CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 29 avril 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s590A3EF4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s25DDDC2E { width:136.58pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4177C27D { width:193.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAB7E41E7 { width:216.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s78CB8FCF { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7683EE23 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.46pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2E2A4494 { margin-left:7.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7F5AC4A { margin-left:4.36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s95D4734E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:33.56pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE1F13544 { margin-left:6.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sFC5192E5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:50.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s12B939F1 { width:9.38pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB4F4A965 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:50.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-21.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7788A309 { width:8.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6A14C109 { width:143.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA8208715 { width:9.2pt; display:inline-block } .s7BF29C1E { width:139.76pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sDBDA26D2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right }     GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF KHASANOV AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15)     JUDGMENT Art 3 • Extradition • No real individual risk of ill-treatment in case of extradition of ethnic Uzbeks to Kyrgyzstan • Three-tier ex   nunc risk assessment of situation in destination country, in general and in respect of the group in question, and of individual circumstances • Ex   nunc principle constituting safeguard where significant time elapsed between domestic decisions and the Court’s examination of Art   3 complaint • Risk assessment essentially factual and amenable to revision by the Court in light of changing circumstances • Kyrgyzstan’s current general situation not warranting total ban on extraditions • No basis for concluding that ethnic Uzbeks constituted a group still systematically exposed to ill ‑ treatment • Applicants’ individual circumstances duly considered by domestic courts   STRASBOURG 29 April 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano, President ,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Síofra O’Leary,   Yonko Grozev,   Ksenija Turković,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Aleš Pejchal,   Faris Vehabović,   Dmitry Dedov,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Tim Eicke,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Lado Chanturia,   Raffaele Sabato,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges , and Johan Callewaert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2021 and 9 February 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in two applications (nos.   28492/15 and 49975/15) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Kyrgyz nationals, Mr Turdyvay Urunbayevich Khasanov and Mr Shavkatbek Salyzhanovich Rakhmanov (“the applicants”), on 15 June and 11 October 2015 respectively. Having originally been designated by the initials T.K. and S.R. in the proceedings before the Chamber of the Third Section, the applicants subsequently requested that their names be disclosed and that the anonymity and confidentiality previously granted under Rule 33 and Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court be lifted. 2.     The applicants were represented by Ms N. Yermolayeva, Mr   K.   Zharinov, Ms D. Trenina and Ms E. Davidyan, lawyers practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin and Mr M. Galperin, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in this office, Mr M. Vinogradov. 3.     The applicants, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, alleged that they would be exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment on account of their Uzbek ethnic origin in the event of their extradition to Kyrgyzstan. 4.     On 16 June and 12 October 2015 respectively, the Court indicated to the respondent Government, under Rule 39, that the applicants should not be extradited or otherwise involuntarily removed from Russia to Kyrgyzstan or another country for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. It was also decided that the cases should be granted priority under Rule 41. 5.     The applications were allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1). On 16 June 2015 and 10 March 2016 respectively, the Government were given notice of the above-mentioned complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. 6.     On 15 October 2019 a Chamber of the Third Section, composed of Paul   Lemmens, President, Helen Keller, Dmitry Dedov, Alena Poláčková, María Elósegui, Gilberto Felici, and Erik Wennerström, judges, and Stephen   Phillips, Section Registrar, delivered its judgment. The Chamber unanimously joined the two applications, declared them admissible and held by five votes to two that there would be no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the event of the applicants’ extradition to Kyrgyzstan. Two separate opinions by Judges Keller and Elósegui were annexed to the judgment. 7.     By a letter of 7 February 2020, the applicants requested the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention. The panel of the Grand Chamber granted the request on 15   April 2020. 8.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 9.     The applicants and the Government each filed further written observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). 10.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 20 January 2021; on account of the public-health crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, it was held via video-conference. The webcast of the hearing was made public on the Court’s Internet site on the following day. There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   M. Galperin , Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights,   Agent , Mr   P. Smirnov, Ms   O. Ocheretyanaya , Ms   Z. Bereza , Mr   S. Grigorenko, Mr   S. Klykovskiy, Ms   O. Zinchenko , Ms   K. Dzhabbarova ,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicants Ms   N. Yermolayeva , Mr   K. Zharinov ,   Counsel .   The Court heard addresses by Mr Galperin, Ms Yermolayeva and Mr   Zharinov and the replies given by them to the questions put by the judges. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 11.     The applicants are Kyrgyz nationals of ethnic Uzbek origin. The circumstances of their case may be summarised as follows. Events of June 2010 in southern Kyrgyzstan 12 .     According to various international reports, in June 2010 intercommunal violence in the provinces of Osh and Jalal-Abad in southern Kyrgyzstan left more than 400 people dead, 2,000 wounded and thousands displaced internally and externally, and caused extensive damage to property. This region is home to sizeable Uzbek communities – around 14% of Kyrgyzstan’s overall population – living in the historic urban and rural centres, and growing numbers of Kyrgyz residents who have migrated from rural areas. The size of ethnic Uzbek communities in the major cities of the Osh and Jalal-Abad provinces ranges from one-fifth to half of the population. The 2010 ethnic clashes took place against the background of the political instability following the overthrow of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev in April 2010 and persisting social and political tensions created by the post ‑ Soviet territorial and ethnic division between Kyrgyzstan and the neighbouring Uzbekistan. Application no. 28492/15 ( Khasanov v. Russia ) 13.     Mr Khasanov (“the first applicant”) was born in 1957. Until 2010 he had been living in Osh, Kyrgyzstan. He arrived in Russia in July 2010. 14.     On 13 September 2010 criminal proceedings were instituted against the first applicant in Kyrgyzstan on charges of aggravated misappropriation of approximately 18,500 euros (EUR). It was alleged that, as the managing director of a private company, he had received money from four other companies in business transactions but had spent the sums in question on his personal needs. 15 .     On 13 November 2010 he was charged in absentia . The relevant part of the notification of the charges stated the following: “Turdyvay Urunbayevich Khasanov, between 23 May 2008 and 5 November 2009, acting as the managing director of Altyn Alco LLC and taking advantage of his official position, in the course of his business relations with Ysabay and K LLC received 726,366 [Kyrgyz] som from its managing director, S. [He also received money] from a number of sole proprietors [private entrepreneurs]: A. – 195,000 som, S. – 87,027 som, B. – 49,415 som, A. – 22,957 som, amounting to 1,080,765 som in total, which he did not record and which he spent on his personal needs.” 16.     The Kyrgyz authorities subsequently ordered the first applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention and issued an international search-and-arrest warrant bearing his name. 17.     On 11 July 2013 the applicant was apprehended in Russia; subsequently, his detention was ordered and extended by the Russian courts. He was released on 2 April 2014 and currently resides in Verkhneye Mukhanovo, Oryol Region. Extradition proceedings 18 .     On 30 July 2013 the Kyrgyz prosecution authorities requested the first applicant’s extradition on the above-mentioned charges. The request contained various assurances that he would be treated properly, including (a)   guarantees against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) no political or discriminatory grounds for prosecution; and (c) every opportunity to defend himself and have access to a lawyer. On 5   February 2014 the Kyrgyz authorities extended the assurances by adding that the applicant would receive visits from Russian diplomatic staff at his places of detention after the transfer. 19.     On 21 February 2014 the first applicant’s extradition was authorised by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. On the same day the Deputy Prosecutor General sent a letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the pending extradition proceedings and requested cooperation in monitoring the assurances provided by the Kyrgyz authorities. The relevant parts of the letter read as follows: “The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Kyrgyz Republic has provided the necessary assurances in respect of [the applicant’s] rights, including the absence of persecution on ethnic grounds, and guarantees against torture and other prohibited treatment and punishment. At the same time, the recent practice of the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates the critical attitude of the Court to the extradition of individuals of ‘non-title’ [нетитульная] ethnic origin to Kyrgyzstan on account of their vulnerability and the risk of prohibited treatment. In Mahmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia the European Court, ruling in favour of the applicant, indicated that [the assurances] given by the authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic, by themselves and in the absence of a monitoring mechanism, were insufficient to protect [an individual] from prohibited treatment. Given this practice, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Kyrgyz Republic has provided extended assurances that [in the event of the applicant’s transfer] the competent authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic will ensure that Russian diplomatic staff have access to the detention facility [where the applicant is to be detained] in order to monitor respect for his rights.” It appears from the text that similar letters were sent to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in all cases where the Kyrgyz authorities had provided similar extended assurances. 20.     The first applicant challenged the extradition decision in court, referring to the fact that he belonged to a vulnerable ethnic group and thus ran a real risk of persecution and ill-treatment. 21.     On 2 April 2014 the Oryol Regional Court ruled in favour of the first applicant’s complaint and set aside the extradition decision as unlawful. Referring to the case-law of the Court, the Regional Court concluded that the applicant belonged to a vulnerable ethnic group which ran the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, and that the assurances given by the Kyrgyz authorities might be insufficient to mitigate that risk, given doubts about how these assurances functioned in practice. It further considered that according to the migration authorities’ report, the political, social and economic situation in Kyrgyzstan remained “complex”. The applicant was immediately released from detention. 22.     The prosecutor’s office appealed, referring to, among other arguments, the following three points. Firstly, the applicant was suspected of financial crimes and accordingly there had been no issue of political or ethnic persecution as such. Secondly, referring to the Court’s judgment in Latipov v.   Russia (no. 77658/11, 12 December 2013), the prosecutor’s office contended that the applicant could not rely only on the general situation in the country, but had to present evidence of individualised risks. Thirdly, while acknowledging the Court’s conclusions about the persecution of ethnic Uzbeks who had been involved in the 2010 clashes in its judgment in Makhmudzhan Ergashev v.   Russia (no.   49747/11, 16   October 2012), the prosecutor’s office argued that the Kyrgyz authorities’ assurances in the applicant’s case were sufficient and contained extensive guarantees that Russian diplomatic staff would have access to detention facilities. 23.     On 28 May 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Regional Court. The prosecutor’s office lodged an application for a supervisory review. 24 .     On 4 February 2015 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, sitting as a supervisory court, annulled the previous judgments and remitted the case for reconsideration. The Presidium noted that the Regional Court had relied on the Court’s case-law and the migration authorities’ characterisation of the situation in Kyrgyzstan as “complex”, but considered that the lower courts’ conclusions were based on a general description of the situation without any individual assessment of the risks faced by the first applicant. The relevant part of its decision read as follows: “A court assessing the risk of a human rights violation must not only study the general human rights situation in the requesting State, but also weigh the specific circumstances of the case, which might in their totality demonstrate the presence or absence of serious grounds to believe that a person might be subjected to [cruel] treatment or punishment. The law should be interpreted as prescribing that a court assessing extradition ‑ related issues needs to consider the statements of the individual [concerned], information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the human rights situation in the requesting State, the assurances provided by the requesting State, as well as other documents and material. ... The material in the case file demonstrates that [the first applicant] is accused of a crime that did not have an ethnic or political character and was committed between 2008 and 2009, well before the events of June 2010. In his statements to the Russian authorities on 11 July 2013 [the first applicant did not claim that he had suffered persecution on political or other grounds or that he had arrived in Russia with a view to seeking asylum.] These statements, which could have influenced the [Regional Court’s] conclusions, were not examined. Moreover, [the Regional Court] did not duly assess the information from the Prosecutor General’s Office ... on the assurances provided by the competent authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic that Russian diplomatic staff would have access to the place of [the applicant’s] detention. The trial court, in setting aside the extradition decision, referred to the migration authorities’ report, but only to the part describing the political, social and economic situation in Kyrgyzstan as ‘complex’, and neglected the other part, which listed the measures adopted by the government of Kyrgyzstan in order to enhance respect for human rights and secure the rights of ethnic minorities.” 25 .     On 8 April 2015 the Oryol Regional Court, reconsidering the first applicant’s complaint against the extradition decision, followed the reasoning of the Presidium of the Supreme Court and dismissed the complaint. It specifically noted that in line with the Court’s case-law, the general situation in a given country might not justify a total ban on extraditions. The Regional Court concluded that the applicant did not face individualised risks given the assurances provided by the Kyrgyz authorities, the possibility of their monitoring by Russian diplomatic staff, the fact that certain progress had been made in respect of human rights in Kyrgyzstan, the financial nature of the crime, and the refusal of his asylum application by the migration authorities. The relevant part of its decision read as follows: “By a letter of 21 August 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kyrgyzstan guaranteed that [the first applicant] would be ... provided with all the facilities for his defence, including the assistance of lawyers, that he would not be subjected to torture, ill ‑ treatment or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and that the extradition request did not have the aim of persecuting him on political or racial grounds, or on the basis of ethnicity or religious or political views. On 5   February 2014 additional assurances were provided that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kyrgyzstan would ensure the access of Russian diplomatic staff to [the first applicant] at the place of his detention ... Contrary to the complaints, there are no grounds to doubt the assurances provided by the Kyrgyz authorities... The court is mindful of the European Court’s position that the general situation in a requesting State may not be the [sole] ground for a total ban on extraditions to that State. The analytical materials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs demonstrate that Kyrgyzstan respects its international obligations. The material in the case file demonstrates that [the first applicant] is charged with committing an economic crime of a common criminal nature in 2008 and 2009 in Kyrgyzstan, [a crime] which has no political or ethnic character and is not related to the events of June 2010. In his statement of 11 July 2013 [the first applicant] did not argue that he was being persecuted in Kyrgyzstan [on any ground] ... He did not justify his stay in Russia by any intention to seek asylum in connection with [any] persecution ... Accordingly, no grounds have been established which could prevent [the first applicant’s] extradition, under international treaties or Russian legislation. ...” 26.     On 17 June 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the lower court’s judgment in a final decision. Refugee status proceedings 27.     On 14 August 2013 the first applicant applied for refugee status, referring to risks of persecution in Kyrgyzstan on ethnic grounds. 28.     On 20 November 2013 the Oryol Regional Department of the Federal Migration Service dismissed the application. In particular, the Regional Department referred to (1) the absence of any allegations of past or current ill-treatment on the part of the applicant or his relatives residing in Kyrgyzstan, (2) the applicant’s official statements that he had never participated in political or religious organisations, (3) his cancellation of his permanent residence in Kyrgyzstan five months after his arrival in Russia, (4)   the fact that the initial questioning in his criminal case had taken place in May 2010 and that he had concealed that fact in one of the migration interviews, (5) his description of the June 2010 events in only vague and general terms without any specific details relating to his own situation, and   (6) the fact that in his first interview in Russia he had expressly stated that he did not intend to seek asylum in Russia. Accordingly, the Regional Department concluded that the applicant’s arrival in Russia had not been related to the events of June 2010 and had been a strategy to avoid criminal prosecution for economic crimes. 29.     On 15 January 2014 the Federal Migration Service endorsed the lower authority’s analysis and rejected the application in a final administrative decision. 30.     The first applicant challenged that decision in the courts, referring to the fact that he belonged to a vulnerable ethnic group and thus ran a real risk of persecution and ill-treatment. 31.     On 17 June 2014 the first applicant’s complaint was dismissed by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow. He did not lodge an appeal. Application no. 49975/15 ( Rakhmanov v. Russia ) 32.     Mr Rakhmanov (“the second applicant”) was born in 1986. Until 2010 the second applicant had been living in Suzak, Jalal-Abad Region, Kyrgyzstan. He arrived in Russia in January 2011. 33 .     On 24 July 2012 the second applicant was charged in absentia with violent crimes related to the events of June 2010 (see paragraph 12 above), in particular illegal purchase and carriage of firearms and explosive substances, committed as part of an organised criminal group, participation in violent mass riots involving arson, destruction of property and the use of firearms and explosive substances and devices, murder of individuals by means entailing danger to the public and particular cruelty, and based on ethnic hatred, committed as part of an organised group, violent aggravated robbery with the use of weapons, committed as part of an organised group, as well as intentional destruction of property, and causing serious damage by way of arson or another means entailing danger to the public. According to the charges, the crimes were ethnically motivated and directed against people of Kyrgyz ethnic origin. 34 .     The relevant part of the notification of the charges stated the following: “[The second applicant], having a criminal intent, joined a criminal group organised by A.S. and U.A. in order to commit murders, robberies and destruction of property based on ethnic hatred. In order to commit the above-mentioned crimes, the group, joined by [the second applicant], illegally purchased, kept and carried firearms, knives and iron reinforcements. Moreover, they also produced and carried bladed sticks 1.5 metres long, and bottles containing a flammable substance ... Furthermore, while continuing to commit crimes, on 12 June 2010 [the second applicant], together with A.S. and U.A., at the 564 km point on the Bishkek-Osh highway, which is of strategic importance for the Kyrgyz Republic, in the vicinity of the Sanpa cotton-processing plant situated in Topurak-Bel in the Suzakskiy district, spilt crude oil and scattered rubble down the road and blocked it with a tractor and other agricultural machinery. These actions created particular obstacles for vehicles going down the highway. Thus, [the second applicant], together with other members of his group, actively participated in violent riots, arson and destruction of property based on ethnic hatred, attacked drivers and passengers of vehicles passing down the highway, and robbed them ... [The second applicant], continuing to commit crimes, on 12 June 2010, in conspiracy with the criminal group, using firearms, stopped vehicles going down the highway with a number of Osh residents as passengers: K.M. and K.A. There were also residents of the Bazar-Korgonskiy region: A.M., K.N., M.A., Z.M. and K.S. They violently took them out of their cars, beat them up in a particularly cruel manner with bladed sticks and iron reinforcements, and stabbed them in different parts of their bodies. Gunshot wounds were caused to A.M., K.N., M.A., Z.M. and K.S. The victims K.M., A.M., K.N., M.A., Z.M. and K.S. died immediately of the wounds sustained. K.A. died in the city hospital of Jalal-Abad. ... [The subsequent section contained details of the victims’ post-mortem reports.] Furthermore, the criminal group, joined by [the second applicant], continuing to commit crimes, stopped vehicles going down the highway, threatening them with firearms, explosive substances and devices (bottles containing a flammable substance), and robbed the drivers and passengers. As a result, the vehicle U [costing 4,000 som] ... was completely destroyed with stones, sticks and iron reinforcements ... Furthermore, the vehicle M [costing 237,500 som] was plundered and disassembled, which caused [the company that owned it] ... pecuniary damage. ...” 35.     The Kyrgyz authorities subsequently ordered the second applicant’s pre-trial detention and issued an international search-and-arrest warrant bearing his name. 36.     On 15 April 2014 the applicant was apprehended in Russia; subsequently, his detention was ordered and extended by the Russian courts. He was released on 15 October 2015 and currently resides in Elektrogorsk, Moscow Region. Extradition proceedings 37 .     On 13 May 2014 the Kyrgyz prosecution authorities requested the second applicant’s extradition on the above-mentioned charges. The request contained various assurances that he would be treated properly, including (a)   guarantees against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) no political or discriminatory grounds for prosecution; (c)   every opportunity to defend himself and have access to a lawyer; and (d)   visits from Russian diplomatic staff at his places of detention after the transfer. 38.     On 8 July 2015 the second applicant’s extradition was authorised by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. 39.     The applicant challenged that decision in the courts, referring to the fact that he belonged to a vulnerable ethnic group and thus ran a real risk of persecution and ill-treatment at the hands of the Kyrgyz authorities. 40 .     On 31 August 2015 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the second applicant’s complaint, rejecting his allegations of a risk of ill ‑ treatment. Referring to the practice of the Court and the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, the Regional Court stressed that besides the general characterisation of the situation in a given country, an individual alleging the existence of a real risk of ill-treatment had to substantiate it with regard to his personal circumstances. The Regional Court took due note of the international reports presented by the applicant’s representative but concluded that the applicant had failed to prove the existence of any individualised risks. The relevant part of its decision read as follows: “[The migration authorities refused the second applicant’s requests for refugee status.] In particular, the ... decisions noted that at the beginning of 2011 [the second applicant] left Kyrgyzstan for Russia to seek employment and not for the purpose of seeking asylum ... [The second applicant] has not provided convincing arguments supporting his fear of persecution in his country of origin ... [The second applicant’s] arguments concerning the ‘falsification’ of evidence in the criminal case file by the law-enforcement authorities of Kyrgyzstan are devoid of any proof and contradict the principle of mutual recognition of official documents between [Contracting States] ... The court takes into account the written assurances given by the foreign State ... [and the] application of such assurances should be considered a reliable instrument against prohibited treatment [, and this] corresponds to the requirements of international law. In rejecting the lawyer’s arguments ... concerning the widespread practice of ill ‑ treatment of ethnic Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan, the court notes the following ... The case material demonstrates that [charges] against [the second applicant] relate to acts against public order, life and health. His criminal prosecution – contrary to his and his lawyer’s statements – does not stem from a State policy or from persecution by the Kyrgyz authorities of certain groups of individuals, including ethnic Uzbeks. The court takes into consideration the arguments and documents submitted by [the second applicant’s] defence, including extracts from [the reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch], which indicate that torture is used in Kyrgyzstan against accused persons and that ethnic Uzbeks who are accused [in connection with the 2010 events] constitute a vulnerable group. However, this circumstance alone cannot serve as a sufficient basis for refusing [the second applicant’s extradition], for the following reasons. [Fighting impunity for criminal acts is a cornerstone principle of international cooperation in criminal matters.] During the interview of 15 April 2014 after his arrest in Russia, [the second applicant] stated that until August 2010 he had resided in the village of Suzak ... In June 2010 ‘young Uzbeks from our village only blocked the road to the village, while the Kyrgyz tried to take over our village Suzak, but the guys did not let them do it. I did not take part in all this. I am not being persecuted on political grounds.’ In court [the second applicant] stated that he had not engaged in political or civic activities in Kyrgyzstan. The above demonstrates that ... the criminal prosecution of [the second applicant] is related to the commission of socially dangerous acts and not to discrimination on ethnic grounds ... [Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture requires an examination] not only of the existence of grave and mass human rights violations, but also of a key question – whether there are individual risks of torture or other prohibited treatment ... This risk must be sufficiently real. [The UN Committee Against Torture in its decisions has stated that the mere existence of mass and grave violations of human rights cannot in itself serve as the ground for concluding that a person risks ill-treatment on returning to a particular country. There must be other information giving ground for believing that the person faces a personal risk. This risk must not be speculative, but predictable, personal and real.] As regards the general situation in a country the European Court of Human Rights has stated that certain consideration should be given to recent reports of [international non-governmental organisations – NGOs]. However, the sole possibility of ill-treatment due to the unstable situation in the receiving country may not lead to a violation of Article   3. When the sources available to the Court only describe the general situation, specific allegations of an applicant require confirmation by other proof in every case. Such proof has not been presented by [the second applicant] and his lawyer to the court. ... Having regard to the above conclusions and being guided by the provisions of international treaties and their interpretation by the [treaty bodies], the court concludes that the available material does not demonstrate the existence of an individual risk of ill ‑ treatment of [the second applicant] in the event of his extradition. ...” 41 .     On 14 October 2015 an appeal lodged by the second applicant was dismissed by a final decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court observed that the Kyrgyz authorities had provided relevant assurances regarding the applicant’s proper treatment (see paragraph   37 above) and that the lower court had been correct in considering those assurances to be a reliable mechanism against treatment prohibited by international law. Refugee status proceedings 42.     On 26 May 2014 the second applicant applied for refugee status, referring to the risk of persecution in Kyrgyzstan on ethnic grounds. 43 .     On 3 July 2014 the Belgorod Regional Department of the Federal Migration Service refused the application. In particular, the Regional Department referred to (1) the second applicant’s repeated travel to and from Kyrgyzstan after June 2010 and his obtaining a new passport in Kyrgyzstan several months after arriving in Russia, (2) the fact that all nine members of his close family still resided in their native village in the south of Kyrgyzstan, were financially dependent on the applicant, and had never alleged any persecution, and (3) the fact that he had never participated in political, civil or religious organisations. Accordingly, the Regional Department concluded that the applicant had arrived in Russia for economic reasons and as a strategy to avoid criminal prosecution in his home country. 44 .     On 23 September 2014 the Federal Migration Service upheld the lower authority’s conclusions and rejected the application in a final administrative decision. The Federal Migration Service emphasised that the second applicant would benefit from the monitoring mechanism of the Russian diplomatic services in Kyrgyzstan. 45.     The second applicant challenged that decision in the courts, referring to the fact that he belonged to a vulnerable ethnic group and thus ran a real risk of persecution and ill ‑ treatment. 46.     On 16 January 2015 the applicant’s complaint was dismissed by the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 8 June 2015 by the Moscow City Court. RELEVANT Legal framework AND PRACTICE Domestic law and practice 47.     A summary of the domestic law concerning extraditions which was applicable at the relevant time was provided in Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no.   71386/10, §§ 70-75, 25   April 2013). 48.     In its Ruling no. 11 of 14 June 2012, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation provided guidance to the lower courts on the interpretation and application of the domestic and international norms in extradition cases. The relevant parts of the Ruling state the following: “... 11.     Under Article 2 of the European Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, ... a person may not be extradited if a crime is punished by the death penalty under the laws of the requesting State, if that State does not provide assurances, which the Russian Federation would consider sufficient, that a death sentence will not be enforced. Such assurances may be legal provisions prohibiting the use of the death penalty in the requesting State, [or] assurances by the law ‑ enforcement or other competent authorities ... that a death sentence will not be enforced. 12.     The courts should consider that under Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee, and under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture ..., a person is not subject to extradition [either] when there are serious grounds for believing that the person may be subjected to torture in the requesting State [or] when that person may be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The courts should be aware that under Article 3 of the European Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, inhuman treatment or punishment occurs when it was premeditated, applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering. Degrading treatment or punishment exists, in particular, when it creates feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority. ... 13.     Extradition may also be refused if exceptional circumstances disclose that it may entail a danger to the person’s life and health on account of, among other things, his or her age or physical condition. 14.     The courts should consider that under [the domestic legislation and] Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture ..., in cases concerning appeals against extradition authorisations, it is the duty of [the prosecution authorities] to prove that there are no serious grounds for believing that the person concerned may be sentenced to the death penalty, subjected to ill-treatment or persecuted because of his race, religious beliefs, nationality, ethnic or social origin or political opinions. Under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, as interpreted by the UN Human Rights Committee, in determining whether the above circumstances are present or absent the courts should assess both the general situation regarding human rights in the requesting State and the specific circumstances of the given case, which, viewed in their entirety, may disclose the existence ... of serious grounds for believing that a person might be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In this connection the courts may consider, for example, the statements of the person concerned and of any witnesses, the information about the state of human rights in the requesting State provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, any assurances given by the requesting State, as well as documents and reports of international non-treaty and treaty bodies ... The courts should evaluate the claims of the person concerned against the entirety of the available evidence. The courts should consider that the assessment given by international non-treaty and treaty bodies of the general situation with respect to human rights in the requesting State may change over time ...” 49.     In Russia, prosecutors dealing with extradition requests are guided by the directives of the Prosecutor General. Directive 212/35 of 18 October 2008, which was in force at the material time, stated as follows, in so far as relevant: “In order to ensure compliance with international obligations and the legislation of Russia on [extraditions] ..., [prosecutors] are ordered [as follows]. 1.1.     The organisation of activities for the enforcement of extradition requests ... is entrusted to the Main Directorate of International Cooperation of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation. ... 1.2.2.     In the absence of grounds precluding extradition or transfer to an international court, [prosecutors] should ensure the detention of the arrested person for forty-eight hours. 1.2.3.     [Prosecutors should] question the arrested persons on the reasons for their arrival in Russia, ... their nationality, their intention to apply for or the existence of refugee status on account of potential persecution in [the country of origin] ..., the circumstances and motives of their criminal prosecution ... and possible obstacles to extradition ... 1.2.4.     [Prosecutors should] verify the existence and veracity of any grounds which could lead to the refusal of extradition ... 1.2.6.     [Prosecutors should] take measures for the release of the persons from detention once any grounds precluding extradition are established. ... 1.6.     The Main Directorate of International Cooperation [should]: ... 1.6.9.     Analyse and summarise the legal practice on extradition issues ... 1.6.10.     Provide [prosecutors] with information on the international instruments on extradition that are binding on the Russian Federation.” International law 50.     Extraditions between Russia and Kyrgyzstan are governed by the 1993 CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases (“the Minsk Convention”). Article 56 of the Minsk Convention imposes on the parties an obligation to extradite individuals for the purposes of criminal prosecution and/or serving a sentence. Article 56 – Obligation to extradite “1.     The Contracting Parties, under the conditions laid down in this Convention, undertake to extradite to each other persons who are present in their territory, for the purpose of criminal prosecution or enforcement of a sentence. ...” 51.     Articles 58 and 59 of the Minsk Convention prescribe the contents of extradition requests and the accompanying documents. Article 58 – Extradition request “1.     The request shall include the following information: (a)     the names of the requesting and the requested bodies; (b)     a factual statement of the offences [for which extradition is requested], as well as the relevant provisions of the criminal law, including the applicable sentencing norms; (c)     the surname, first name and patronymic of the extradited person, his or her year of birth, nationality, place of residence or stay, and, if possible, a description of his or her appearance, a photograph, fingerprints and other personal details; (d)     information on the damage caused by the offence. 2.     An extradition request for the purpose of criminal prosecution shall be accompanied by an authenticated copy of a detention order. ...” Article 59 – Additional information “If the information communicated by the requesting Party is incomplete, the requested Party may request the necessary supplementary information and fix a time ‑ limit of up to one month. ...” 52.     The above provisions are substantively comparable to Articles 1, 12 and 13 of the European Convention on Extradition of 1957. Article 1 – Obligation to extradite “The Contracting Parties undertake to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order.” Article 12 – The request and supporting documents “1.     The request shall be in writing and shall be communicated through the diplomatic channel. Other means of communication may be arranged by direct agreement between two or more Parties. 2.     The request shall be supported by: (a)     the original or an authenticated copy of the conviction and sentence or detention order immediately enforceable or of the warrant of arrest or other order having the same effect and issued in accordance with the procedure laid down in the law of the requesting Party; (b)     a statement of the offences for which extradition is requested. The time and place of their commission, their legal descriptions and a reference to the relevant legal provisions shall be set out as accurately as possible; and (c)     a copy of the relevant enactments or, where this is not possible, a statement of the relevant law and as accurate a description as possible of the person claimed, together with any other information which will help to establish his identity and nationality.” Article 13 – Supplementary information “If the information communicated by the requesting Party is found to be insufficient to allow the requested Party to make a decision in pursuance of this Convention, the latter Party shall request the necessary supplementary information and may fix a time ‑ limit for the receipt thereof.” InfoRmation on the situation in kyrgyzstan 53.     The Court has in the past reviewed the relevant information on the situation in Kyrgyzstan, and summaries were provided in Tadzhibayev v.   Russia (no. 17724/14, §§ 19-26, 1 December 2015, with further references), and Turgunov v. Russia (no. 15590/14, § 32, 22 October 2015). 54.     The Grand Chamber also notes that a detailed account of recent reports was provided in the Chamber judgment in the present case ( T.K.   and   S.R. v. Russia , nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, §§ 39-54, 19   November 2019), and therefore – given the scope of the material examined – it will reproduce in the present judgment only the material and reports wh