CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 26 janvier 2017

.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 } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5D2489E2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .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 } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A294646 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s13907D4E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s74FD211E { width:197.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }       THIRD SECTION               CASE OF KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 42332/14)             JUDGMENT           STRASBOURG   26 January 2017   FINAL   29/05/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Khamidkariyev v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Helena Jäderblom,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 January 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1 .     The case originated in an application (no. 42332/14) 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 Mirsobir Mirsobitovich Khamidkariyev (“the applicant”), on 10 June 2014. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr I. Vasilyev, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant’s representative alleged that on 9 June 2014 the applicant had been abducted in Moscow with a view to his involuntary removal to Uzbekistan, even though he faced a real risk of ill-treatment in that country. At a later stage of the proceedings it transpired that the applicant had been arrested in Uzbekistan. 4 .     On 10 June 2014 the Acting President of the Section to which the case had been allocated indicated to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited, expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from Russia to Uzbekistan or any other country for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The Acting President also observed that the Government were required, under Rule   39 §   1, to put in place an appropriate mechanism tasked with both preventive and protective functions, to ensure that the applicant benefited from immediate and effective protection against unlawful or irregular removal from the territory of Russia and the jurisdiction of the Russian courts. Factual information was requested from the Government under Rule   54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court. The Government were further requested to produce copies of all the documents related to the criminal investigation file opened in connection with the applicant’s abduction on 9   June 2014. It was also decided to grant the case priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 5 .     On 27 August 2014 the application was communicated to the Government. The Government were requested to submit detailed factual information pertaining to the application. In particular, they were asked to produce passenger lists for all Uzbekistan ‑ bound flights that departed from Russia between 9 and 12 June 2014. Moreover, the Government were requested to provide a complete copy of the criminal investigation file in relation to the applicant’s abduction, as well as documents relating to the pre-investigation inquiry. 6 .     On 22 April 2015 the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided to ask the Government, under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court, whether they had complied with their obligation arising from Article 38 of the Convention after their refusal to submit in full the material requested by the Court in connection with the applicant’s abduction and transfer to Uzbekistan and to properly account for the missing elements. The request was sent to the Government by letter on 24 April 2015. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     The applicant was born in 1978. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Uzbekistan. 8.     The information provided by the applicant’s representative and the Government concerning the circumstances of the case is limited and conflicting. The elements at the Court’s disposal are described below. A.     Information submitted by the applicant’s representative 9.     The following account of events is based on a series of written submissions to the Court by the applicant’s representative. 1.     Background information 10.     The applicant, while living in Uzbekistan, was a friend of a former boyfriend of Ms Gulnara Karimova, one of President Islam Karimov’s daughters. At some point Ms   Karimova turned against her former boyfriend’s friends. Fleeing political persecution, on 26   December 2010 the applicant moved to Russia. He resided in Moscow with his partner, Ms I., and their child. 11 .     In 2011 the Uzbek authorities charged the applicant in absentia with crimes related to religious extremism on account of his alleged involvement in the establishment in 2009 of a jihadist organisation, issued an arrest warrant and put his name on an international wanted list. 12.     On 10 July 2013 the applicant was arrested in Moscow on the basis of the Uzbek warrant. 13.     On 12 July 2013 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the applicant’s detention pending extradition. 14 .     On 9 August 2013 the Golovinskiy inter-district prosecutor’s office of Moscow ordered the applicant’s release on the grounds that the Uzbek authorities had not lodged a formal extradition request and that the crimes he had been charged with did not constitute criminal offences under Russian law. It was also noted that the applicant could not have established the jihadist organisation in 2009 as the organisation in question had been banned by the Supreme Court of Russia in 2003. The applicant was then released. 15.     Following his release, the applicant continued to live in Moscow. At some point he applied for refugee status, referring to a risk of ill ‑ treatment in Uzbekistan. 16 .     On 8 November 2013 the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service (“the Moscow FMS”) dismissed the allegations of a risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan as unfounded and rejected the applicant’s application for refugee status. He challenged that decision in court. 17 .     On 12 May 2014 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow approved the applicant’s application, quashed the Moscow FMS’s rejection and ordered it to grant the applicant refugee status. 18 .     The applicant’s passport remained in the Moscow FMS’s file concerning his application for refugee status. 19.     Given that no appeal against the judgment of 12 May 2014 was lodged within the required time, the judgment entered into force. 2.     The applicant’s disappearance 20.     On the evening of 9 June 2014, while the applicant and his family were visiting a friend, Mr T., the applicant’s child fell ill. The applicant and Ms   I. decided to take him to hospital and the applicant called a taxi. A silver Lada Priora arrived. Mr T. wanted to accompany the applicant and Ms   I., but the Lada’s driver told him that the car had been ordered for two adult passengers only. The applicant, Ms I. and the child got into the taxi. 21 .     On their way, at about 7.20 p.m., Ms I. decided to stop at a pharmacy in the centre of Moscow. She took the child out of the taxi and the applicant waited in the car. When Ms I. left the pharmacy she saw that the taxi had driven away. A woman told Ms I. that she had seen two men getting in a parked car, which had then driven off. 22.     Ms I. tried calling the applicant but his mobile telephone was turned off. She then alerted Mr T. 23 .     The applicant’s representative was notified of the applicant’s disappearance shortly after. On the same date, that is, on 9 June 2014, he contacted the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) and the border control agency, asking them to prevent the applicant’s involuntary removal from Russian territory. According to the applicant’s representative, he suspected the involvement of two FSB officers, “Timur” and “Zakhar”, who had shown an interest in the applicant in 2011. Nevertheless, he did not mention those people in his letters to the FSB and the border control agency. 3.     The applicant’s reappearance in Uzbekistan 24 .     On 18 June 2014 the investigation department of the Uzbek Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant’s father that the applicant had been arrested and placed in custody on 17 June 2014. On 25 June 2015 the applicant’s representative forwarded a copy of the notification to the Court. 25.     The criminal case against the applicant was brought to trial before the Tashkent City Court. He was appointed a legal aid lawyer. 4.     Information collected by the applicant’s representative in Tashkent 26 .     At the end of October 2014 the applicant’s representative, Mr   Vasilyev, travelled to Tashkent. He discovered that the applicant had been kept incommunicado in a remand prison in Tashkent. Mr Vasilyev was repeatedly denied access to the applicant. (a)     Information communicated orally to Mr Vasilyev by the applicant 27 .     Mr Vasilyev attended three hearings at the Tashkent City Court on 31 October, and 3 and 4   November 2014. On 31 October and 3   November 2014 the trial judge allowed Mr   Vasilyev to talk to the applicant. During the conversations the applicant sat in a cage in the courtroom surrounded by guards. The applicant’s representative summarised the applicant’s description of the events of 9 June 2014, given orally on 31 October and 3   November 2014, as follows. 28.     At 7 p.m. on 9 June 2014 the applicant had been abducted by two FSB officers. They had put a sack over the applicant’s head during the abduction. They had then taken the applicant to an unidentified house, tied him up and taken the sack off his head. The applicant had recognised the two men as “Timur” and “Zakhar”, the FSB officers whom he had met previously in November 2011. The two men had beaten the applicant and kept him inside the house until the following day. 29.     On 10 June 2014 the two FSB officers had taken the applicant to a runway at one of Moscow’s airports without passing through any border or passport controls as the applicant’s passport had remained with the Moscow FMS. The FSB officers had handed the applicant over to Uzbek officials near the steps of a Tashkent-bound airplane. 30 .     Once in Uzbekistan, the applicant had been placed under arrest by the Main Investigation Department of the Ministry of the Interior of Uzbekistan on suspicion of crimes related to religious extremism. He had been kept in detention for two months and had been subjected to torture and other ill ‑ treatment by Uzbek law-enforcement officers with a view to securing a self-incriminating statement. The applicant had been tied head downwards to a bar attached to the wall and had been beaten repeatedly. The officers had broken two of the applicant’s ribs and knocked out seven of his teeth. (b)     Information provided by Ms I. 31.     On 4 November 2014 the applicant’s representative interviewed Ms   I. 32.     Ms I. stated that on 3 May 2011 an FSB officer named “Zakhar” and some police officers had come to their Moscow flat to search for the applicant, but had not found him. 33.     In November 2011 “Zakhar” and another FSB officer, “Timur”, had interviewed Ms I. about the applicant and his religious views and practices. 34 .     Following the applicant’s abduction, on 10 June 2014 Ms I. had called “Timur” on his mobile phone, enquiring about her partner. “Timur” had replied that he was no longer working for “that office” (the FSB). Ms I. had also tried calling “Zakhar” but had received no response. 35.     On 13 June 2014 Ms I. had flown to Tashkent with her son and mother. Upon arrival she had been detained at the airport for seven hours and then released. 36 .     Ms I. had been questioned by the investigator in charge of the applicant’s case at the Ministry of the Interior of Uzbekistan, Mr K., but had been denied access to the applicant. When she had seen the applicant in the courtroom, he had made signs to her that he had been beaten. (c)     Information provided by the applicant’s mother 37.     On 4 November 2014 Mr Vasilyev interviewed the applicant’s mother, Ms Kh. 38.     Ms Kh. stated that her younger son had been convicted of crimes related to religious extremism in December 2010, which had influenced the applicant’s decision to leave Uzbekistan. She had had occasional contact with the applicant during his time in Moscow. 39.     On 15 June 2014 Ms I. had arrived in Uzbekistan and informed Ms   Kh. of the applicant’s abduction. 40.     On 25 June 2014 officers of the Ministry of the Interior of Uzbekistan had come to Ms Kh.’s home and searched it. 41.     On 27 June 2014 the applicant’s mother had visited the investigator,   K., who had said that the applicant had voluntarily returned to Tashkent on 8   June 2014 and had gone to the police with a statement of surrender. 42 .     Some people had informed Ms Kh. that her son had been severely beaten while in detention. She had not had access to the applicant, but when she had seen him in the courtroom, he had looked very poorly. 5.     The applicant’s conviction 43 .     On 18 November 2014 the Tashkent City Court found the applicant guilty of crimes under Articles 216 (“the illegal establishment of public associations or religious organisations”) and 244² (“the establishment of, management of, participation in religious extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other proscribed organisations”) of Uzbekistan’s Criminal Code and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. 44.     The lawyer appointed for the applicant refused to lodge an appeal against the judgment. 45.     On 26 November 2014 Mr Vasilyev lodged an appeal with the Appeal Chamber of the Tashkent City Court on the applicant’s behalf. It appears that later the applicant withdrew the statement of appeal. 46.     The applicant remains imprisoned in Uzbekistan. 6.     Appeal proceedings relating to the applicant’s refugee status application 47.     On 29 July 2014 the Moscow FMS lodged an appeal against the judgment of 12 May 2014. The statement accompanying the appeal did not contain any request to restore the time-limit for lodging it. 48.     The Moscow City Court admitted the appeal on an unspecified date. The reasons for admitting it after the time-limit had run out are unknown. 49.     On 19 October 2014 the UNHCR Representation in the Russian Federation (“the UNHCR”) submitted a memorandum on the applicant’s case to the Moscow City Court for consideration. It was noted that torture was a widespread method of coercion used by the Uzbek authorities to obtain self ‑ incriminating statements from those suspected of involvement in “religious extremism”. The statement read, in particular: “As follows from the document of the Call for Urgent Action published by Amnesty International on 6 November 2014, after the forced return to Uzbekistan, Mr   Khamidkariyev was subjected to torture and other kinds of proscribed treatment and punishment for two months with a view to obtaining a confession to made-up charges – he was tied head down to a bar attached to a wall and beaten, as a result of which he had seven teeth knocked out and two ribs broken.” 50.     On 2 December 2014 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal lodged by the Moscow FMS against the judgment of 12 May 2014, quashed the judgment and upheld the Moscow FMS’s decision of 8 November 2013 owing to the fact that the applicant had not provided “convincing and irrefutable evidence of the existence of well-founded fears of becoming a victim of persecution in Uzbekistan”. The reasons for examining a belated appeal on the merits were not given in the text of the judgment. B.     Information submitted by the Government 51.     In the course of the proceedings before the Court, the Government sent four sets of correspondence, the contents of which are described below. 1.     Letter of 1 July 2014 52.     By a letter of 1 July 2014 in reply to the Court’s request for information of 10 June 2014, made at the same time as the indication of the interim measures (see paragraph 4 above), the Government informed the Court that “the relevant State bodies have been informed about the disappearance of the applicant and the indication by the Court of the interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court”. 53.     They further noted that the applicant had not been “apprehended by the officers of any Russian law-enforcement bodies on 9 June 2014 in Moscow” and that “his current whereabouts [are] unknown”. 54.     The Government also stated that on 10 June 2014 the Basmannyy district department of the interior (“the Basmannyy police”) had received a complaint about the applicant’s kidnapping from Mr T. and that on 19 June 2014 a case file with the preliminary inquiry conducted on the basis of that complaint had been forwarded to the Basmannyy district investigative unit of the Moscow investigative department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor’s Office (“the investigative authority”) “for further enquiry and the possible initiation of a criminal case”. 55.     Lastly, they noted that the applicant’s representative’s letter of 25   June 2014 (see paragraph 24 above) had been forwarded to the investigative authority for consideration. 56.     No documents were enclosed with the letter of 1 July 2014. 2.     Observations on the admissibility and merits of the application of 24   October 2014 57.     On 24 October 2014 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, the contents of which can be summarised as follows. 58 .     On 9 September 2014 [1] the investigative authority opened an investigation into the applicant’s kidnapping as criminal case no. 815447 under Article 126 § 2 (a) of the Russian Criminal Code (“aggravated kidnapping”). 59 .     In the course of the investigation CCTV pictures from cameras located in the vicinity of the scene of the incident were examined. They showed that on 9 June 2014 at about 7 p.m. the applicant had been kidnapped by unidentified people and taken away by car. 60 .     The Government claimed that the Court’s demand to submit lists of passengers checked in on Uzbekistan-bound flights between 9 and 12 June 2014 (see paragraph 5 above) could not be complied with as the lists in question contained personal data about third parties and could not be submitted to the Court without their prior consent. 61.     The Government further submitted that there was no information about the arrest of the applicant on 9 June 2014 by law ‑ enforcement agencies or his detention in remand prisons in Moscow or the Moscow Region, and that no information regarding the applicant crossing the State border had been received at that time. 62 .     The notification by the Uzbek authorities to the applicant’s father of 18 June 2014 concerning the applicant’s arrest and detention in Uzbekistan had been added to the criminal investigation file. 63.     The Government concluded that there was no evidence to prove any direct or indirect involvement of the Russian authorities in the applicant’s alleged kidnapping and transfer to Uzbekistan. 64.     The Russian authorities had not been made aware and could not have known of any risk that the applicant might be kidnapped. 65.     The Government were not in a position to provide information on the criminal proceedings against the applicant in Uzbekistan as those proceedings fell outside their jurisdiction. However, they had sent a request for mutual legal assistance to the Uzbek authorities in order to establish the applicant’s whereabouts. 66.     In conclusion, the Government submitted that there had not been any administrative practice of the involuntary removal of persons in respect of whom Rule 39 had been applied to their countries of nationality. Inquiries and investigations were opened into instances of the disappearance of such people. The Russian Prosecutor’s Office oversaw the compliance with Russian law of any decisions taken in the course of such inquiries and investigations. A large group of State agencies had held a co-ordination meeting on 10 September 2014 on the further enforcement of measures to ensure the security of asylum seekers. 67 .     No documents were enclosed with the Government’s observations of 24 October 2014. 3 .     Further observations of 26 February 2015 68.     On 26 February 2015 the Government, in reply to the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, submitted that they reaffirmed the position stated in their observations of 24 October 2014 and commented on the appli cant’s just satisfaction claims. 69 .     No documents were enclosed with the Government’s correspondence of 26   February 2015. 4.     Letter of 15 May 2015 (a)     Cover letter 70 .     Following the Court’s additional question to the Government regarding the respondent State’s compliance with Article 38 of the Convention (see paragraph 6 above), the Government submitted a letter which read as follows: “With reference to your letter of 24 April 2015 in respect of the above application, please find enclosed copies of the criminal investigation documents disclosed by the investigative authorities after a repeated request. The Government kindly ask the Court to join the documents to the case-file.” 71.     No answer to the Court’s question under Article 38 of the Convention was given. (b)     Documents enclosed 72.     Forty-three pages of various documents issued by the Russian and Uzbek authorities were enclosed with the Government’s cover letter. (i)     Documents issued by the Russian authorities (α)     Summary of events in chronological order 73.     The contents of the documents issued by the Russian authorities and which were enclosed with the Government’s letter of 15 May 2015 can be summarised as follows. 74.     On 10 June 2014 Mr T. reported the applicant’s kidnapping to the Basmannyy police and made a statement. Mr T. stated, in particular, that a woman on the street near the pharmacy had seen two men getting into the parked silver Lada Priora. 75.     On 10 June 2014 Ms I. made a statement to the Basmannyy police that at 7   p.m. on 9 June 2014 she, her partner and child had taken a taxi, a silver Lada Priora. She had got out of the car to go into a pharmacy, but by the time she had come out the taxi had disappeared. 76 .     On 30 June 2014 the Basmannyy police reported to the investigative authority that they had failed to identify the applicant’s whereabouts and that there had been no “positive information” concerning any aeroplane or railway tickets issued in the applicant’s name or about the applicant being placed in remand prisons. Furthermore, it was noted that the Moscow department of the FSB and the data centre of the Russian Ministry of the Interior had not sent any reply to the police’s enquiries. The Basmannyy police also reported that the whereabouts of Mr T. and Ms I. were unknown and that it had been impossible to identify the taxi driver who had taken the applicant to the scene of the kidnapping. 77 .     On 9 July 2014 the investigative authority decided to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s kidnapping. The decision described the events as follows: “On 9 June 2014 at about 7 p.m. persons who have not been identified by the investigation, acting jointly and by common accord, approached a car which has not been identified by the investigation parked near house no. 7/2 at Bolshoy Kharitonyevskiy Lane in Moscow, in which Mr Khamidkariyev was travelling, and, having got in the said car against the will of the victim, kidnapped Mr Khamidkariyev, fleeing the scene of the crime in the said car to an unknown destination.” 78.     On 11 September 2014 the investigative authority requested the transport police to inform them whether any aeroplane or railway tickets had been issued in the applicant’s name between 1 June and 1 August 2014. 79.     On 9 October 2014 the investigative authority granted the applicant victim status in case no. 815447. 80.     On 15   January 2015 an investigator with the investigative authority decided to suspend the investigation of case no. 815447. The decision stated that the applicant’s whereabouts had been established as he had been detained in a remand prison in Tashkent, the scene of the incident had been inspected, seven witnesses had been questioned, various requests had been sent to the Russian authorities and a request for mutual legal assistance had been sent to Uzbekistan, but no reply had been received. 81 .     On 29 April 2015 the investigator’s superior at the investigative authority overruled the decision of 25 April 2015 to suspend the case and returned it to the investigator on the grounds that the suspension decision had been taken prematurely. It was noted that the following measures had to be taken to ensure a proper investigation: a response to the request for mutual legal assistance from the Uzbek authorities had still to be received, as had replies to “previously sent requests”. “Other requisite investigative and procedural measures” also still had to be performed. 82 .     On 29 April 2015 an investigator at the investigative authority decided to resume case no. 815447 following the order from his superior. It is clear from the text of the decision that between 9   October 2014 and 29   April 2015 the investigation had been suspended and resumed four times on the basis of decisions by a more senior officer at the investigative authority or by a prosecutor. (β)     Other documents 83 .     The materials provided by the Government included the following documents: - an undated sheet of paper with no letterhead entitled “Federal Search for an Individual” containing the applicant’s personal information and information on a criminal case pending against him in Uzbekistan, from which it transpires that the applicant was put on a Russian federal wanted list. The sheet contains a handwritten note “Database ‘Region’ of the Russian Ministry of the Interior (has not been arrested)”. - an undated document entitled “Request for legal assistance” addressed to “the competent State bodies of Uzbekistan” and signed by an investigator at the investigative authority, including a list of questions to ask the applicant, Ms   I. and the officers in charge of the applicant’s arrest. The questions concerned, in particular, the circumstances of the applicant’s arrival in Uzbekistan, including how he crossed the border and the reasons for his detention in Tashkent. (ii)     Documents issued by the Uzbek authorities 84.     The contents of the documents issued by the Uzbek authorities which were enclosed with the Government’s letter of 15 May 2015 can be summarised as follows. 85 .     According to an arrest record drawn up in Russian by the Uzbek police the applicant was placed under arrest at 10.40 a.m. on 14 June 2014 as a suspect in a crime under Article 244² § 1 of the Uzbek Criminal Code. The place of arrest was not indicated in the record. The grounds for the arrest were stated as “other information leading to a suspicion that a person has committed a crime, and if the person has attempted to flee or has no abode or his or her identity has not been established”. The purpose of the arrest was stated as “there are enough grounds to suspect the person of having committed a crime”. A note observed that “the arrested person has been placed in a temporary detention unit of the Ministry of the Interior of Uzbekistan”. 86 .     According to a document in Russian entitled “Record of providing an arrested person with the right to make a telephone call” of 14 June 2014, the applicant made use of that right to call his mother between 10.45 and 10.49 a.m. on 14 June 2014 to inform her of his arrest. 87.     The record of the search of the applicant in Russian showed that 300   Russian roubles and one metallic ring were seized from the applicant when he was searched after being arrested. 88.     On 18 June 2014 the Main Investigation Department of the Ministry of the Interior of Uzbekistan informed the applicant’s father that his son, who had been wanted and “declared guilty in absentia”, had been arrested on 17 June 2014, placed in custody and had been participating in investigative measures. 89.     According to a Russian translation of a document in Uzbek of 10   February 2015 an investigator, K., at the Ministry of the Interior of Uzbekistan asked the State Customs Committee of Uzbekistan to provide information on “the facts of crossing the State border of Uzbekistan” by the applicant between 1 June and 1 July 2014. A Russian translation of the reply in Uzbek by the State Customs Committee of Uzbekistan of 12   February 2015 stated that there was no information in the customs’ database on the applicant crossing the Uzbek border between 1 June and 1   July 2014. It was noted that the database was compiled on the basis of written statements by those crossing borders and could thus contain errors owing to differences in people’s handwriting. 90 .     According to the record of an interview held on 11 February 2015 K. questioned the applicant as a victim in an unspecified criminal case. The interview was in Russian. In the course of the interview the applicant stated that he had not been arrested by the Russian authorities and that he had voluntarily left Moscow to go to Uzbekistan to visit his ailing mother. He stated that he had had no documents on him. Once in Uzbekistan, the applicant had taken a taxi to his mother’s, but the taxi had broken down and stopped. After getting out of the car, the applicant had been asked by police officers who had happened to be passing for an identification document. Since he had had no such document, he had been taken to a police station for identification and then arrested. The applicant’s answer to a question about his whereabouts between 9 and 15 June 2014 was as follows: “On 9 June 2014 I was at home, in the evening I took the child to hospital, then at about 9 p.m. I returned and stayed at home. Then on 10 June 2014 I was at home and at about 11 p.m. went to the railway station, and at 12 midnight left for Uzbekistan by bus. I was on the road for about seventy-two hours or a little longer, and on 14 June 2014 I arrived at the border between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, then, using roundabout ways, I crossed the border and at about 7 a.m. was on Uzbek territory, where I was arrested by officers of law-enforcement agencies.” 91.     On 12 February 2015 the investigator K. questioned Ms I. as a witness. The interview was in Russian. Ms I. stated that the applicant had voluntarily and secretly left for Uzbekistan by bus on 10 June 2014 and that she had flown to Tashkent on 13 June 2014. 92 .     On 12 February 2015 K. questioned one of the police officers who had arrested the applicant, Mr Kh., as a witness. The interview was in Russian. The answer to the question about the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest reads as follows: “On 14 June 2014 at about 7.30 a.m. in the Yakkasarayskiy district of Tashkent Mr   Khamidkariyev was stopped with a view to checking his identity documents, however, given that he had no documents on him, the latter was taken to the Yakkasarayskiy district department of the interior of Tashkent, where it was established that Mr Khamidkariyev was wanted, accordingly, Mr Khamidkariyev was taken to the initiator of the search for him in the temporary detention facility of the Ministry of the Interior of Uzbekistan, where the requisite documents were filled in.” 93.     On an unspecified date K. drew up a report on the actions performed under the request for mutual legal assistance. According to the report, the investigator had questioned Ms I., Mr Kh. and the applicant, had received copies of documents pertaining to the applicant’s arrest, requested information concerning the border crossing and had identified two men allegedly connected with the applicant who as of November 2014 had been fighting on the side of ISIS in Syria. 94 .     The Government also submitted two documents in Uzbek of 14 June 2014 – a copy of the first page of Ms I.’s passport, and an extract from the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan with the text of Article 244² § 1 in Russian. The Article reads as follows: “the establishment, management, or participation in religious extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other proscribed organisations shall be punishable by five to fifteen years of imprisonment”. II.     REPORTS ON UZBEKISTAN BY INTERNATIONAL NON ‑ GOVERNMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS 95.     For the relevant reports on Uzbekistan by UN bodies and international non-governmental human rights organisations up to 2014, see Egamberdiyev v. Russia (no. 34742/13, §§ 31-34, 26 June 2014). 96 .     The relevant parts of the Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/4) adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee on 20 July 2015, read as follows: “ State of emergency and counter-terrorism 11. The Committee, while noting that a draft State of Emergency Act has been prepared, remains concerned (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3, para. 9) that existing regulations on states of emergency do not comply with article 4 of the Covenant. It also remains concerned (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3, para. 15) about: (a) the overly-broad definition of terrorism and terrorist activities that is reportedly widely used to charge and prosecute members or suspected members of banned Islamic movements; (b) legal safeguards for persons suspected of, or charged with, a terrorist or related crime and allegations of incommunicado detention, torture and long prison sentences in inhuman and degrading conditions in respect of such persons (arts. 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 18 and 19) ... Deaths in custody 12. The Committee is concerned about reports of deaths in custody and denial of adequate medical care. It is also concerned about the lack of effective and independent investigations into such cases (arts. 2 and 6) ... Torture 13. The Committee remains concerned that the definition of torture contained in the criminal legislation, including article 235 of the Criminal Code, does not meet the requirements of article 7 of the Covenant, as it is limited to illegal acts committed with the purpose of coercing testimony and therefore in practice is restricted to acts of torture committed only by a person carrying out an initial inquiry or pretrial investigation, a procurator or other employee of a law-enforcement agency, and results in impunity for other persons, including detainees and prisoners. The Committee is also concerned that the State party continues to grant amnesties to persons who have been convicted of torture or ill-treatment under article 235 of the Criminal Code (arts. 2 and 7) ... 14. The Committee remains concerned about reports that torture continues to be routinely used throughout the criminal justice system; that, despite the existing legal prohibition, forced confessions are in practice used as evidence in court, and that judges fail to order investigations into allegations of forced confessions even when signs of torture are visible; that persons complaining of torture are subjected to reprisals and family members are often intimidated and threatened to ensure that complaints are retracted; and that the rate of prosecution is very low and impunity is prevalent (arts. 2, 7 and 14) ... Liberty and security of person 15. The Committee remains concerned that the State party retains the 72-hour period of detention of persons suspected of having committed an offence before bringing them before a judge, and therefore welcomes the State party’s statement that the length of custody may be reduced to 48 hours in the future. It is also concerned about deficiencies in the application of the legislation governing judicial control of detention (habeas corpus) in practice, particularly allegations of: (a) forging the time or date of detention to circumvent the legal period of detention: (b) habeas corpus hearings in the absence of the detainee, especially in politically-related cases; (c) violations of the right of detainees to a lawyer, including to a lawyer of their choice, and deficient legal representation provided by State-appointed defence lawyers (arts. 9 and 14).” 97 .     The Uzbekistan chapter of the World Report 2015 by Human Rights Watch reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Imprisonment and Harassment of Critics The Uzbek government has imprisoned thousands of people on politically motivated charges to enforce its repressive rule, targeting human rights and opposition activists, journalists, religious believers, artists, and other perceived critics. ... Criminal Justice and Torture In November 2013, the United Nations Committee against Torture stated that torture is “systematic,” “unpunished,” and “encouraged” by law enforcement officers in Uzbekistan’s police stations, prisons, and detention facilities run by the SNB. Methods include beating with batons and plastic bottles, hanging by wrists and ankles, rape, and sexual humiliation. Although authorities introduced habeas corpus in 2008, there has been no perceptible reduction in the use of torture in pretrial custody or enhanced due process for detainees. Authorities routinely deny detainees and prisoners access to counsel, and the state-controlled bar association has disbarred lawyers that take on politically sensitive cases.” 98 .     The chapter on Uzbekistan of Amnesty International’s report for 2014/15, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “ Torture and other ill-treatment Police and officers of the National Security Service (SNB)   continued to routinely use torture and other ill-treatment to coerce suspects and detainees, including women and men charged with criminal offences such as theft, fraud or murder, into confessing to a crime or incriminating others. Detainees charged with anti-state and terrorism-related offences were particularly vulnerable to torture. Detainees were often tortured by people wearing masks. Police and SNB officers regularly used convicted prisoners to commit torture and other ill-treatment on detainees in pre-trial detention. Under the Criminal Code, prisoners, unlike officials, could not be held responsible for torture but only for lesser crimes. A former detainee described witnessing officers and prisoners torture men and women in interrogation rooms in an SNB pre-trial detention centre, as well as in bathrooms and showers, punishment cells and purpose-built torture rooms with padded rubber walls and sound-proofing. He described SNB officers handcuffing detainees to radiators and breaking their bones with baseball bats. Courts continued to rely heavily on confessions obtained under torture to hand down convictions.   Judges routinely ignored or dismissed as unfounded defendants’ allegations of torture or other ill-treatment, even when presented with credible evidence. Two men, who were sentenced in 2014 to 10 years in prison each for alleged membership of a banned Islamist party, claimed in court that security forces had tortured them to sign false confessions by burning their hands and feet against a stove. One defendant told   the judge that security forces had pulled out his fingernails and toenails. The judge failed to inquire further into the torture allegations, and admitted the confessions as evidence. ... Counter-terror and security The authorities became increasingly suspicious of   labour migrants returning from abroad who may have had access to information on Islam which is censored or banned in Uzbekistan, resulting in an increased number of arrests and prosecutions for “extremism”. The authorities claimed that migrant workers were targeted in Russia for recruitment by the IMU, IS or other groups characterized as extremist. In November, security forces detained dozens of   labour migrants who had returned from Russia and Turkey, in raids in the capital Tashkent and several regions of the country, amid disputed claims that they were members of the banned Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir and had links to IS members in Syria. Human rights defenders reported that security forces used torture to extract confessions from them.” 99 .     In April 2015, Amnesty International published a report entitled “Secrets and Lies: Forced Confessions under Torture in Uzbekistan”, which reads, in particular, as follows: “Torture is endemic in Uzbekistan’s criminal justice system. Security forces use torture against men and women charged with criminal offences, such as theft and murder, as well as against individuals who have fallen out of favour with the authorities, including former officials, police officers and entrepreneurs. Increasingly, however, over the last 15 years, those particularly vulnerable to torture and other ill ‑ treatment have been men and women charged with or convicted of “anti-state” and terrorism-related offences. In particular, these are Muslims worshipping in mosques outside state control or under independent imams, and members or suspected members of political opposition parties and banned Islamic movements or Islamist groups and parties, all of whom the authorities consider a threat to national and regional security.” THE LAW I.     OBSERVANCE OF ARTICLE 38 OF THE CONVENTION 100.     Although the structure of the Court’s judgments traditionally reflects the numbering of the Articles of the Convention, the Court has also examined a Government’s compliance with their procedural obligation under Article 38 of the Convention at the outset, especially if negative inferences are likely to be drawn from the Government’s failure to submit the requested evidence (see Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland , no.   7511/13, §   338, 24 July 2014). 101.     Having regard to the Government’s failure to provide the Court with a complete file on the investigation into the applicant’s abduction (see paragraphs 5, 6, 67, and 69 ‑ 94 above), the Court considers it appropriate to begin its examination of the present case by analysing whether the Government have complied with their procedural obligation under Article   38 of the Convention, which is worded as follows: “The Court shall examine the case together with the representatives of the parties and, if need be, undertake an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the High Contracting Parties concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities.” A.     The parties’ submissions 102.     The Government did not make any submissions to answer the Court’s question concerning their compliance with Article 38 of the Convention. 103.     The applicant did not comment on the contents of the Government’s letter of 15 May 2015. B.     The Court’s assessment 104.     The Court will examine the issue in the light of the general principles of its case-law concerning Article 38 of the Convention summarised, in particular, in Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) (cited above, §§   352 ‑ 56). 105.     The Court observes that the facts of the present case are complex. The circumstances are highly controversial and are in dispute between the parties, and could only be elucidated through genuine cooperation by the respondent Government in line with Article 38 of the Convention (see Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia , no. 31890/11, § 163, 3   October 2013). 106.     The Court repeatedly put detailed factual questions and requested the relevant domestic documents from the respondent Government (see paragraphs 4-6 above). The Government, without advancing any reasons, chose not to comply with those requests (see paragraphs 67 and 69 ‑ 94 above). 107.     The Court reiterates that Article 38 of the Convention requires the respondent State to submit the requested material in its entirety, if the Court so requests, and to account for any missing elements. The Government did not comply with that obligation, thus further complicating the examination of the present case by the Court. In the Court’s view, the Government’s failure to cooperate on such a crucial point highlights the authorities’ unwillingness to uncover the truth regarding the circumstances of the case (see, with further references, Nizomkhon Dzhurayev , cited above, § 164). 108.     Having regard to the aforementioned, the Court considers that the Government have fallen short of their obligation to furnish all the necessary facilities to the Court in its task of establishing the facts of the case, as required under Article 3