representatives on 16 August 2012. 5.     Subsequent inquiries 64.     On 25 February 2013 the Government informed the Court that similar inquiries had continued and were still pending. No further decisions by the investigation authorities or documents were provided to the Court. According to the Government’s information, the inquiry found that the applicant had illegally crossed the Russian State border, surrendered to the Tajik authorities and had been placed in detention. The investigator’s decision of 9 July 2012 refusing to open a criminal investigation was again quashed by his superior on an unspecified date. According to the Government, the latest decision refusing to open a criminal investigation had been issued on 29 November 2012 by the head of the Nikulinskiy Investigation Division but had yet again been quashed. As a result, the file had been sent back to the investigators for an a