CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 juillet 2014

.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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 }       FIRST SECTION               CASE OF KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   17 July 2014     FINAL   15/12/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Julia Laffranque,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in two applications (nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13) 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 two Kyrgyzstan nationals, Mr Makhamadillo Makhammatkarimovich Kadirzhanov and Mr Bakhtier Tolanbayevich Mamashev (“the applicants”), on 2 July and 24 July 2013 respectively. 2.     The applicants were represented by Ms Y. Ryabinina, Ms   I.   Biryukova and Ms E. Davidyan, 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 applicants alleged that their respective extradition to the Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan) would subject them to the risk of ill-treatment, that they had not had effective remedies available to them in this regard, and that there had been no speedy and effective judicial review of their respective detention. 4 .     On 2 July and 26 July 2013 the President of the First Section decided to apply Rule   39 of the Rules of Court in the applicants’ respective cases, indicating to the Government that they should not be extradited to Kyrgyzstan until further notice, to also apply Rule   41 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the applications. 5.     On 10 September 2013 the applications were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants are of Uzbek ethnic origin. They lived in the Jalal ‑ Abad region of Kyrgyzstan. After mass disorders and inter-ethnic clashes in the region in June 2010, they left Kyrgyzstan for Russia to flee, together with many other ethnic Uzbeks, ethnically motivated violence. A.     Application no. 42351/13, Mr Kadirzhanov 7.     Mr Kadirzhanov was born in 1970. He currently lives in Orel, Russia. 8.     In July 2010 the applicant arrived in the town. Before June 2012 he had not lodged any applications for refugee status or temporary asylum. 9.     On 3 October 2011 the Kyrgyz authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in the course of the inter-ethnic violence of June 2010, when a group of individuals had barricaded a road near the village of Suzak, which had led to a number of deaths. 10.     On 11 November 2011 the Suzak District Court ordered the applicant’s detention for two months. The Kyrgyz authorities also added the applicant’s name to an international wanted list. 11.     On 14 May 2012 the applicant was arrested in Orel and placed in remand prison no. 1. It appears that he first learnt about the criminal prosecution and charges against him in Kyrgyzstan on that day. He denied his involvement in the June 2010 violence. On an unspecified date, the applicant was provided with the services of a State-appointed lawyer for the purposes of the extradition proceedings. 12 .     On 15 May 2012 the Severnyy district prosecutor of Orel ordered the applicant’s custodial detention on the basis of the decision of 11   November 2011, referring to Article 61 of the 1993 CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (“the Minsk Convention”). 13.     The Kyrgyz authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant’s extradition. 14 .     On 12 June 2012 the Kyrgyzstan Prosecutor General’s Office lodged a formal extradition request with its Russian counterpart. It submitted the following diplomatic assurances: that the applicant would be provided with every opportunity, as prescribed by international and Kyrgyz criminal law, to defend himself, including by way of legal assistance; that he would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and that he would not be prosecuted on political, racial, ethnic or religious grounds. 15 .     On 15 June 2012 the Severnyy district prosecutor again ordered the applicant’s custodial detention, referring to Article 466 § 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”). 16.     On the same date the applicant applied to the regional migration authority for refugee status. 17.     On 10 July 2012 the Severnyy District Court of Orel examined the Severnyy district prosecutor’s request to extend the applicant’s detention for four months. Noting that the prosecutor had not substantiated the need for such a long period by reference to specific measures to be taken during the “extradition check” procedure ( экстрадиционная проверка ) and noting the need to take account of the upcoming decision on the application for refugee status (which could bar further extradition proceedings), the judge extended the applicant’s detention for one month only, until 14 August 2012. On 25   July 2012 the Orel Regional Court upheld the extension order. 18.     On 25 July 2012 the applicant’s lawyer made submissions to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office in relation to, inter alia , the risk of ill ‑ treatment in the event of the applicant’s extradition to Kyrgyzstan. 19.     On 9 August 2012 the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office, indicating that it had no specific information disclosing any impediment to the applicant’s extradition. At the same time it indicated that because the applicant was of Uzbek ethnic origin “there could be a risk of premeditated biased attitude in the Kyrgyz authorities’ examination of his case”. 20.     On 9 August 2012 the Severnyy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 November 2012. The decision was upheld on appeal on 31 August 2012. 21 .     On 31 October 2012 the regional migration authority dismissed the applicant’s refugee status application. The authority relied on a note dated 13 July 2012 by the Federal migration authority on the general political and human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan in 2010-11. The applicant’s allegation that he had received threats from ethnic Kyrgyz while in Kyrgyzstan was dismissed, because the reason behind the threats had been his wealth, not ethnic origin. The applicant appealed to the Federal migration authority. On 25   December 2012 his appeal was dismissed. The risk of ill-treatment remained unassessed. 22.     In the meantime, on 13 November 2012 the Severnyy District Court extended the term of the applicant’s detention until 14 February   2013, despite the lawyer’s request to release the applicant on bail. The Orel Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal on 28 November   2012 arguing, inter alia , that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure in accordance with Article 110 of the CCrP. 23 .     On 11 February 2013 the Severnyy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 May 2013. The applicant lodged an appeal with the court on the same day. On an unspecified date the case was transferred to the Orel Regional Court for examination. 24.     On 26 February 2013 the Orel Regional Court held an appeal hearing and, finding that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure in accordance with Article 110 of the CCrP, upheld the extension order of 11 February 2013. 25.     In the meantime, on 20 February 2013 the Kyrgyzstan Prosecutor General’s Office amended its extradition request, with reference to the amended decision listing the charges against the applicant. 26 .     On 18 March 2013 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office granted the extradition request. The extradition order contained no assessment of the factual and legal matters relating to the alleged risk of ill-treatment in the requesting country, and did not mention any of the diplomatic assurances given by the Kyrgyz authorities. 27.     On 2 April 2013 the applicant appealed against the extradition order claiming, inter alia , that the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office had failed to assess the alleged risk of ill-treatment. 28 .     On 22 April 2013 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow upheld the migration authorities’ decisions of 31 October and 25   December   2012. The risk of ill-treatment was not assessed. On 12 July 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment. 29 .     In the meantime, on 23 April 2013 the Orel Regional Court held a judicial review hearing against the extradition order and upheld it. It summarily dismissed the allegations regarding the risk of ill-treatment, referring to the assurances given by the Kyrgyz authorities and to the fact that the applicant had been charged with “ordinary crimes” and thus was not being persecuted on political or ethnic grounds. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Russia. 30 .     In May 2013 the Orel regional prosecutor sought the extension of the applicant’s detention. The matter was submitted to the Orel Regional Court. 31 .     On 13 May 2013 the Orel Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for six months, to reach the maximum statutory period of eighteen months on 14 November 2013. It found that there were no grounds to vary the preventive measure in accordance with Article 110 of the CCrP. The applicant appealed. 32.     On 24 May 2013 the Appeal Section of the Orel Regional Court held a hearing and upheld the detention order. 33 .     On 4 July 2013 the Supreme Court of Russia confirmed the judgment of 23 April 2013, thus upholding the extradition order. It summarily dismissed the applicant’s arguments relating to the risk of ill ‑ treatment. The court also stated that the Kyrgyz authorities had provided guarantees relating to legal assistance and the absence of ill-treatment. 34.     On 20 September 2013 the applicant’s lawyer, N., filed a request with the regional prosecutor’s office for the applicant’s release. 35 .     On 25 September 2013 the Orel regional deputy prosecutor ordered the applicant’s release from custody under, inter alia , Articles 103 and 110 of the CCrP. He reasoned that the examination of the case pending before the Court, which had indicated interim measures pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in respect of the applicant, would last longer than the maximum period of detention permissible. The deputy prosecutor varied the preventive measure to release from custody, after a personal guarantee was given by N. The ruling was not challenged and the applicant was released from custody. B.     Application no. 47823/13, Mr Mamashev 36.     Mr Mamashev was born in 1984. He currently lives in Manyukhino, a village in the Moscow region of Russia. 37.     The applicant arrived in Moscow in early August 2010. In 2010 and 2011 he did not lodge any applications for refugee status or temporary asylum in Russia. 38.     On 24 August 2010 the Kyrgyz authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in June 2010, when a group of individuals had barricaded a road near the village of Suzak, which had led to a number of deaths. The Kyrgyz authorities also added the applicant’s name to an international wanted list. 39.     On 25 August 2010 the Suzak District Court in Kyrgyzstan ordered the applicant’s arrest and authorised his custodial detention for two months. 40.     On 6 February 2012 he was arrested in Moscow and placed in a remand prison. It appears that he first learnt about the criminal prosecution and charges against him in Kyrgyzstan on that day. 41.     On 7 February 2012 the Babushkinskiy inter-district prosecutor’s office applied the preventive measure of custodial detention to the applicant, which was authorised by the Suzak District Court on 25 August 2010. 42.     On an unspecified date the applicant was provided with the services of a State-appointed lawyer for the purposes of the extradition proceedings. 43 .     On 16 March 2012 the Kyrgyzstan Prosecutor General’s Office submitted an extradition request to its Russian counterpart. The request contained the following diplomatic assurances: that the applicant would be provided with every opportunity, as prescribed by international and Kyrgyz criminal law, to defend himself, including by way of legal assistance; that he would not be extradited to a third country and would only stand trial in relation to the charges that gave rise to the extradition request; that he would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and that he would not be prosecuted on political, racial, ethnic or religious grounds. 44.     On the same date the Babushkinskiy inter-district prosecutor’s office again applied the Suzak District Court’s chosen preventive measure to the applicant, thus extending his custodial detention. 45.     On 30 March 2012 the Babushkinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 June 2012. 46 .     On 12 April 2012 the applicant applied to the Moscow migration authority for refugee status, arguing persecution on the grounds of ethnic origin. On 17 July 2012 the authority dismissed the applicant’s application at the admissibility stage. The Federal migration authority quashed this decision. His application was examined in October 2012. 47.   In the meantime, on 18 April 2012 the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office, indicating that it had no specific information disclosing any impediment to the applicant’s extradition. At the same time, it indicated that because the applicant was of Uzbek origin “there could be a risk of premeditated biased attitude in the Kyrgyz authorities’ examination of his case”. 48.     On 23 April 2012 the applicant’s lawyer made submissions to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office on the issue regarding the risk of ill ‑ treatment in the event of the applicant’s extradition to Kyrgyzstan. On 21   May 2012 it acknowledged receipt of the above-mentioned submissions and stated that they would be taken into consideration. 49.     On 28 May 2012 the Babushkinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 August 2012. The Moscow City Court dismissed an appeal against the decision on 9 July 2012. 50.     On 8 June 2012 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed complaints lodged by the applicant under Article 125 of the CCrP against the prosecutor’s decisions of 7 February and 16 March 2012. The Moscow City Court upheld the decision on 1 August 2012. 51.     On 2 August 2012 the Babushkinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 October 2012. The Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal on 10 September 2012. 52 .     On 1 October 2012 the Babushkinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 December 2012. The applicant’s lawyer filed a statement of appeal dated 3 October 2012, which was registered by the Babushkinskiy District Court on 10 October 2012. On an unspecified date it was forwarded to the Moscow City Court. 53 .     On 11 October 2012 the Moscow migration authority examined the applicant’s refugee status application on the merits, but dismissed it for lack of evidence regarding the applicant’s allegations of possible persecution on the grounds of ethnic origin. The risk of ill-treatment was not assessed. The applicant challenged the refusal of 11 October 2012 before the Federal migration authority. His appeal was summarily dismissed on 26   December 2012. On an unspecified date he sought a judicial review of the refusals issued by the migration authorities. 54 .     On 4 December 2012 the Babushkinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 February 2013. On 6 December 2012 the applicant’s lawyer filed a statement of appeal, which was registered by the Babushkinskiy District Court on 13 December 2012. On an unspecified date it was forwarded to the Moscow City Court. 55 .     On 24 January 2013 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office requested further guarantees from its Kyrgyz counterpart, in relation to the possibility of visits to the applicant by Russian diplomatic staff during his detention in Kyrgyzstan. On 6 February 2013 the Kyrgyzstan Prosecutor General’s Office submitted the required guarantees. 56 .     On 28 January 2013 the Moscow City Court heard appeals against the decisions of 1 October and 4 December 2012, but dismissed them. 57 .     On 1 February 2013 the Moscow City Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 August 2013. It received the applicant’s appeal against this decision on 12 February 2013. The date on which it was filed remains unknown. 58 .     On 27 February 2013 the Russian Deputy Prosecutor General granted the extradition request. The extradition order did not contain any reasoning in relation to the alleged risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan. On 12 March 2013 the applicant was notified of the decision and appealed against it. 59 .     On 14 March 2013 the Appeal Section of the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of 1 February 2013. 60 .     By a judgment of 10 April 2013 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow upheld the refugee application refusals issued by the migration authorities. The alleged risk of ill-treatment was not mentioned. 61 .     On 15 April 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the extradition order on judicial review. It summarily dismissed the allegations regarding the risk of ill-treatment, stating that the applicant had been charged with “ordinary crimes” and thus was not being persecuted on political or ethnic grounds, and relied on the diplomatic assurances given by the Kyrgyz authorities. 62.     On 19 June 2013 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment of 15 April 2013 on appeal, thus upholding the extradition order. 63 .     On 8   July 2013 the Moscow City Court confirmed the judgment of 10   April 2013 concerning the refusals issued by the migration authorities. It stated that the first-instance court had analysed the applicant’s situation sufficiently. 64.     On 31 July 2013 the Babushkinskiy district prosecutor of Moscow ordered the applicant’s release because interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court had been indicated in respect of the applicant. The applicant was released on 1 August 2013 after a personal guarantee given by his lawyer. II.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Applications for varying preventive measures 65 .     Article 110 of the CCrP provides that a preventive measure (such as detention) may be (i) cancelled, if no longer necessary, or (ii) replaced by a less or more intrusive measure, if the grounds for such a measure as indicated in Articles 97 and 99 are no longer the same. 66 .     Article 97 of the CCrP lists the grounds for imposing a preventive measure in a domestic criminal case, namely where there is sufficient reason to consider that the person suspected or accused of committing a criminal offence will (i) abscond from the investigation or evade justice, (ii) continue his or her criminal activity, or (iii) threaten a witness or another person involved in the criminal proceedings, destroy or tamper with evidence, or otherwise interfere with the proceedings. Article 97 also provides that a preventive measure may be imposed in relation to an extradition case. 67 .     Article 99 of the CCrP provides a non-exhaustive list of factors which should be taken into account when imposing a preventive measure, for instance the seriousness of the offence, information about the suspect’s personality, as well as his or her age, state of health and employment status. 68.     Article 119 of the CCrP lists the parties entitled to make an application in the course of criminal proceedings, such as suspects, defendants, lawyers, victims, prosecutors, experts, civil plaintiffs and other individuals whose interests have been affected at the pre-trial or trial stages. Such applications can be made to an inquirer, an investigator or a judge. 69.     Article 120 of the CCrP provides that applications can be made at any stage of the criminal proceedings. B.     Other relevant legal issues 70.     For a summary of other relevant international and domestic law and practice, see the case of Abdulkhakov v. Russia (no. 14743/11, §§   71-98, 2   October 2012). III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS CONCERNING KYRGYZSTAN 71.     For a number of relevant reports and items of information, see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia (no. 49747/11, §§ 30-46, 16   October 2012). 72 .     The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considered the fifth to seventh periodic reports of Kyrgyzstan and in February 2013 adopted the following concluding observations (CERD/C/KGZ/CO/5-7): “6.     The Committee notes with concern that, according to the State party’s report (CERD/C/KGZ/5-7, para. 12) and other reports, Uzbeks were the main victims of the June 2010 events but were also the most prosecuted and condemned. While noting that the State party itself has recognized this situation and is considering ways to correct it, the Committee remains deeply concerned about reports of biased attitudes based on ethnicity in investigations, prosecutions, condemnations and sanctions imposed on those charged and convicted in relation to the June 2010 events, who were mostly of Uzbek origin. The Committee is also concerned about information provided in the State party’s report relating to evidence of coercion to confess to crimes that the persons did not commit, pressure on relatives by representatives of law enforcement agencies, denial of procedural rights (...), violations of court procedures, threats and insults to the accused and their counsel, attempts to attack the accused and his relatives which according to the State party resulted in a violation of the right to a fair trial ... [T]he Committee recommends that the State party in the context of the reform of its judicial system: (a)     Initiate or set up a mechanism to review all cases of persons condemned in connection with the June 2010 events, from the point of view of respecting all necessary guarantees for a fair trial; (b)     Investigate, prosecute and condemn, as appropriate, all persons responsible for human rights violations during the June 2010 events, irrespective of their ethnic origin and their status; ... 7.     While noting information provided by the State party, the Committee remains concerned at reports that a great number of persons, mostly from minority groups, in particular Uzbeks, have been detained and have been subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment on the basis of their ethnicity following the June 2010 events. The Committee is also concerned at information that women from minority groups were victims of acts of violence, including rape, during, and in the aftermath of the June 2010 events. The Committee is particularly concerned that all such acts have not yet been investigated and those responsible have not been prosecuted and punished (arts. 5 and 6). In line with its general recommendation No. 31 (2005), the Committee recommends that the State party, without any distinction based on the ethnic origin of the victims, take appropriate measures to: (a)     Register and document all cases of torture, ill-treatment and violence against women from minority groups, including rape; (b)     Conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations; (c)     Prosecute and punish those responsible, including police or security forces; ...” 73 .     The UN Committee against Torture considered Kyrgyzstan’s second periodic report and in December 2013 issued concluding observations (CAT/C/KGZ/CO/2), which read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Impunity for, and failure to investigate, widespread acts of torture and ill ‑ treatment 5.     The Committee is deeply concerned about the ongoing and widespread practice of torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, in particular while in police custody to extract confessions. These confirm the findings of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/HRC/19/61/Add.2, paras.   37 et seq.), and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/20/12, paras.   40–41). While the Kyrgyz delegation acknowledged that torture is practised in the country, and affirmed its commitment to combat it, the Committee remains seriously concerned about the substantial gap between the legislative framework and its practical implementation, as evidenced partly by the lack of cases during the reporting period in which State officials have been prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for torture (arts.   2, 4, 12 and 16). 6.     The Committee is gravely concerned at the State party’s persistent pattern of failure to conduct prompt, impartial and full investigations into the many allegations of torture and ill-treatment and to prosecute alleged perpetrators, which has led to serious underreporting by victims of torture and ill-treatment, and impunity for State officials allegedly responsible (arts.   2, 11, 12, 13 and 16). In particular, the Committee is concerned about: (a)     The lack of an independent and effective mechanism for receiving complaints and conducting impartial and full investigations into allegations of torture. Serious conflicts of interest appear to prevent existing mechanisms from undertaking effective, impartial investigations into complaints received; (b)     Barriers at the pre-investigation stage, particularly with regard to forensic medical examinations, which in many cases are not carried out promptly following allegations of abuse, are performed by medical professionals who lack independence, and/or are conducted in the presence of other public officials, leading to the failure of the medical personnel to adequately record detainees’ injuries, and consequently to investigators’ failure to open formal investigations into allegations of torture, for lack of evidence; (c)     The apparent practice by investigators of valuing the testimonies of individuals implicated in torture over those of complainants, and of dismissing complaints summarily; and (d)     The failure of the judiciary to effectively investigate torture allegations raised by criminal defendants and their lawyers in court. Various sources report that judges commonly ignore information alleging the use of torture, including reports from independent medical examinations. ... 7.     The Committee remains seriously concerned by the State party’s response to the allegations of torture in individual cases brought to the attention of the Committee, and particularly by the State party’s authorities’ refusal to carry out full investigations into many allegations of torture on the grounds that preliminary enquiries revealed no basis for opening a full investigation. The Committee is gravely concerned by the case of Azimjan Askarov, an ethnic Uzbek human rights defender prosecuted on criminal charges in connection with the death of a police officer in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010, which has been raised by several Special Rapporteurs, including the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (A/HRC/22/47/Add.4, para.   248; A/HRC/19/55/Add.2, para.   212). Mr.   Askarov has alleged that he was beaten severely by police on numerous occasions immediately following his detention and throughout the course of the criminal proceedings against him, and that he was subjected to repeated violations of procedural safeguards such as prompt access to a lawyer and to an effective, independent medical examination. The Committee notes that independent forensic medical examinations appear to have substantiated Mr.   Askarov’s allegations of torture in police custody, and have confirmed resulting injuries including persistent visual loss, traumatic brain injury, and spinal injury. Information before the Committee suggests that Mr.   Askarov’s complaints of torture have been raised on numerous occasions with the Prosecutor’s office, as well as with the Kyrgyz Ombudsman’s office, and with Bazar-Korgon District Court, the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court. To date, however, the State party’s authorities have declined to open a full investigation into his claims, relying on allegedly coerced statements made by Mr.   Askarov while in police custody that he had no complaints. The Committee understands that the State party is presently considering the possibility of further investigating these claims. The Committee is concerned by the State party’s refusal to undertake full investigations into allegations of torture regarding other cases raised during the review, including those of Nargiza Turdieva and Dilmurat Khaidarov (arts.   2, 12, 13 and 16). ... 8.     The Committee remains concerned at the lack of full and effective investigations into the numerous allegations that members of the law enforcement bodies committed torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and excessive use of force during and following the inter-ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010. The Committee is concerned by reports that investigations, prosecutions, condemnations and sanctions imposed in relation to the June 2010 events were mostly directed against persons of Uzbek origin, as noted by sources including the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in 2013 (CERD/C/KGZ/CO/5-7, paras.   6–7). The Committee further regrets the lack of information provided by the State party on the outcome of the review of 995   criminal cases relating to the June 2010 violence (arts.   4, 12, 13 and 16). ... Coerced confessions 13.     The Committee is seriously concerned at numerous, consistent and credible reports that the use of forced confessions as evidence in courts is widespread. While noting that the use of evidence obtained through unlawful means is prohibited by law, it is deeply concerned that in practice there is a heavy reliance on confessions within the criminal justice system. The Committee is further concerned at reports that judges have frequently declined to act on allegations made by criminal defendants in court, or to allow the introduction into evidence of independent medical reports that would tend to confirm the defendant’s claims of torture for the purpose of obtaining a confession. The Committee regrets the lack of information provided by the State party on cases in which judges or prosecutors have initiated investigations into torture claims raised by criminal defendants in court, and is alarmed that no official has been prosecuted and punished for torture even in the single case brought to its attention in which a conviction obtained by torture was excluded from evidence by a court – that of Farrukh Gapiurov, who was acquitted by the Osh Municipal Court of involvement in the June 2010 violence (arts.   2 and 15).” 74 .     The Kyrgyzstan chapter of Amnesty International’s “2013 Annual Report”, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “Torture and other ill-treatment remained pervasive throughout the country and law enforcement and judicial authorities failed to act on such allegations. The authorities continued to fail to impartially and effectively investigate the June 2010 violence and its aftermath and provide justice for the thousands of victims of serious crimes and human rights violations, including crimes against humanity. Ethnic Uzbeks continued to be targeted disproportionately for detention and prosecution in relation to the June 2010 violence. ... The Osh City Prosecutor stated in April that out of 105 cases which had gone to trial in relation to the June 2010 violence, only two resulted in acquittals. Only one of those cases involved an ethnic Uzbek, Farrukh Gapirov, the son of human rights defender Ravshan Gapirov. He was released after the appeal court found his conviction had been based on his confession which had been obtained under torture. However, no criminal investigation against the police officers responsible for his torture was initiated. By contrast, the first – and, to date, the only – known conviction of ethnic Kyrgyz for the murder of ethnic Uzbeks in the course of the June 2010 violence was overturned.” 75 .     Human Rights Watch’s “World Report 2013: Kyrgyzstan” contains the following findings concerning the situation in Kyrgyzstan in 2012: “Kyrgyzstan has failed to adequately address abuses in the south, in particular against ethnic Uzbeks, undermining long-term efforts to promote stability and reconciliation following inter-ethnic clashes in June 2010 that killed more than 400   people. Despite an uneasy calm in southern Kyrgyzstan, ethnic Uzbeks are still subjected to arbitrary detention, torture, and extortion, without redress. ... Local human rights non-governmental organizations reported that the overall number of reported incidents of arbitrary detention and ill-treatment in police custody continued to decrease in 2012 in the south, although they still document new cases. Groups also reported the growing problem of law enforcement extorting money, in particular from ethnic Uzbeks, threatening criminal prosecution related to the June 2010 events. Victims of extortion rarely report incidents for fear of reprisals. Investigations into the June 2010 violence have stalled. Trials of mostly ethnic Uzbeks connected to the violence continued to take place in violation of international fair trial standards, including the trials of Mahamad Bizurukov and Shamshidin Niyazaliev, each of whom was sentenced to life in prison in October 2012. Lawyers in southern Kyrgyzstan continued to be harassed in 2012 for defending ethnic Uzbek clients who were charged with involvement in the June 2010 violence, perpetuating a hostile and violent environment that undermined defendants’ fair trial rights. On January 20, a group of persons in Jalalabad verbally and physically attacked a lawyer defending the ethnic Uzbek owner of an Uzbek-language television station. No one has been held accountable for such violence against lawyers. ... In hearings related to the June 2010 violence, judges continue to dismiss, ignore, or fail to order investigations into torture allegations. In a rare exception, four police officers were charged with torture after the August 2011 death of Usmonzhon Kholmirzaev, an ethnic Uzbek, who succumbed to internal injuries after he was beaten by police in custody. Repeated delays in proceedings have meant that over a year later, the trial has yet to conclude. In June, after Abdugafur Abdurakhmanov, an ethnic Uzbek serving a life sentence in relation to the June 2010 violence, died in prison, authorities did not open an investigation, alleging he committed suicide.” 76 .     In its report “Kyrgyzstan: 3 Years After Violence, a Mockery of Justice” issued in June 2013 Human Rights Watch observed, among other things, the following: “Criminal investigations into the June 2010 violence have been marred by widespread arbitrary arrests and ill-treatment, including torture. Unchecked courtroom violence and other egregious violations of defendants’ rights have blocked the accused from presenting a meaningful defense. Human Rights Watch has documented how investigations disproportionately and unjustly targeted ethnic Uzbeks, and how this group has a heightened risk of torture in custody. ... The ethnic clashes erupted in southern Kyrgyzstan on June 10, 2010. The violence, which lasted four days, left more than 400 people dead and nearly 2,000 houses destroyed. Horrific crimes were committed against both ethnic Kyrgyz and ethnic Uzbeks. However, while ethnic Uzbeks suffered the majority of casualties and destroyed homes, the majority of those prosecuted for homicide have been ethnic Uzbeks. ... Human Rights Watch’s research from 2010-2013 in southern Kyrgyzstan found that prosecutorial authorities have repeatedly refused to investigate serious and credible allegations of torture. Courts have relied heavily on confessions allegedly extracted under torture to sentence defendants to long prison terms.” 77 .     The Kyrgyzstan chapter of Human Rights Watch’s “2014 World Report” reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Shortcomings in law enforcement and the judiciary contribute to the persistence of grave abuses in connection to the ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010. Ethnic Uzbeks and other minorities remain especially vulnerable. Courtroom attacks on lawyers and defendants, particularly in cases related to the June   2010 events, occur with impunity. Government officials and civil society representatives formed a national center for the prevention of torture in 2013. In practice, ill-treatment and torture remain pervasive in places of detention, and impunity for torture is the norm. ... Three years on, justice for crimes committed during the ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010 remains elusive. The flawed justice process has produced long prison sentences for mostly ethnic Uzbeks after convictions marred by torture ‑ tainted confessions and other due process violations. Authorities have not reviewed convictions where defendants alleged torture or other glaring violations of fair trial standards. At least nine ethnic Uzbeks continue to languish in pretrial detention, some for a third year. New convictions in August 2013 of three ethnic Uzbeks in Osh, and pending extradition orders of at least six others in Russia again point to judicial bias against ethnic Uzbeks. The authorities failed to tackle the acute problem of courtroom violence by audiences in trials across Kyrgyzstan, including at the trial of three opposition members of parliament in June, perpetuating an environment that undermines defendants’ fair trial rights. Lawyers were harassed or beaten in court in 2013, including for defending ethnic Uzbek clients in June 2010 cases. Mahamad Bizurukov, an ethnic Uzbek defendant, and his lawyers have been subjected to repeated threats, harassment, and physical attacks for two years, most recently in September 2013, with no accountability for perpetrators. ... Despite the adoption of a national torture prevention mechanism in 2012, and the organization of a related National Center for the Prevention of Torture in 2013, authorities often refuse to investigate allegations of torture and perpetrators go unpunished. On rare occasions when charges are filed against police, investigations, and court proceedings are unduly protracted. A telling example is the criminal case against four police officers following the August 2011 death of an ethnic Uzbek detained on charges related to the June   2010 ethnic violence. Usmonjon Kholmirzaev died several days after his release without charge, apparently from injuries he sustained from beatings in custody. The prosecution has been subjected to repeated delays over the last two years and no one has yet been held accountable for his death. In July 2013, Nurkamil Ismailov was found dead in a temporary detention facility in southern Kyrgyzstan after police detained him for disorderly conduct. Authorities alleged he committed suicide by hanging himself with his t-shirt. The Jalalabad-based human rights group Spravedlivost intervened after which authorities opened a criminal investigation on charges of negligence. In September, Ismailov’s relative and the police settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, with no admission of liability.” THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 78.     In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 79.     The applicants complained that because of their Uzbek ethnic origin, they would face a real risk of ill-treatment if extradited to Kyrgyzstan. They argued that they belonged to a specific group, namely ethnic Uzbeks suspected of involvement in the violence of June 2010, members of which were systematically being tortured by the Kyrgyz authorities. They also complained that their arguments concerning the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in the requesting country had not received genuine and thorough consideration by the Russian authorities. They relied on Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” A.     Submissions by the parties 1.     The Government 80.     The Government contested the applicants’ allegations. They argued that the general human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan had improved in 2013 to 14, in comparison with that described in the case of Makhmudzhan Ergashev (cited above). Certain positive developments in the requesting country had been noted by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The reports by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) ought to be attached less importance than those by “official sources” and considered with a great deal of caution. 81 .     The Government further claimed that while certain prejudices towards ethnic Uzbeks persisted in the requesting country, there was no “flagrant denial of justice” for the Uzbek minority in Kyrgyzstan. The diplomatic assurances given by the Kyrgyz authorities in the applicants’ respective cases excluded the possibility of their ill-treatment upon extradition. The Court had not yet allowed demonstrating the effectiveness of Russian authorities’ diplomatic supervision mechanism for the protection of the rights of those extradited to Kyrgyzstan because it had indicated interim measures precluding such extraditions. 82.     Further, the Government argued that the applicants had not demonstrated any individual risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan. Neither of them had applied for refugee status prior to their arrests in Russia. Neither they nor their close relatives still residing in Kyrgyzstan had ever been persecuted there. The Russian migration authorities’ refusals to grant refugee status to the applicants had been well-grounded and duly motivated. 83.     The applicants had effective domestic remedies at their disposal, as they had had an ample opportunity to express their concerns of alleged ill ‑ treatment before the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office and domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction. 84.     In view of the above, the Government considered that the applicants’ grievances under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention were to be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded. 2.     The applicants 85.     The applicants maintained their allegations. Referring to the recent material by the UN Committee against Torture and Human Rights Watch, the applicants insisted that the general human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan had not improved since the adoption of the judgment in the Makhmudzhan Ergashev case, and that practices of torture at the hands of the Kyrgyz authorities had remained widespread. 86.     They further alleged that the Russian authorities had failed to thoroughly examine the issue regarding possible ill-treatment in the requesting country in the context of the respective sets of domestic proceedings related to the extradition and refugee status applications. The diplomatic assurances relied on by the authorities both at national level and before the Court could not provide sufficient guarantees against the risk of ill-treatment, considering the fact that torture had been widespread and unaccounted for in Kyrgyzstan, and given the absence of an independent monitoring mechanism satisfying the criteria established in the case of   Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom (no. 8139/09, §   189, ECHR   2012). 87.     In sum, the applicants maintained their complaints under Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Article 3 of the Convention (a)     Admissibility 88.     The Court notes that the applications are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. (b)     Merits (i)     General principles 89.     The Court