CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 9 juillet 2019

.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 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .s65D33CE4 { width:185.75pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super }       THIRD SECTION               CASE OF KISLOV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 3598/10)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   9 July 2019     FINAL   09/10/2019   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kislov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda,   Alena Poláčková,   María Elósegui, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 June 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 3598/10) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Belarusian national, Mr Vladimir Borisovich Kislov (“the applicant”), on 19 December 2009. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3.     The applicant alleged that he would be at risk of ill ‑ treatment in the event of his extradition to Belarus; that he had been sentenced to imprisonment in Belarus as a result of proceedings which were a flagrant denial of justice; that he had had no effective remedies in that respect and that his detention in Russia had been unlawful. 4.     On 30 May, 21 September and 25 November 2010 the Court rejected the applicant’s requests under Rule 39 of the Rules Court. 5.     On 16 October 2015 the Government were given notice of the complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. 6 .     On 1 April 2016 the Court granted priority treatment to the case and decided to indicate to the Russian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed from Russia to Belarus for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7.     The applicant was born in 1974. He lived in St   Petersburg until 2011 and then in Lomonosov, the St Petersburg area. His current whereabouts are not specified. A.     Proceedings in Belarus 1.     The applicant’s employment and complaints to various authorities in Belarus 8 .     The applicant, who is a lawyer, resided in Minsk (Belarus). Until September 2003, he worked as chief officer of the legal unit in the Minsk regional office of Potrebsoyuz ( Минский облпотребсоюз ). Its staff also elected him to the local electoral board for election to the Minsk municipal council. In September 2003 he was employed by the legal and propaganda unit of the Minsk district office of Potrebsoyuz ( Минский райпотребсоюз ), which appears to have been an organisation pursuing commercial activities. The applicant’s functions included providing the staff with information about the internal and external policies of the State. The applicant also claimed that he ran “opposition meetings” of the staff there. 9 .     Mr P., head of the district Potrebsoyuz , dismissed the applicant from his post. In June 2004 a court ordered his reinstatement in his post. However, later in June 2004 he was dismissed again. 10 .     In July 2004 the applicant wrote to the local (official) newspaper and made written complaints to various public authorities, alleging misappropriation of funds within the district Potrebsoyuz , in particular by Mr   P. The applicant also listed various (allegedly, dubious) transactions. For instance, the district Potrebsoyuz had paid the debt of another organisation without any reason, whereas the latter had actually owed money to the Potrebsoyuz . He also implicated in those unlawful activities officials of the higher supervising organisation, the Belarusian Cooperative Union ( Белкоопсоюз ). 11.     On 16 August 2004 the National Office of Potrebsoyuz replied to the applicant and the Belarusian State Control Agency, indicating that following an inquiry it had been ascertained that certain unlawful conduct had indeed taken place. The relevant data had then been forwarded, inter alia , to the Organised Crime Unit of the Ministry of the Interior, for criminal investigation. 12.     On 27 August 2004 the Minsk City prosecutor’s office replied that in 2003 and 2004 several criminal investigations against Mr P. had been opened and then discontinued. One aspect of the applicant’s complaint had been forwarded by the district prosecutor’s office for examination. 13 .     On 1 October 2004 the district prosecutor’s office replied that the complaint had been joined to the pending pre-investigation inquiry in respect of the staff of the district Potrebsoyuz . 2.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant in Belarus 14 .     On an unspecified date, criminal proceedings were instituted against a Mr G. and Mr Z. on suspicion of receiving bribes (Article 430 of the Belarusian Criminal Code). It appears that the case-file materials also contained indications implicating the applicant in the criminal activity. 15.     On 5 February 2004 a Mr M. was interviewed within the context of the above-mentioned criminal investigation. He admitted that he had given a bribe to the applicant. 16 .     It appears that following Mr M.’s statement, certain investigative measures were carried out. As a result, on 5 August 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of receiving a bribe of 550   United Stated dollars (USD) from M. On 1   September 2004 the applicant was further accused of forgery of an official document in relation to the bribe from Mr M. Those offences had allegedly been committed between October and December 2003. 17.     The applicant was ordered not to leave the area of his residence. 18 .     In July 2004 the applicant wrote to the local office of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), complaining about his dismissal and the criminal proceedings against him. In December 2004 he asked that an OSCE representative attend his trial hearings. 19 .     The criminal case against the applicant was submitted for trial before Judge K., of the Moskovskiy District Court of Minsk. According to the applicant, several years later, that judge was included in the European Union’s sanction list in relation to cases arising from public demonstrations in 2010. 20.     Several trial hearings were held in March 2005. It appears that the applicant was present at them and was assisted by a privately retained lawyer, Mr D. 21 .     According to the applicant, at the hearing of 27 March 2005 he asked the presiding judge to examine carefully his case, which had been “fabricated”. Apparently, the judge replied that he would not study the case as it had already been studied and investigated for a year by the Prosecutor General’s Office. In support of this allegation, the applicant submitted to the Court concordant written statements dated 16   September 2010 from two persons who had been present at the trial. Those people also stated that the applicant had then tried to read out his motions and requests, including a request to be heard; the judge had refused to hear the applicant but had admitted certain written submissions, including the applicant’s statement, to the file. 22 .     Allegedly, at some point during the trial the presiding judge dismissed an application lodged by the defence to hear two witnesses on its behalf (Ms Ka. And Mr Ve.), who had been guards at the building in which the bribe had allegedly been handed over and who had stated at the investigative stage that they had not seen it (see Mr M.’s statement at paragraph 26 below). An investigator had interviewed those persons during the preliminary investigation. It is unclear whether the interview records were admitted to the case file submitted to the trial court. 23 .     On 27 March 2005 the applicant left Belarus and arrived in Russia. He claimed that he had decided to leave Belarus on account of persecution and harassment by the domestic authorities. 24.     On 28 March 2005 the Moskovskiy District Court of Minsk ordered the applicant’s detention. 25.     It appears that, for unspecified reasons, the applicant’s lawyer, Mr   D., stopped participating in the trial hearings after the applicant’s departure. 26 .     By a judgment of 5 December 2005 the District Court convicted the applicant of taking a bribe and forgery of an official document. The applicant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in a strict-regime prison. The court also ordered confiscation of his property. It relied on various pieces of documentary evidence and numerous statements, in particular: -     Mr M.’s statement at the trial that the applicant had indicated to him that he was a member of a committee which might vote (or not) on the sale of a “pavilion” in Kryzhovka village that Mr M. had wanted to purchase; Mr   M. perceived the applicant’s statement as an extortion of a bribe and promised payment for a favourable outcome of the vote; the applicant had then telephoned him, announcing the favourable outcome; he had then handed over USD 550 to the applicant at the Le-Grand factory; -     the testimony of Ms P., secretary to the sales commission of the district Potrebsoyuz , who stated at the trial that the committee had decided to proceed with the registration of the body’s title to the pavilion and then to sell it; -     the testimony of Ms K., chairwoman of the above-mentioned committee, who stated at the trial that the committee had decided to register the body’s title to the pavilion and then to sell it; that the applicant had asked her to sign the minutes of the committee meeting reflecting such terms, which she had done; -     the testimony of Mr Y., who stated at the trial that he had been present at the committee meeting as a representative of a higher authority; he had stated at the meeting that the sale of the pavilion would require the higher authority’s approval; however, the committee had issued the decision to sell the pavilion; -     the testimony of Ms S., President of the sales commission of the district Potrebsoyuz , who stated at the investigative stage that P. had asked her commission to examine the possibility of selling the pavilion; she had sent a colleague to inspect the building but he had been unable to find it; in December 2003 the applicant had presented the sale proposal to the committee, whereas a representative of the higher authority had indicated that it had not approved any such sale; nevertheless, the committee had proceeded to vote for the sale; -     the statement of Mr Ye., who said at the investigative stage that having received documents relating to the sale of a building in Kryzhovka, representatives of the higher authority had tried to locate it but had been unable to do so; in December 2003 the higher authority had asked the district Potrebsoyuz to carry out an inquiry into the submission of false documents. 27 .     As follows from the text of the trial judgment, it could be challenged by way of an ordinary appeal. For unspecified reasons, the lawyer, Mr D., did not receive a copy of the trial judgment and did not appeal against it within the statutory time-limit. 28.     The trial judgment became final on 16 December 2005. 29 .     Following the institution of extradition proceedings (see below), in 2010 the applicant sought a supervisory review of the   2005 judgment against him. On 21   July 2010 the President of the Minsk City Court agreed to proceed with the request and applied to the Presidium of the City Court to have the sentence reduced in view of recent favourable legislative changes. At the same time, he maintained that the conviction was lawful and well ‑ founded. On the same date, the Presidium (comprising the President and five other judges) followed the President’s indications and reduced the prison term to four years. 30 .     The applicant then sought a supervisory review before the Supreme Court of Belarus. By a letter of 18 November 2010 the deputy President of the Supreme Court dismissed his application for a review. The judge ruled that the applicant’s conviction had been based on testimony from the person from whom he had extorted a bribe, and had been corroborated by other statements and written material. 31 .     In reply to a request from the applicant, in September 2011 the District Court sent him a copy of the trial transcript. However, the applicant has not submitted a copy thereof to the Court. 32 .     In 2013 the applicant lodged another application for a review with the Supreme Court of Belarus. By a letter of 21 May 2013 the First Deputy President of the Supreme Court dismissed the application. B.     Arrest and extradition proceedings in Russia 33.     The applicant arrived in Russia in March 2005. He did not apply for refugee status or temporary asylum under the Refugees Act. 34 .     On 7 July 2009 the applicant was arrested in Russia. When interviewed by an assistant to the St Petersburg transport prosecutor, he stated that he had left Belarus because he had been unlawfully persecuted by the Belarusian authorities. He opposed his possible extradition, stating that he “fear[ed] for [his] life and might be subjected to unlawful deprivation of liberty”. 35.     On 8 July 2009 the St Petersburg transport prosecutor ordered the applicant’s continued detention for forty days until 15 August 2009, awaiting receipt of a formal extradition request from Belarus. 36 .     On 29 July 2009 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Belarus sent a letter to the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia, seeking the applicant’s extradition in order to execute the trial judgment of 5 December 2005 (see paragraph 26 above). The letter read as follows: “We hereby provide assurances that [the applicant] will be prosecuted only for the offences which are listed in the extradition request and that, after serving the sentence, he will be allowed to leave Belarus and will not be removed from or surrendered by Belarus to another State without Russia’s consent. The extradition request does not aim at persecuting [the applicant] for political reasons or on account of his race, religion, ethnicity or political views ... We also provide assurances as to [the applicant’s] right, under Article 375 of the Belarusian Code of Criminal Procedure, to seek restoration of the time-limit for a cassation review of the trial judgment. If such an application is granted, the criminal case against him will be examined, upon his appeal, by the Cassation Section of the Minsk City Court, with the benefit of legal assistance. Moreover, pursuant to Article   408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [the applicant] has a possibility to seek a supervisory review of the trial judgment.” 37 .     On 10 August 2009 another Russian prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention until 7 January 2010, pending examination of the extradition request. On 13 August 2009 the applicant sought a judicial review under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP), arguing that his detention had been and continued to be in breach of Article 466 of the CCrP. The complaint was received by the Smolninskiy District Court of St   Petersburg on 19 August 2009. On 17   September 2009, while upholding the initial detention order of 8 July 2009, that court declared the ensuing detention order of 10 August 2009 unlawful because prosecutors did not have competence to decide on detention. The court held that the prosecutor in question should have applied to a court under Article   109 of the CCrP. The court then noted that the procedure under Article 125 of the CCrP did not authorise it to annul the impugned decision or to decide on a preventive measure such as remand in custody. Thus, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for release or for substituting detention with house arrest, for instance. However, it ordered the prosecutor to “remedy the violation of the law which has been identified by the court”. 38 .     The prosecutor’s office appealed. On 9 November 2009 the St   Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 17 September 2009. The appeal court did not order the applicant’s release, so he remained in detention. 39.     In the meantime, on 2 October 2009 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation granted the extradition request. The extradition order contained no findings relating to a risk of ill-treatment in respect of the applicant in Belarus. 40 .     The St Petersburg transport prosecutor’s office applied to the District Court for an extension of the applicant’s detention. At a hearing on 13   November 2009 the District Court refused to authorise the applicant’s detention, noting that pursuant to Article   109 of the CCrP, such a request should have been lodged within two months of the applicant’s arrest. The applicant was released after that court hearing. 41 .     It appears that for some time between August and November   2009 the applicant was kept in cells nos.   52 and 146 of St Petersburg detention centre no. 47/4, together with convicts. In January 2010 the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office considered that this had violated section 33 of Federal Law no. 103-FZ of 15 July 1995. 42.     The applicant sought a judicial review of the extradition order. Referring to the European Convention on Extradition of 1957 (see paragraph   48 below), he argued that prior to granting the extradition request, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office had not assessed whether it had to be refused since it was related to execution of a sentence imposed as a result of proceedings that had not afforded him the minimum guarantees of a fair trial. Namely, there had been no public hearing and his counsel had not taken part in the trial. The conviction had been merely based on a denunciation made by a person who himself had been under the pressure of a pending criminal investigation. The applicant pointed out that the Belarusian authorities had provided no assurances as regards the availability of a retrial, this time with the benefit of legal assistance, nor as regards amendment of the final trial judgment on account of recent favourable changes in Belarusian criminal legislation (see also, in this connection, paragraph 29 above). Article 464 of the Russian CCrP listed grounds for refusing extradition for the purpose of executing a sentence and also mentioned that it could be refused “on other lawful grounds”. The applicant argued that the above considerations constituted such lawful grounds, in view of Russia’s obligations under international law. 43.     On 22 July 2010 the St Petersburg City Court held a brief hearing (allegedly, lasting just fifteen minutes). Referring to the Court’s judgments in Koktysh v. Ukraine (no. 43707/07, 10 December 2009), and Kamyshev v.   Ukraine , (no. 3990/06, 20 May 2010), the applicant’s lawyer argued that the human-rights situation in Belarus was worsening and there were increasing negative tendencies as regards the problem of treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. She said that the applicant might be subjected to such treatment and that the Belarusian authorities should have submitted assurances to the contrary. The court, however, upheld the extradition order of 2   October 2009, stating as follows: “[The applicant’s] arguments relating to human-rights violations in Belarus are unsubstantiated and have no objective confirmation. He has submitted no substantiated information that he would be subjected to persecution on the grounds of race, religious or political beliefs or opinions, nationality, ethnic origin or membership of a specific social group. [The applicant] has not claimed asylum in Russia ... There are no grounds mentioned in Article 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to block the extradition ... There is no final judgment by a Russian court establishing obstacles to extraditing [the applicant], on account of Russian legislation or Russia’s international treaties.” 44 .     Having heard a prosecutor and a lawyer on behalf of the applicant, on 29 September 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment. The appellate court stated as follows: “Russian law makes provision for situations in which a criminal judgment may be issued without the defendant’s participation in the trial. This does not contravene international law. It transpires that a lawyer did participate in the trial ... [The applicant] was convicted of taking a bribe and forgery of an official document. Thus, his arguments concerning violations of human rights in Belarus are unsubstantiated.” 45.     The applicant went into hiding. It appears that, at least as of March 2016, he was still in Russia. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 46 .     Pursuant to Article 1 § 3 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP), the generally recognised principles and norms of international law and international treaties to which the Russian Federation is a party are constituent parts of the legislation of the Russian Federation regulating criminal proceedings. If an international treaty to which the Russian Federation is a party has laid down rules different from those stipulated by the CCrP, the rules of the international treaty must be applied. 47 .     Under Article 464 of the CCrP, extradition must be refused where the person concerned is a Russian citizen or has been granted asylum in Russia on account of possible persecution on grounds of race or religious beliefs, or on account of his membership of a particular social group or his political views. Extradition must be refused where there has been a final judgment “impeding extradition on account of the provisions of Russian legislation or international treaties to which the Russian Federation is a party”. In accordance with Ruling no. 11 of 14 June 2012 by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia, extradition may be refused where exceptional circumstances of the case disclose a threat to the person’s life and limb; on judicial review the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that there are no serious grounds for believing that the person is at risk of ill-treatment (paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Ruling). 48 .     Russia’s reservation, contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 10 December 1999 in relation to the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957, states as follows: “In accordance with Article 1 of the Convention the Russian Federation reserves the right to refuse extradition: a. if extradition is requested for the purpose of holding [a person] responsible before an   ad hoc   tribunal or by way of summary proceedings or for the purposes of carrying out a sentence rendered by an   ad hoc   tribunal or by summary proceedings when there are grounds for believing that in the course of these proceedings the person will not be or was not provided with the minimum guarantees set forth in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Protocol 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The terms ‘ad hoc   tribunal’ and ‘summary proceedings’ do not include any international criminal court with authority and jurisdiction recognised by the Russian Federation; b. if there are grounds for believing that the person requested for extradition in the requesting State was or will be exposed to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the course of the criminal proceedings, or the person was not or will not be provided with the minimum guarantees set forth in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 2, 3 and 4   of Protocol 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; ...” III.     OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL A.     Belarusian law 49 .     Under the Belarusian Code of Criminal Procedure of 1999 (which was applicable at the material time), a defendant’s presence during trial proceedings was mandatory, except if he or she had left Belarus and had been evading the trial (Article 294 of the Code). 50 .     Under Law no. 3514-XII of 13 January 1995 (applicable at the material time) district, town and regional judges were appointed by the President of Belarus (section 7 of the Law). Judges could be removed from office for a premeditated violation of legality or for an act that was incompatible with their high status (section 72). The removal decision was to be issued by the appointing authority, taking into account the report issued by the competent judicial qualification board. B.     Documents relating to the human-rights situation in Belarus 1.     United Nations documents 51 .     The applicant referred to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus (A/HRC/4/16, 15   January 2007, paragraphs 10 and 14) to the UN General Assembly, and to the UN General Assembly Resolution on the situation of human rights in Belarus (A/RES/62/169, 18 December 2007). 52.     The Court has also examined the following material. 53 .     The concluding observations (CAT/C/BLR/CO/4, 7 December 2011) on the fifth periodic report of Belarus, by the United Nations Committee against Torture, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “2. While welcoming the submission of the fourth report of Belarus, the Committee regrets that it was submitted nine years late, which prevented the Committee from conducting an analysis of the implementation of the Convention in the State party following its last review in 2000. ... Torture 10.     The Committee is deeply concerned over the numerous and consistent allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment of detainees in the State party. According to the reliable information presented to the   Committee, many persons deprived of their liberty are tortured, ill-treated and threatened by law enforcement officials, especially at the moment of apprehension and during pretrial detention. These confirm the concerns expressed by a number of international bodies, inter alia, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Human Rights Council (resolution 17/24), the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. While noting article 25 of the Constitution which prohibits torture, the Committee is concerned about the substantial gap between the legislative framework and its practical implementation (arts. 2, 4, 12 and 16). As a matter of urgency, the State party should take immediate and effective measures to prevent acts of torture and ill-treatment throughout the country, including by implementing policies that would produce measurable results in the eradication of torture and ill-treatment by State officials. Impunity and lack of independent investigation 11.     The Committee continues to be deeply concerned about the persistent and prevailing pattern of failure of officials to conduct prompt, impartial and full investigations into the many allegations of torture and ill-treatment and to prosecute alleged perpetrators, the lack of independent investigation and complaint mechanisms, the intimidation of the judiciary, the low level of cooperation with international monitoring bodies, which have led to serious underreporting and impunity (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 prompt, impartial and effective investigations into allegations of torture, in particular of pretrial detainees; (b)     Information suggesting that serious conflicts of interest prevent the existing complaints mechanisms from undertaking effective, impartial investigations into complaints received; (c)     The lack of congruence in information before the Committee regarding complaints presented by persons in detention. The Committee notes with serious concern the information about reprisals against those who file complaints and the cases of denial of the complaints made by detainees, including the cases of Ales Mikhalevich and Andrei Sannikov; and (d)     Reports indicating that no officials have been prosecuted for having committed acts of torture. According to information before the Committee, over the last 10 years, only four law enforcement officers have been charged with the less serious offence, “abuse of power or official authority” and “transgression of power or official authority” under articles 424 and 426 of the Criminal Code. The Committee urges the State party to take all necessary measures to ensure that all allegations of torture and ill-treatment by public officers are promptly investigated in the course of transparent and independent inquiries and that the perpetrators are punished according to the gravity of their acts. To that end, the State party should: (a)     Establish an independent and effective mechanism to facilitate submission of complaints by victims of torture and ill ‑ treatment to public authorities, including obtaining medical evidence in support of their allegations, and to ensure in practice that complainants are protected against any ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of their complaint or any evidence given. In particular, as previously recommended (A/56/44, para. 46 (c)), the State party should consider establishing an independent and impartial governmental and non-governmental national human rights commission with effective powers to, inter alia, promote human rights and investigate all complaints of human rights violations, in particular those pertaining to the implementation of the Convention; (b)     Publicly and unambiguously condemn the use of all forms of torture, addressing in particular law enforcement officers, the armed forces and prison staff, and including in its statements clear warnings that any person committing or participating in such acts or acting as an accomplice shall be held personally responsible before the law and liable to criminal penalties; (c)     Ensure that, in cases of alleged torture, suspects are suspended from duty immediately for the duration of the investigation, particularly if there is a risk that they might otherwise be in a position to obstruct the investigation; ...   Independence of the judiciary 12.     While noting that article 110 of the Constitution and article 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide for an independent judiciary, the Committee is deeply concerned that other provisions in Belarusian law, specifically those on discipline and removal of judges, their appointment and tenure, undermine these provisions and do not guarantee judges’ independence towards the executive branch of Government ... [T]he Committee urges the State party to: (a)     Guarantee the full independence of the judiciary in line with the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary; (b)     Ensure that judicial selection, appointment, compensation and tenure are made according to objective criteria concerning qualification, integrity, ability and efficiency; ...” 54.     The report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, 21 April   2016 (A/HRC/32/48), to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the relevant parts of which   state: “80.     The Special Rapporteur notes that allegations of torture continued to be brought to his attention. As in past years, and despite the repeated recommendations by the United Nations human rights bodies, such allegations rarely lead to any criminal investigation against perpetrators. The authorities still do not allow access to the penitentiary system to independent investigators or monitors ... 90.     The Special Rapporteur has also recommended that Belarus ensure the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment in law and in practice, and take measures to bring conditions of detention in places of deprivation of liberty into line with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and other relevant international and national law standards (A/HRC/26/44, para. 139 (j)). No reforms or preparations in this regard were discernible in the period under review.” 55.     The concluding observations (CAT/C/BLR/CO/5, 7 June 2018) on the fifth periodic report of Belarus, by the United Nations Committee against Torture, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “11.     The Committee welcomes recent amendments made by the State party to its Code on the Judicial System and the Status of Judges, which transferred responsibility for key aspects of the functioning of the judiciary from the Ministry of Justice to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the Committee remains concerned that the President of Belarus exerts significant control over the appointment, promotion and dismissal of judges or prosecutors, and at frequent reports that judges appear to take direction from the Executive in reaching decisions in sensitive cases relevant to the Convention. The Committee is also concerned that recent legislative changes provide for the possibility of judges being appointed for renewable five-year terms rather than indefinitely (arts.   2 and 6). 12.     The State party should strengthen the independence of the judiciary in line with the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, in part by reducing the control of the President over the appointment, promotion and dismissal of judges and providing them with security of tenure. ... 13.     The Committee continues to be deeply concerned by reports that the practice of torture and ill-treatment is widespread and that the State party’s authorities are presently failing to conduct prompt, impartial and full investigations into such allegations and to prosecute the alleged perpetrators, as reflected in the information provided by the State party. For example, of the 614 reports of acts constituting torture or ill-treatment received by the State party’s Investigative Committee and other relevant officials between 2012 and 2015, only 10 were subject to criminal investigation under article 426 (3) of the Criminal Code, none of which had reportedly resulted in a criminal conviction as of 2018. The Committee is concerned at reports that the Investigative Committee lacks independence from the Executive branch and does not have specialized units tasked with investigating allegations of torture and ill ‑ treatment. The Committee is further concerned that the State party did not provide information in response to its request for examples of cases in which officials accused of torture were suspended from duty pending an investigation.” 56 .     The concluding observations (CCPR/C/BLR/CO/5, October 2018) on the fifth periodic report of Belarus, by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “29.     The Committee, while observing the note added to article 128 of the Criminal Code in 2015 that specifically defines torture, is concerned that shortcomings in the definition and its applicability remain, as not all acts that constitute torture are covered by the definition and the penalties for torture are not commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The Committee is also concerned at continued allegations that: (a) law enforcement officers resort to the use of torture and ill-treatment in order to extract confessions from suspects and that such confessions are used as evidence in court; (b)   allegations of torture and ill-treatment are often not investigated, and the Investigative Committee lacks the required independence to conduct effective investigations into such allegations; and (c) medical units called to document injuries inflicted on prisoners are structurally part of the prison system. The Committee notes with concern the State party’s statement that no convictions under articles 128 and 394 of the Criminal Code took place until 2016, and regrets that no updated information was provided in that regard ... 30.     The State party should take vigorous measures to eradicate torture and ill ‑ treatment, inter alia, by:   (a)     Bringing the definition of torture into conformity with article 7 of the Covenant and other internationally accepted standards, including by ensuring that the crime of torture is not subject to a statute of limitations and is punished with sanctions that are commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime;   (b)     Providing law enforcement officials with adequate training on torture prevention and humane treatment;   (c)     Ensuring independent and reliable medical examinations and recording of injuries;   (d)     Ensuring that confessions obtained in violation of article 7 of the Covenant are not accepted by courts under any circumstances;   (e)     Ensuring that all allegations of torture and ill-treatment are promptly and thoroughly investigated by an effective and fully independent and impartial body; that perpetrators are prosecuted; that those convicted are punished with sanctions commensurate with the gravity of the crime; and that victims and, where appropriate, their families are provided with full reparation, including rehabilitation and adequate compensation ...” 2.     Other documents 57 .     For other relevant material, see various references and citations in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Kozhayev v. Russia (no.   60045/10, §§   55-59, 5   June 2012), and Y.P. and L.P. v. France (no.   32476/06, §§   38 ‑ 43, 2   September 2010). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 3, 6 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 58.     The applicant complained that he had been, and remained, exposed to a risk of ill-treatment in Belarus, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in the event of his extradition there. He also argued that he had had no effective remedies for his grievance, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. 59.     The applicant also alleged that he had been sentenced to imprisonment in Belarus as a result of proceedings which amounted to a flagrant denial of justice. Thus his extradition there to serve the sentence would be in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. He also argued that he had had no effective remedy for this complaint, in particular given that the courts had not examined his related grievances. 60.     Article 3 of the Convention reads: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 61.     Article 6 of the Convention reads: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” 62.     Article 13 of the Convention reads: “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.     The parties’ submissions 1.     Article 3 of the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 (a)     The Government 63.     The Government submitted that, in its extradition request, the Belarusian Prosecutor General’s Office had provided assurances that the request was not aimed at political persecution against the applicant, nor did it relate to his race, religion, nationality or political views (see paragraph 36 above). The applicant’s allegations about violations of human rights in Belarus had not been substantiated and remained unsubstantiated. He had not submitted any valid proof that he ran a risk of being persecuted on the grounds of his race, religion, nationality, social status or political views. 64.     Prior to issuing the extradition order, the deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation had verified that there were no grounds listed in Article 464 of the Russian CCrP which would prevent extradition (see paragraph 47 above). In particular, he had ascertained that the applicant had not received asylum in Russia, and that there had been no final court decision acknowledging any obstacle to his extradition. When reviewing the matter, the Supreme Court of Russia had dealt with the applicant’s arguments pertaining to a potential violation of his rights in Belarus in the event of extradition (see paragraph 44 above). The Supreme Court had considered that the assurances submitted by the Belarusian authorities sufficed in order to dispel any doubts about such a risk. In the Government’s view, those assurances were sufficiently specific and clear. The Government indicated that they had no evidence of any breach of this type of assurance in the extradition procedure on the part of the Belarusian authorities. The effectiveness of such assurances could be ensured on account of the existing international treaties, in coordination with the Belarusian Prosecutor General’s Office, for instance, within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States Coordination Council of Prosecutor Generals’ Offices, or via diplomatic channels. 65.     As to Article 13 of the Convention, the Government argued that the applicant had had effective remedies and had used them, namely by way of seeking a judicial review of the extradition order. Moreover, prior to that, when interviewed on 7 July 2009 by the assistant to the St Petersburg transport prosecutor, the applicant had used the opportunity to raise his concerns relating to a risk to his life or limb in the event of his extradition to Belarus (see paragraph 34 above). (b)     The applicant 66.     The applicant pointed out that both in the domestic proceedings and before the Court, he had referred to a “risk of ill-treatment” or “treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention”. In the event of his extradition, he would run such a risk for two reasons. First, the human-rights situation in Belarus was unsatisfactory and continued to worsen. That had indeed been the case in 2016 when he had submitted his observations to the Court. He referred in this connection to various international reports (namely, United Nations reports of 2013 and 2015), Belarus’s continued failure to comply with its international obligations, and the decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee in individual applications. Secondly, following his complaints about unlawful actions and corruption within the district Potrebsoyuz , criminal charges had been “fabricated” against him (see paragraphs 10-13 and 16 above). Various procedural violations had occurred during the investigation and the trial in March 2005 (for a summary of the applicant’s arguments, see paragraphs 71-74 below under Article 6 of the Convention). In his observations submitted in 2016, he also mentioned that the Belarusian authorities would “retaliate” for his complaints to the OSCE, the Court and the United Nations (see paragraph   18 above). 67.     The applicant stated that the respondent Government had not refuted any of his above arguments relating to the risk of ill-treatment, but had confined their reasoning to the assurances given by the Belarusian Prosecutor General’s Office. The applicant insisted, however, that the extradition request of 29 July 2009 contained no assurances relating to (and even less dispelling any doubt about) the risk of ill-treatment in the event of his extradition (see paragraph 36 above). No such assurances had been sought by the Russian authorities and none had been given. 2.     Article 6 of the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 (a)     The Government 68.     The Government submitted that in its extradition request the Belarusian Prosecutor General’s Office had provided assurances regarding the applicant’s right to seek restoration of the statutory time-limit, under Article 375 of the Belarusian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP), for appealing against the trial judgment by way of a cassation review. If such an application were successful, the criminal case against the applicant would be examined by the Cassation Section of the Minsk Town Court and the applicant would benefit from a right to legal assistance. Moreover, pursuant to Article 408 of the Belarusian CCrP, the applicant could lodge an application for a supervisory review. 69.     Pursuant to Article 463 of the Russian CCrP, a court reviewing an extradition order could not delve into matters relating to a foreigner’s criminal guilt but had to confine the review to whether the extradition order was in compliance with Russian legislation and international treaties to which the Russian Federation was a party. When reviewing the extradition order in respect of the applicant, the court had had no reason to doubt the trial judgment issued in respect of him by the Moskovskiy District Court of Minsk. Both Belarusian and Russian legislation provided for exceptions to the rule that a criminal judgment could not be delivered in the absence of a defendant. This approach did not contradict international law. Moreover, as indicated in the trial judgment, the applicant had been represented by a lawyer during the trial. 70.     Prior to issuing the extradition order, the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation had verified that there had been no grounds listed in Article 464 of the Russian CCrP whic