CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 novembre 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 } .s9CDD400 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center } .sA029F775 { margin-top:3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s50C1E4BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:center } .s2680E62 { margin-top:5pt; 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 } .s85A66119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sF8CE8060 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s564AA930 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6012B6B4 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s51193921 { margin-top:17pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCED75C42 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC7411871 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9E75B192 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDD64E76A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1041E681 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:41pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFA548BA1 { margin-top:41pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAA84BF46 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:23pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s16CBA835 { margin-top:23pt; 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 } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF0D62E79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5CE4E332 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:23pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE5FF2FDD { margin-top:23pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s558D7F8F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s941ED1A1 { margin-top:17pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s738D3FD9 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:23pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s5F824735 { margin-top:5pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s253FFCEF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:justify } .s52EF38FC { margin-top:5pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sAE0473B0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:justify } .sD6E986CE { margin-top:5pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:justify } .s3E1A75E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s86F07B04 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:41pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9E543924 { margin-top:41pt; margin-bottom:5pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .sF4F12EF6 { width:180.75pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }         FIRST SECTION             CASE OF ERMAKOV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 43165/10)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   7 November 2013     FINAL   24/03/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ermakov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President ,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges , and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 15 October 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   43165/10) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Uzbek national, Mr Azamatzhon Erkaboyevich Ermakov (“the applicant”), on 2   August 2010. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms   Y.Z.   Ryabinina, Ms   N.V.   Yermolayeva, a lawyer practising in Moscow, and Mr   Yu.A.   Sidorov, a lawyer practising in Nizhniy Novgorod. 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 his extradition to Uzbekistan would entail a violation of Article   3 of the Convention, that no effective domestic remedy was available to him by which to challenge his extradition on that ground, and that his detention pending extradition and the ensuing house arrest had been unlawful, in breach of Article   5 of the Convention. The applicant’s representatives further submitted that the applicant had been unlawfully and forcibly transferred to Uzbekistan. They referred to Articles   3 and 34 in respect of the latter complaint. 4.     On 22   September 2010 the President of the First Section indicated to the respondent Government that the applicant should not be extradited to Uzbekistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court (Rule   39 of the Rules of Court). On the same date the application was granted priority under Rule   41 of the Rules of Court. 5.     On 4   July 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. 6.     On 7   November and 4   December 2012 the President invited the parties to submit further information, and on 11   January 2013 requested further written observations in respect of the applicant’s alleged abduction and transfer to Uzbekistan. The parties were also requested to provide information on the progress of the internal inquiry and the applicant’s whereabouts once such information was available. 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 7.     The applicant was born in 1972. Until 2   November 2012 he was detained in Nizhniy Novgorod. He is currently held in detention in Andijan, Uzbekistan. A.     The applicant’s background and his arrival in Russia 8.     Until 2009 the applicant and his family were living in the Zhalokuduk District of the Andijan Region, located in the Fergana Valley of Uzbekistan. He transported goods to the nearby villages in a cart pulled by a donkey. The applicant is a practising Muslim. In 1995 he started performing Salah and attending a mosque. 9.     In 2007 the applicant’s passport (“the old passport”) expired, and, to apply for its renewal, he completed a “form no.   1”, a questionnaire containing his personal details and the old passport number. On 29   March 2007 he was issued with a new passport (“the current passport”). The original form no.   1 was filed at the local branch of the Department of the Interior of the Andijan Region, Uzbekistan. 10.     According to the applicant, in March 2009 he learned of the arrest of a neighbour with whom he had regularly performed Salah. Being aware of the widespread practice of torture in detention in Uzbekistan, he decided to leave the country for fear of arrest on fabricated charges and torture in custody. 11.     On 11   March 2009 the applicant arrived in Russia via the Moscow Domodedovo International Airport (“Domodedovo Airport”). On 23   July 2009 he was issued with a temporary residence permit valid until August   2012. He lived in Dzerzhinsk in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region, until his arrest. His wife and a minor daughter live in Andijan. B     Criminal proceedings against the applicant in Uzbekistan 12.     On 26   August 2009 the Investigative Unit of the Andijan Regional Department of the Interior brought criminal proceedings against a group of persons, apparently including the applicant, on suspicion of setting up a criminal group attempting to overthrow the constitutional order of the Uzbek State. 13.     On 16   September 2009 the above-mentioned department issued two separate formal statements of charges against the applicant. Both decisions specified that he had been charged in absentia with involving minors in criminal activity (Article   127   §   3   (b) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (“the UCC”)), terrorism (Article   155   §   1 of the UCC), incitement to hatred and hostility giving rise to discrimination on grounds of race and religion by an organised group and by means dangerous to the public (Article   156   §   3), conspiracy to overthrow the Uzbek State’s constitutional order (Article   159   §   4), unlawful crossing of the State border (Article   223   §   3   (b)), repeated forgery of official documents and use of the fabricated documents (Article   228   §   2   (a),   (b)), setting up a criminal group (Article   242   §   1), producing and disseminating documents containing ideas of religious extremism, separatism and fundamentalism, and threats to national security and public order (Article   244(1)   §   3   (a) of the UCC), setting up, managing and participating in extremist, separatist, fundamentalist and other banned organisations (Article   244(2)   §   1 of the UCC), and smuggling material disseminating extremist, separatist and radical fundamentalist ideas (Article   246 of the UCC). 14.     The first statement of charges, issued in respect of the applicant only, began with an outline of Uzbek State policy in the sphere of the fight against religious extremism and, in particular, referred to the events of 2005 in the Fergana Valley as an armed attempt to seize State power conducted by members of the extremist movement “Akromiya” with the assistance of international terrorist forces and “under the influence of certain States acting on the basis of double standards and seeking to achieve their own geopolitical aims”. It further described actions allegedly committed by various individuals identified as members of the criminal group the applicant belonged to. The actions imputed directly to the applicant were described as follows: “Ermakov, with a view to studying the works of the leader of the criminal association ‘the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan’ ... and having chosen the path of jihad, met in January 2000 with residents of the Dzhalakuduk District of the Andijan Region [six names quoted] and others ... studied the ideas of the religious extremist movement and became member of the extremist movement ‘Wahhabi’.” 15.     In the second statement of charges the investigator listed various actions the applicant had participated in “as a member of a criminal group” or “on the basis of a criminal conspiracy”. In particular, he was suspected of membership of the banned religious movement “Wahhabism”, studying materials by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, spreading ideas of religious extremism, disseminating and storing video-materials by the above ‑ mentioned banned religious movements, and providing financial support to members of the criminal group. 16.     On 16   September 2009 the Andijan Town Court ordered the applicant’s arrest. On the same date his name was put on the cross ‑ border list of wanted persons by the decision of an investigator of the Andijan Regional Department of the Interior. It appears that at some point the applicant was placed on the Interpol Wanted Fugitives List (in the absence of further information, see paragraph   96 below). C.     The extradition proceedings 17.     On 14   November 2009 the police arrested the applicant in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region of Russia as a person on the cross-border wanted list. On the same date the Anti-Terrorism Criminal Investigation Unit of the Uzbekistan Department of the Interior confirmed to the Russian authorities the applicant’s placement on the cross-border wanted list and its intention to request his extradition, enclosing a petition for the applicant’s arrest and placement in custody, the first statement of charges, his passport details, and a copy of the form no.   1. 18.     On 1   December 2009 the applicant wrote a letter to the prosecutor’s office of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region stating that he had left Uzbekistan after the arrest of his neighbour, out of fear that he would also be arrested, tortured and convicted on fabricated charges. He stated that he had gone to Russia in order to earn money, firmly denied all charges against him as fabricated and asked the Russian authorities not to send him to Uzbekistan, referring to the risk of torture in detention. 19.     On 10   December 2009 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan sent a request for the applicant’s extradition to Uzbekistan to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office. The request contained assurances that the applicant would be prosecuted only for the offences for which he was being extradited, that he would be able to freely leave Uzbekistan when he had stood trial and served any sentence, and that he would not be expelled or extradited to a third State without the consent of the Russian authorities. The second statement of charges was enclosed with the request. 20.     On 18   March 2010 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan reiterated the earlier assurances provided in respect of the case and further assured his Russian counterpart that the applicant would not be prosecuted on political, racial or religious grounds, that he would not be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment, and that the guarantees of a fair trial would be observed in the criminal proceedings against him. 21.     On 12   April 2010 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office ordered the extradition of the applicant to Uzbekistan on account of the charges under Articles   159   §   3   (b) and 242   §   1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (attempt to overthrow the Uzbek State’s constitutional order, participation in and direction of religious, extremist, separatist and other prohibited organisations), Article   127   §   3   (b) (involvement of minors in criminal activity), Article   155   §   1 (terrorism), Article   156   §   3 (incitement to hatred and hostility giving rise to discrimination on grounds of race and religion by an organised group and by means dangerous to the public), Article   159   §   4 (conspiracy to overthrow the Uzbek State’s constitutional order), Article   223   §   3   (b) (unlawful crossing of the State border), Article   242   §   1 (setting up a criminal group), and Article   244   (1)   §   3   (a) of the UCC (producing and disseminating documents containing ideas of religious extremism, separatism and fundamentalism, and threats to national security and public order). By the same decision the Prosecutor General’s Office refused the extradition request in so far as it concerned the charges under Article   246 of the UCC (forgery), stating that the alleged offence had been committed by a different person, Article   228   §   2   (a) and   (b) (smuggling material disseminating extremist, separatist and radical fundamentalist ideas), since the offence was not punishable under Russian law, and Article   244(2)   §   1 of the UCC (participating in extremist, separatist, fundamentalist and other banned organisations), since the charge was subsumed by another one in accordance with Russian law. 22.     On 26   April 2010 the applicant and his lawyer sought judicial review of the extradition order. They submitted, in particular, that it was unlawful since it had been issued before the applicant’s request for refugee status had been determined by the domestic authorities. They argued that the “Wahhabism” movement was not an organisation banned in Russia and the documents submitted by the Uzbek authorities lacked information on the applicant’s membership of a religious organisation after 2009. They pointed out that, according to the decision of 16   September 2009, the applicant was charged with several offences as the perpetrator. However, the facts outlined in the statement of charges concerned acts allegedly committed by several other persons, but not by the applicant. They stated that the applicant had been charged with an attempt to overthrow the State order of his home country and therefore his criminal prosecution was politically motivated. Finally, referring to the Court’s extensive case-law on the matter and various reports by international observers, the defence stressed that the use of torture and ill-treatment against detainees in Uzbekistan was systematic and went unpunished by the law-enforcement and security authorities, and that the applicant ran an individualised risk of ill-treatment in the event of extradition. 23.     On 8   July 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the extradition order as lawful and well-founded. The applicant was present, represented, and assisted by an interpreter. During the hearing the applicant maintained that he had a limited command of Russian, and that he had decided to leave Uzbekistan after his neighbour’s arrest out of fear of arrest and torture. He had not applied for refugee status in Russia immediately after his arrival there, since he had at first been unaware of the charges against him and then he had thought that such information would lead to his expulsion from Russia. He had only made such an application after receiving his lawyer’s advice. The lawyer maintained his grounds for appeal and pointed out that the case-file did not contain the first statement of charges but only the second, which was different from the initial one. 24.     The defence further requested the admission of Ms Ryabinina as the applicant’s defender ( «защитник» ) , since she could provide an expert opinion on the situation in Uzbekistan and law-enforcement practice in similar cases. The court rejected that request, finding that the applicant was represented by a professional lawyer, and that Ms Ryabinina was not a member of the applicant’s family, had only a technical education and did not practise “in the law-enforcement sphere on extradition matters”. 25.     The Regional Court observed that the applicant did not have refugee status in Russia; he had failed to either apply for it in a timely manner or to advance a plausible explanation for that omission. The court observed that on 19   April 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Federal Migration Service   (FMS) had refused to accept his request for an examination on the merits (see paragraph   33 below), noting that the decision “was, in substance, correct” and that it had not been appealed against within the time-limits set out in the domestic law. The court noted, without giving further details, that there was no evidence that the applicant had been, or would be, prosecuted in Uzbekistan on political or religious grounds. Turning specifically to the allegation of persecution on political grounds, the court rejected it as having no legal basis. The court noted that, in accordance with the reservation of the Russian Federation on ratification of the European Convention on Extradition, Russian law did not contain a definition of a “political offence” and the list of offences the Russian Federation would not consider as “political” or “connected with political offences” was not exhaustive. Finally, the court found no formal obstacles to the applicant’s extradition and noted that the Uzbek authorities had provided assurances in the applicant’s case. 26.     On 14   July 2010 the defence appealed against the Regional Court’s decision, arguing that the first-instance court had omitted to make a legal assessment of the evidence submitted in support of the argument concerning the risk of ill-treatment in custody. The defence pointed to various discrepancies between the two statements of charges constituting the basis for the arrest request and the formal extradition request, respectively, and concluded that the charges had been fabricated. They further argued, on the basis of the first statement of charges, that it did not contain information about offences committed by the applicant but referred to suspicions in respect of other persons. They maintained that the decision to extradite the applicant had been taken unlawfully in the absence of a final ruling in the refugee status proceedings, and also challenged the refusal to admit Ms   Ryabinina as the applicant’s defender. 27.     On 19   July 2010 the applicant’s lawyer lodged objections regarding the court hearing transcript, stating, in particular, that the following information had not been included therein: the applicant’s request for a letter from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to be admitted to the case file (see paragraph   35 below), submissions regarding the applicant’s limited command of Russian, and a request for a legal assessment of the charges against the applicant. At some point the Regional Court rejected these objections. 28.     At some point the applicant’ lawyer lodged a request with the office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation for clarifications as regards the significant discrepancies in the two statements of charges against the applicant. On 27   July and 16   August 2010 the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant that, inter alia , it had requested clarifications on the matter from the office of the of the Privolzhskiy Department of Transport prosecutor. In the meantime, on 3 August 2010 the Office of the Prosecutor General office of the Russian Federation received a letter dated 26   July 2010 from their Uzbek counterpart specifying that the applicant’s extradition was sought only in connection with the offences listed in the formal request for extradition (apparently, those listed in the second statement of charges) and asking for the first statement of charges forwarded by the Uzbek authorities on the date of the applicant’s arrest in Russia to be disregarded. 29.     On 22   September 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 8   July 2010 and upheld the extradition order and the Regional Court’s decision as lawful and well ‑ founded. In reaching that conclusion, the Supreme Court referred to the assurances by the Uzbek authorities and noted that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation had not pointed out any obstacles to the applicant’s extradition to Uzbekistan. The court found no evidence that the applicant had been, or would be, prosecuted on political or religious grounds and observed that the applicant neither had refugee status nor could be regarded as a person seeking such status in the Russian Federation. As regards the alleged discrepancies in the statements of charges provided by the Uzbek authorities to their Russian counterparts, the Supreme Court rejected that argument as irrelevant, since it was not the task of the domestic courts, or the prosecutor’s office, to decide on the applicant’s guilt in the extradition proceedings. The Supreme Court rejected the request for Ms   Ryabinina to be admitted as a defender and questioned as a specialist, upheld the Regional Court’s refusal to do so and endorsed its reasoning in that respect. The extradition order became final. D.     Refugee status proceedings 30.     On 10   December 2009 the applicant lodged a request for refugee status in Russia with the Nizhniy Novgorod FMS on the ground of fear of persecution because of his religious beliefs. He submitted that the accusations against him were unfounded and that he faced torture and other forms of ill-treatment if extradited to Uzbekistan. He had left Uzbeksitan after the arrest of a neighbour with whom he had regularly attended the mosque. He referred to reports by the UN agencies issued in 2006-2007 and reports by respected international NGOs demonstrating that torture was widespread in Uzbekistan and confessions were often extracted from defendants under duress. He also referred to the Court’s case-law, in particular the case of Ismoilov and Others v.   Russia (no.   2947/06, 24   April 2008), concerning extradition to Uzbekistan. He specified that he had not applied for refugee status immediately after his arrival in Russia because of his poor command of Russian and also because he had “not been aware of such a possibility”. 31.     By a letter of 25   December 2009 the Nizhniy Novgorod FMS advised the applicant that it could not examine his application since he did not meet the “refugee” criteria set out in the domestic law. On 15   January 2010 the applicant challenged that refusal before the Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation (“the Russian FMS”), submitting that the Nizhniy Novgorod FMS had failed to establish the facts of the case and, furthermore, that he had left Uzbekistan before the opening of the criminal case against him in his home country. 32.     On 8   April 2010 the Russian FMS notified the applicant that it had instructed the Nizhniy Novgorod FMS to examine his request. 33.     By a letter of 21   April 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod FMS informed the applicant that on 19   April 2010 it had refused to examine the complaint, since the applicant did not meet the “refugee” definition. 34.     On 14   May 2010 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Russian FMS, referring to the regional migration authority’s failure to assess the risk of ill-treatment. In addition to his earlier submissions he provided references to articles from the local press published in January ‑ May 2010 concerning the continuing practice of ill-treatment of detainees in Uzbekistan. The appeal was received by the Russian FMS on 15   June 2010. On 12   July 2010 the Russian FMS accepted the applicant’s complaint and remitted it to the regional migration authority for examination on the merits. 35.     In the meantime, on 6   July 2010 the Moscow Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) informed the defence that the applicant met the criteria established by its statute and was eligible for international protection under its mandate. 36.     On 12   August 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod FMS rejected the applicant’s request for refugee status by a letter received by the applicant on 16   August 2010, citing two grounds for the refusal: (1)   failure to meet the “refugee” definition; and (2)   the inapplicability of the Refugee Act to individuals who had “committed a serious criminal offence of a non ‑ political nature outside the Russian Federation before being admitted to the Russian Federation as a person requesting refugee status”. 37.     On 23   September 2010 the applicant appealed against that refusal, maintaining that the charges had been fabricated and pointing to the risk of ill ‑ treatment, with extensive references to reports by the UN Committee against Torture, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and information from the Russian Ministry of the Foreign Affairs. He also requested an extension of the one month time-limit for lodging his appeal, since he had allegedly not been able to understand the contents of the letter of 12   August 2010 because of his poor command in Russian, and his lawyer had explained the grounds for the refusal to him only on 21   September 2010. 38.     On 20   October 2010 the Russian FMS rejected the appeal. It noted that, according to information from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the human rights situation in Uzbekistan was “ambiguous”. The dissemination of ideas of religious extremism and separatism constituted a criminal offence in that country. After the defeat of the Andijan uprising the importing of Islamic literature had been proscribed. The Uzbekistan leadership had an expressed intention to fine and put in jail individuals who worshipped outside the areas designated for that purpose. The Uzbek authorities considered that members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and Akromiya, a branch of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, had actively participated in the Andijan events of 2005, and criminal proceedings against 121   persons, including ten members of Akromiya, were underway. Turning to the applicant’s case, the FMS noted that the applicant had failed to apply for asylum in due time after his arrival in Russia and had referred to his poor command in Russian to justify that failure. However, the migration authority noted that, first, the applicant had performed military service in Sakhalin, Russia, in 1990-1992, which would have been impossible without an adequate knowledge of Russian, and second, he had received a temporary resident permit for Russia in July 2009. Thus, the Russian FMS concluded that the applicant had provided false information about his language proficiency and that fact “undermined confidence in the applicant and in the remainder of his submissions”. The FMS concluded as follows: “Having analysed the applicant’s submissions and the information provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation on the situation in Uzbekistan and the activities of banned religious organisations, [the Russian FMS] finds no grounds to consider that the applicant would be persecuted on racial, religious, nationality, social or political grounds in the event of his return [to the requesting country].” 39.     On 7   December 2010 the applicant challenged that decision in court. In written submissions and an oral statement made during the court hearing the defence reiterated the applicant’s fear that, in the event of extradition to Uzbekistan, he would be subjected to torture with a view to extracting a confession from him in respect of offences he had not committed. He further stated that the FMS had failed to duly assess that risk. As to his limited command of Russian, he stated that he had performed his military service 18-20 years prior to his arrest, that fluent Russian had not been necessary for obtaining the temporary residence permit and, furthermore, that his difficulty in understanding Russian had been confirmed in several hearings concerning his extradition and the extensions of his pre ‑ trial detention, where the courts had heard him in person and had agreed that he needed an interpreter’s assistance. 40.     On 5   March 2011 the Basmnnyy District Court of Moscow rejected that appeal. The court reiterated that the applicant had not complained of a risk of persecution in Uzbekistan and had not raised his wish to remain in Russia as a refugee until his arrest. His allegations of persecution for attending a mosque were ill-founded, given that the majority of the population of the destination country freely practised Islam. In addition, the court noted that the destination country had signed various international human rights treaties concerning, in particular, the protection of refugees. The court further endorsed the Russian FMS’s decision as lawful, noting the applicant’s failure to adduce “convincing arguments to support his allegations of fear of unlawful persecution on religious grounds”. 41.     The applicant appealed, maintaining the claims summarised in paragraph   39 above and submitting in addition that the first-instance court had failed to assess the risk on the basis of all available information, as well as to address his counter-arguments to the FMS’s conclusion regarding his command of the Russian language. 42.     On 24   June 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 5   March 2011. The appeal court found that the migration authority had taken its decision in compliance with the existing procedure and that the first ‑ instance court had duly assessed the circumstances of the case. The City Court endorsed the conclusion that no evidence of the applicant’s persecution on religious grounds had been adduced, and noted that the defence had not referred to any new facts capable of altering that conclusion. The court also referred to several international human rights treaties signed by Uzbekistan and noted that on 22   October 2009 the European Union had lifted various sanctions, including an arms embargo, against that country on account of progress achieved in the human rights sphere and the abolition of the death penalty there. E.     The applicant’s arrest, detention and house arrest pending extradition 1.     The applicant’s detention pending extradition (a)     Arrest and detention up to 8   July 2010 43.     Following the applicant’s arrest on 14   November 2009 (see paragraph   17 above), on 15   November 2009 the Nizhniy Novgorod transport prosecutor ordered his placement in custody pending extradition. On 18   December 2009 the Nizhniy Novgorod Kanavinskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the detention order. On 12   March 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld decision on appeal. 44.     On 17   December 2009, upon receipt of the formal request for the applicant’s extradition (see paragraph   19 above), the Nizhniy Novgorod deputy transport prosecutor, by a separate decision, again ordered the applicant’s detention pending extradition. It is unclear whether the decision was appealed against. 45.     It appears that at some point the Nizhniy Novgorod transport prosecutor’s office asked the court to extend the applicant’s detention. 46.     On 30   December 2009 the Kanavinskiy District Court examined that request, found that the latest extension of the applicant’s detention had been granted on 15   November 2009 [sic], and the applicant could be held in custody on the basis of a prosecutor’s order for a period not exceeding two months. The court noted the receipt of the formal extradition request from the Uzbek authorities (see paragraph   19 above), observed that the extradition proceedings had not been completed, and decided that the applicant should remain in custody until 14   March 2010. 47.     The applicant’s lawyer appealed, arguing, inter alia , that the applicant had been held in custody unlawfully since 14 November 2009. 48.     On 5   March 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court dismissed the appeal and endorsed the extension of 30   December 2009. 49.     On 4   March 2010 the Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy Novgorod extended the applicant’s detention pending extradition until 14   May 2010. On 26   May 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal of 9   March 2010 and upheld the extension order. 50.     On 7   May 2010 the Kanavinskiy District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2010. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 15   June 2010. (b)     The extension order of 8   July 2010 of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court and the appeal proceedings 51.     On 8   July 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, when examining the applicant’s appeal against the extradition order (see paragraphs   23-25 above), authorised the extension of the applicant’s detention until 14 November 2010. The court found no reason to apply a preventive measure other than detention, since it was necessary to ensure the applicant’s extradition. 52.     On 3   September 2010, by an additional statement of appeal against the judgment of 8   July 2010, the defence challenged the Regional Court’s findings in so far as they concerned the extension of the detention. He complained, in particular, about the overlap of the extension with the ruling of the Kanavinskiy District Court of 8   July 2010 (see paragraph   54 below). 53.     On 22   September 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia, deciding on the applicant’s appeal against the extradition order (see paragraph   29 above), upheld the entirety of the lower court’s findings without addressing the detention issue separately. (c)     The extension order of 8 July 2010 of the Kanavinskiy District Court and the appeal proceedings 54.     On 8   July 2010 the Kanavinskiy District Court, by a separate decision, extended the applicant’s detention until 14   September 2010. 55.     On 10   August 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the extension on appeal. The Regional Court found there was no contradiction between the two decisions of 8   July 2010 issued by the District Court and the Regional Court since the first one concerned the applicant’s detention pending extradition, whilst the second one dealt with the lawfulness of the extradition order. (d)     The extension order of 2   November 2010 and the appeal against it 56.     On 19   October 2010 the transport prosecutor’s office lodged an application for a further extension of the applicant’s detention with the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court. 57.     On 2   November 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court examined the matter and granted an extension until 14   May 2011. According to the hearing transcript, the applicant requested the court to change the preventive measure in respect of him to one of house arrest, and gave the address of a relative in Nizhniy Novgorod where he could reside pursuant to the application of such a measure. He stated that before his arrest he had lived in Nizhniy Novgorod and not in Dzershinsk, the place of his formal residence registration. He did not remember the exact address in Nizhniy Novgorod he had resided at. The applicant’s lawyer stated at the hearing that the applicant had introduced an application with the Court and that an interim measure had been applied to his case under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court. The lawyer pointed to the similarly between the applicant’s case and several others previously examined by the Court (for instance, the case of Ismoilov and Others, cited above) and stated that the applicant had a good chance of winning his case in Strasbourg. The lawyer submitted that “there exist[ed] legal grounds for decreasing the amount of compensation, and even reducing it to zero” if the preventive measure in respect of the applicant was changed to a milder one. The lawyer provided a full address in Nizhniy Novgorod where the applicant could be placed under house arrest and specified that the applicant himself had by mistake cited the wrong street name. 58.     When granting the extension, the Regional Court observed that the circumstances requiring the applicant’s detention remained unchanged. The court noted that the extradition order in respect of the applicant had indeed become final but the extradition had been suspended pursuant to the application of Rule   39 by the Court, and therefore the extradition order could not be enforced. However, there existed a risk of the applicant’s absconding if he was released. The court noted that the applicant was wanted for particularly serious offences, had been hiding from the Uzbek authorities, and measures were being taken to ensure his extradition which involved the application of international treaties; therefore his case should be considered exceptional. His detention was in accordance with the domestic law. Various case documents demonstrated the reasonableness of the suspicion against him as regarded the well-foundedness of the accusations brought by the Uzbek authorities, but the Regional Court was not competent to decide on that matter. It concluded that the extension of the applicant’s detention was in compliance with Article   5   §   1   (f) of the Convention. The court further rejected the possibility of changing the preventive measure to house arrest, since the applicant had been unable to indicate a specific address where he could reside if such a measure was applied, or to provide any further details in support of his petition. 59 .     On 8   November 2010 the applicant appealed against the decision. In particular, he challenged the Regional Court’s reference to the gravity of the charges against him and the exceptional nature of the case as immaterial. With reference to the Chahal case (see Chahal v.   the United Kingdom , 15   November 1996, §   112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ V), he stated that no action had been taken with a view to his extradition since 2   September 2010, when the extradition order had become final, and the Regional Court had failed to indicate any specific measures to be taken to enforce the extradition order after that date. He drew the court’s attention to contradictory documents submitted by the Uzbek authorities and submitted that the charges were fabricated and unfounded. 60.     On 14   January 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court endorsed the first ‑ instance court’s reasoning as lawful and well-founded. In particular, it upheld the Regional Court’s findings as to the gravity of the charges against the applicant, the possibility of his absconding or obstructing justice, and the exceptional nature of his case. The Supreme Court observed that the lower court had reached its conclusions on the basis of all available material, including the information on the application pending before the European Court. The court further upheld as reasonable the refusal to place the applicant under house arrest, since the address of his registration was no longer his place of residence, he had failed to give his latest place of residence in Nizhniy Novgorod, and he had been unable to provide either an address where he could he held under house arrest or any other details. 2.     The applicant’s house arrest 61.     On 13   May 2011 the Kanavinskiy District Court changed the preventive measure in respect of the applicant to house arrest, on account of the expiry of the maximum term for his detention pending extradition and in order to ensure the applicant’s extradition, which was suspended at the time pursuant to the application of the