CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s54452357 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s4009AD63 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4E036C5F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s81EF3014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB3F5D3E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s90EB8675 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.2pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION CASE OF KUNSHUGAROV v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 60811/15 and 54512/17)   JUDGMENT   Art 13 (+ Art 2) • Effective remedy with automatic suspensive effect precluding the applicant’s removal before the finalisation of the extradition proceedings • Adequate assessment of applicant’s claims that he would face a real risk of being subjected to the death penalty if extradited to Kazakhstan • Assurances by Kazakhstan offering sufficient guarantees Art 3 • Extradition • Domestic authorities’ failure to carry out an adequate examination of applicant’s claims of a real risk of ill-treatment prior to his forcible return to Kazakhstan • Assurances by Kazakhstan insufficient Art 3 (substantive) • Degrading treatment • Inadequate material conditions of applicant’s detention in the Removal Centre coupled with the possible anxiety caused by the uncertainty as to when his detention would end Art 5 § 1 • Lawful administrative detention of the applicant during the first set of deportation proceedings against him Art 5 § 4 • Constitutional Court’s failure to conduct a review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention in a speedy and effective manner   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 14 January 2025 FINAL   14/04/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kunshugarov v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Jovan Ilievski,   Davor Derenčinović,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Stéphane Pisani , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   60811/15 and 54512/17) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Kazakhstani national, Mr Yeldos Kunshugarov (“the applicant”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 2, 3 and Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4, 5 as well as Article   13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 10 December 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applicant is a national of Kazakhstan. The applications mainly concern (i) his threatened removal (“expulsion” and “extradition”) to Kazakhstan, where he would allegedly face a risk of death or ill-treatment, (ii) the alleged failure of the administrative and judicial authorities to conduct an adequate examination of the risks to which he would be exposed there, (iii)   the alleged unlawfulness and allegedly poor conditions of his detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre (“the Kumkapı Removal Centre”) pending the expulsion proceedings, and (iv) the alleged failure of the domestic courts to assess adequately his objections in respect of his detention pending expulsion. 2.     The applicant relies on Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention. THE FACTS The circumstances of the case 3 .     The applicant is a Kazakhstani national who was born in 1988. He was detained in Türkiye at the time of the lodging of the applications. According to the latest information in the case file, he is currently serving a prison sentence in Stepnogorsk Prison ( тюрьма ЕЦ-166/18 ) in Akmola, Kazakhstan. 4.     The applicant was represented by Mr A. Yılmaz, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 5.     On 9 December 2015 the applicant’s representative submitted an application to the Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, for the Court to indicate, as an interim measure, the suspension of the applicant’s threatened extradition to Kazakhstan and his release from the Kumkapı Removal Centre, where he was allegedly being subjected to conditions of detention amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment. 6.     On 10 December 2015, the duty judge decided to refuse the applicant’s request, and informed the applicant that his request was premature, as the proceedings regarding his removal from Türkiye were still pending before the domestic courts. His request to the Court was registered under application no.   60811/15. 7.     On 28 July 2017, the applicant’s representative again lodged a request that the Court indicate the above-mentioned interim measure. 8.     On 31 July 2017, the applicant’s Rule 39 request was refused once again. This request was registered under application no. 54512/17. 9.     On 20 April 2018 notice of the complaints raised in both applications under Articles 2 and 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4, and 5 and Article 13 of the Convention was given to the Government; the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. On the same day, the President of the Section also decided to grant priority to these applications, under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 10.     On 11 July 2019 the President of the Section decided to discontinue the application of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. 11.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s arrival in Türkiye and the extradition proceedings 12 .     According to the applicant’s submissions, he left Kazakhstan in 2009 and entered Türkiye in 2011. On 4 November 2011 the applicant lodged an asylum application with the Istanbul Governor’s Office and, on an unspecified date, with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The applicant’s asylum application was dismissed by the domestic authorities on 28 November 2011. On 24 April 2015 he lodged an objection to this decision with the Ankara Administrative Court, which dismissed his objection. A subsequent appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court was also rejected. 13 .     In 2012 extradition proceedings were initiated against the applicant on the basis of a Red Notice issued by the Kazakh authorities via Interpol. The applicant was sought for mercenary activities and terrorism-related offences that he had allegedly committed in Kazakhstan as a member of the Islamic Jihad Union, a terrorist organisation which carried out terrorist attacks in the western region of Kazakhstan. 14 .     In a judgment dated 12 April 2012 the Kartal 1st Assize Court refused an extradition request lodged by the Kazakh authorities on the grounds that the acts as a consequence of which the applicant’s extradition was requested were punishable by the death penalty under the domestic law of Kazakhstan. 15.     Following an appeal lodged by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, on 27 February 2013 the Court of Cassation quashed the Assize Court’s judgment of 12 April 2012 on the grounds that the provisions of the bilateral extradition treaty between Türkiye and Kazakhstan had not been given due consideration. The Court of Cassation ordered a re-examination of the case by the first-instance court. 16 .     Subsequently, the Istanbul 1st Assize Court held a series of hearings between 18 April 2013 and 29 September 2016 regarding the above-mentioned request for the applicant’s extradition. According to the information in the case file, at the hearing held on 11 November 2015, the applicant claimed that he would be exposed to a real risk of being sentenced to death or of being subjected to ill‑treatment if extradited to Kazakhstan. Although he never acknowledged any affiliation with any terrorist organisation, he asserted that the offences with which he had been charged were punishable by death. He further argued that his extradition could not be allowed because his asylum application was still pending. On the same day, the Istanbul 1st Assize Court requested the Ministry of Justice to obtain sufficient assurances from the Government of Kazakhstan that, in the event that the applicant was extradited, (i) he would not be sentenced to death, as provided by the relevant Kazakh criminal law in force at the material time, and (ii) even if he were sentenced to death, that penalty would not be carried out. It further requested guarantees indicating that the applicant’s defence rights would be duly observed throughout the criminal proceedings and that he would be given the opportunity to make additional defence submissions in Kazakhstan. 17 .     Further to this request, the Ministry of Justice forwarded to the Istanbul 1st Assize Court the assurances received from the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kazakhstan on 17 November 2015. These contained guarantees that the applicant would not be subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment and that he would enjoy all procedural safeguards provided by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966. They also stated that the death penalty was not applicable to the criminal offences with which the applicant was charged and that the applicant could therefore not be sentenced to death. The Kazakhstan authorities further undertook to ensure that the applicant would have a fair trial. Lastly, they gave assurances that the applicant would not be prosecuted for a political offence or be subjected to any form of discrimination on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions. 18 .     On 18 January 2016 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kazakhstan submitted further assurances in respect of the applicant. In particular, the letter stated that the criminal charges against the applicant relating to the above-mentioned mercenary activities had been dropped and that the offences with which he was charged – namely, terrorism-related activities – were punishable by imprisonment and not by the death penalty. They also emphasised that a moratorium on executions imposed by a presidential decree of 17 December 2003 would remain in place until the death penalty was fully abolished and reiterated the assurances provided earlier (see paragraph 17 above). Finally, they guaranteed that, in the event of the applicant’s extradition, the Turkish authorities would be afforded unfettered access to the facility in which the applicant was being held in order to observe the conditions of his detention and to verify Kazakhstan’s compliance with international human rights standards. 19 .     Following a series of proceedings, on 29 September 2016 the Istanbul 1st Assize Court declared the extradition request admissible ( iade talebinin kabul edilebilir olması kararı ). It reasoned that the assurances provided by the Kazakh authorities were sufficient and further referred to the moratorium on death penalty that had been in place in Kazakhstan for more than ten years. Moreover, it stated that the applicant’s application for asylum had been rejected by the competent domestic authorities. 20 .     The applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation, arguing that the diplomatic assurances provided by the Kazakh authorities could not be deemed sufficient as they were too broad, vague and not tailored to the specifics of the applicant’s case and that no specific guarantee had been given that the applicant would not be ill-treated in Kazakhstan. He also reiterated that his extradition should not have been permitted while the assessment of his objection to the dismissal of his asylum application was still pending before administrative courts. 21.     By a decision of 27 February 2017, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 29 September 2016, stating that the judgment declaring the extradition request admissible was in accordance with the relevant law and procedure. 22.     In the meantime, on 2 December 2016 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the applicant’s detention under section 16(1) of the Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (Law no. 6706) and Article   100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271. In support of its decision, the court referred to the nature of the offence with which the applicant was charged and to the risk of absconding. However, on the same day, the applicant was already arrested and detained in connection with a separate set of criminal proceedings pending against him (see paragraphs   45 ‑ 46 below). 23 .     Between 6 December 2016 and 26 January 2018 the applicant requested on numerous occasions that his detention be terminated. The Istanbul Assize Court refused all of these requests. 24 .     On 14 July 2017 the applicant filed an individual application with the Turkish Constitutional Court, also requesting that the extradition proceedings be suspended as an interim measure. He mainly reiterated the arguments that he made before the domestic courts (see paragraphs 16 and 20 above). In this respect, he argued that the moratorium on the execution of the death penalty merely constituted a policy and that it could not be deemed to constitute sufficient protection against the execution of the death penalty against him. He also complained that no specific assurances had been given that he would not be subjected to torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, which were prevalent in Kazakhstan. He further stated that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kazakhstan – as a prosecuting authority – could not be deemed to be in a position to provide such assurances. As regards those grievances, he argued that there were no effective remedies that could be pursued before the domestic courts. Lastly, the applicant submitted that his detention pending extradition had been arbitrary and that there had been no adequate judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. 25 .     On 18 July 2017 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for an interim measure on the grounds that he had failed to substantiate the risks invoked. It stated that, during the extradition proceedings, the Assize Court had examined the necessary guarantees provided by the Kazakh authorities that the applicant would not be sentenced to death or subjected to torture or ill-treatment, that he would receive a fair trial (without discrimination), and that the Turkish authorities would be allowed to observe the applicant’s trial at all stages of the proceedings. 26.     On 1 February 2018 the Istanbul 1st Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release. However, he remained in detention pending the aforementioned criminal proceedings (see paragraph 46 below). 27 .     By a decision of 29 December 2021, the Constitutional Court terminated the proceedings, finding that the applicant had failed to lodge his individual application within the thirty-day period prescribed by law. With respect to the alleged risk of the applicant being subjected to the death penalty and ill-treatment if returned to Kazakhstan, it noted that the applicant’s lawyer had accessed the declaration ( kesinleşme şerhi ) on the National Judicial Network that the Assize Court’s judgment had become final. However, the individual application had been lodged on 14   July 2017 – long after the expiry of the thirty-day time-limit. As for the applicant’s complaints regarding the alleged unlawfulness of his detention, the Constitutional Court also found those complaints to have been lodged outside the time-limit, since the final decision ordering the continuation of his detention had been delivered on 9 December 2016 – some eight months before the lodging of the individual application. However, before the Constitutional Court had issued its decision, the applicant had been extradited to the Republic of Kazakhstan on 16 October 2018 (see paragraph   56 below). The first set of deportation proceedings and the applicant’s detention pending his expulsion 28 .     On 2 November 2015, during a security operation targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and al‑Sham (“ISIS” or “IS” – also known as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (“ISIL”)), the applicant was arrested by the police for possessing a forged passport. On 4 November 2015 he was transferred to the Kumkapı Removal Centre in Istanbul (“the Kumkapı Removal Centre”). On the same day the Istanbul Governor’s Office issued an order for the applicant’s deportation, under section 54(1)(c) and (d) of the Foreigners and International Protection Act (Law no. 6458), for using falsified documents and constituting a threat to public order. It also ordered his administrative detention pending deportation. 29 .     On 5 November 2015 the applicant brought an action in the Istanbul Administrative Court for the annulment of the deportation order. He argued that deportation to Kazakhstan would expose him to a real risk of death or ill ‑ treatment. On 17 November 2015 he lodged a new application for asylum. While it is established that this petition was officially registered with the Istanbul Governor’s Office, there is no information in the case file as to the outcome of this second asylum application (in respect of the first asylum application, see paragraph   12 above). 30 .     On 10 November 2015 the applicant lodged an application with the Istanbul Magistrate’s Court, challenging the lawfulness of his detention at the Kumkapı Removal Centre and requesting his release. By a decision of 26   November 2015, the Istanbul Magistrate’s Court dismissed the application, stating that the applicant had been arrested for possessing forged identity documents and that he was suspected of belonging to an Islamist militant organisation. According to the court, his detention pending deportation was therefore in accordance with the law. 31 .     On 19 November 2015 the applicant was transferred from the Kumkapı Removal Centre to the Aşkale Foreigners’ Removal Centre in Erzurum, where he stayed until 31 December 2015. On that latter date he was transferred back to the Kumkapı Removal Centre. 32 .     On 11 January and 10 February 2016 the applicant lodged two more applications for release with the Istanbul Magistrate’s Court challenging the lawfulness of his detention. On 29 February 2016 his requests were dismissed on the grounds that his administrative detention was in accordance with the law and procedure. 33.     On 25 February 2016 the Istanbul Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the annulment of his deportation order. Noting that the applicant had initially been taken into custody in the course of a security operation and had been found to be in possession of a forged passport, it considered that the applicant had presented a serious threat to public order. It further held that the applicant could not claim the benefit of the principle of non-refoulement under the exclusion provided for by Article 33 § 2 of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951, since there were reasonable grounds for considering him to be a danger to public security. Accordingly, the court concluded that the administrative decision to deport the applicant from Türkiye was lawful. 34 .     On 18 March 2016, while still under administrative detention, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court and also requested the suspension of the deportation proceedings. He complained that the national authorities (including the Istanbul Administrative Court) had failed to fulfil their obligation to conduct an adequate examination of his assertions that he would be exposed to a real risk of death, torture or ill‑treatment if removed to Kazakhstan. He further complained of the material conditions of his detention at the Kumkapı Removal Centre. In this respect, he argued that the centre was severely overcrowded, and that this had also led to hygiene-related problems – including infestation by lice and bed bugs. He also submitted that he was exposed to constant light, tobacco smoke and surveillance by the CCTV cameras in the dormitory at all times of the day, which seriously disturbed his sleep. There was no regular provision for outdoor exercise and he had never been allowed access to outdoor exercise or any recreational activities throughout his detention. Finally, he complained that his detention had been arbitrary and that he had not had the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. He had not been duly informed of the reasons for his detention, and nor had he been able to secure an effective judicial review of his detention pending expulsion or compensation for the alleged breaches of his right to liberty and security. 35 .     On the same day the Constitutional Court granted the applicant’s above-mentioned request for an interim measure, stating that further information and documents were needed to assess whether he would face a serious risk of death or ill-treatment if returned to Kazakhstan and that the implementation of the deportation order could cause irreparable harm to his life or integrity. It suspended the deportation proceedings until further notice. 36 .     On 12 July 2016 the applicant was transferred from the Kumkapı Removal Centre to the İzmir Işıkkent Foreigners’ Removal Centre (“the Işıkkent Removal Centre”). A week later, on 19 July 2016, he was transferred to the İzmir Harmandalı Foreigners’ Removal Centre (“the Harmandalı Removal Centre”). On 29 September and 18 October 2016 he lodged applications with the İzmir Magistrate’s Court, complaining of the unlawfulness of his continued detention. He argued that his detention had ceased to be lawful, since there was no realistic prospect of his removal following the interim measure indicated by the Constitutional Court (see paragraph   35 above). He further asserted that the length of his detention had exceeded that reasonably required for the purpose pursued. His requests were refused by the İzmir Magistrate’s Court, mainly on the grounds that a valid deportation order had been issued in respect of the applicant. 37 .     On 4 November 2016 the applicant was released following the expiry of the statutory maximum period for which he could be detained pending his deportation under domestic law. 38 .     On 30 November 2016 the applicant lodged a second individual application with the Constitutional Court, this time complaining of the alleged unlawfulness and the inadequate conditions of his detention in the Işıkkent and Harmandalı Removal Centres. 39 .     With respect to the applicant’s first individual application (see paragraph 34 above), on 17 April 2019 – at which point the applicant had already been extradited to Kazakhstan – the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right under Article 17 of the Constitution (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) had been violated on account of the domestic authorities’ failure to conduct an adequate assessment of his allegation that he would be exposed to a real risk of death or ill‑treatment if removed to his country of origin. It also awarded the applicant 1,000 Turkish liras [1] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. As regards his complaints concerning the conditions of his detention, and his assertion that there existed no effective remedy whereby he could raise his allegations and complain of the unlawfulness of his detention, the Constitutional Court referred to its decision in B.T. (no.   2014/15769, 30   November 2017) and declared the applicant’s complaints inadmissible for his failure to bring an action seeking a full remedy ( tam yargı davası ) in the administrative courts, which in theory could have provided an effective remedy. 40 .     Following the Constitutional Court’s finding of a violation, the judicial proceedings concerning the applicant’s threatened removal from Türkiye were reopened. On 18 July 2019 the Istanbul Administrative Court annulled the deportation order of 4 November 2015 on the grounds that the authorities had failed to conduct a proper assessment to determine whether the applicant would face a real risk of being subjected to death or ill-treatment in the country of destination. 41 .     As regards the applicant’s second individual application (see paragraph   38 above), on 24 April 2019 the Constitutional Court issued a summary decision declaring those complaints (that is, regarding the alleged unlawfulness and the inadequate conditions of his detention in the Işıkkent and Harmandalı Removal Centres) inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies in line with its decision in B.T. , in which it had indicated that the time-limit rules for bringing an action seeking a full remedy had to be applied flexibly in respect of applications that had been lodged with that court prior to the B.T. decision (see paragraph 63 below). 42.     Subsequently the applicant brought an action in the İzmir Administrative Court seeking a full remedy in respect of the alleged unlawfulness and the material conditions of his administrative detention in the Işıkkent Removal Centre, which had ended on 4 November 2016. The court dismissed the case as having been lodged out of time on the basis of section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“Law no. 2577”). It ruled that the applicant had been released from the Işıkkent Removal Centre on 4   November 2016, whereas he had brought the present action seeking compensation only on 9 July 2019 – well after the expiry of the sixty-day time-limit provided under the applicable legislation. Accordingly, it did not examine the merits of the applicant’s claims. 43.     The applicant appealed this decision, arguing that, in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s ruling in B.T. , the time-limit for bringing an action for a full remedy should have been calculated from the date of the Constitutional Court’s inadmissibility decision and not from the end of the applicant’s administrative detention. 44 .     On 7 July 2020 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the final decision of the İzmir Regional Administrative Court. Criminal proceedings against the applicant 45 .     The applicant was released from the Işıkkent Removal Centre on 4   November 2016, but was taken into police custody on the same day in connection with the criminal proceedings brought against him for his alleged membership of ISIS. 46 .     On 15 November 2016 the İzmir Magistrate’s Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, and he was placed in İzmir F-type Prison. 47 .     On 27 February 2018 the İzmir Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release, but prohibited him from leaving the country. 48.     On 17 April 2018 the İzmir Assize Court issued a detention order in absentia against the applicant. It is apparent from the case file that, at the material time, the applicant was already being held in administrative detention in connection with a second set of deportation proceedings (see paragraph   50 below). 49 .     On 10 October 2019 the İzmir Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence against him to secure a criminal conviction. The second set of deportation proceedings and the applicant’s ensuing detention 50 .     On 10 April 2018 the applicant was placed in detention once again. On 11 April 2018 the İzmir Governor’s Office issued another order for the applicant’s deportation under section 54(1)(b) and (d) of Law   no.   6458 on account of his alleged affiliation with terrorist organisations and because his presence was considered to constitute a threat to public order. On the same day, the applicant was placed in administrative detention at the Harmandalı Removal Centre. 51.     On two occasions the applicant lodged objections with the İzmir Magistrate’s Court against his administrative detention and requested that the court order his release. Both of those requests were refused. 52.     On 13 April 2018 the applicant brought an action in the İzmir Administrative Court for the annulment of the deportation order. He argued that the interim measure indicated by the Constitutional Court on 18   March 2016 within the context of the first set of deportation proceedings against him remained in force (see paragraph 35 above), which constituted an impediment to his deportation. He also requested from the court an order for a stay of execution of the deportation order, since at the time that he lodged that request, lodging an appeal against deportation orders issued on certain grounds did not have automatic suspensive effect. The İzmir Administrative Court initially granted the applicant’s request for a stay of execution but later lifted it. It eventually dismissed the applicant’s action on 3 July 2018, holding that the applicant’s suspected affiliation with terrorist organisations and his use of forged identities constituted sufficient legal basis for his removal. Turning to the applicant’s allegations that he would face a real risk of death or ill-treatment if he were to be removed to Kazakhstan, the court referred to the findings of the Istanbul 1st Assize Court within the context of the extradition proceedings (see paragraph 19 above) – namely, that the assurances provided by the Kazakh authorities had been sufficient and that the applicant’s extradition was admissible. 53.     On 16 May 2018 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, whereby he mainly reiterated his fears that he would face the risk of death, ill-treatment and/or persecution if he were to be returned to Kazakhstan. He further complained of the inadequate detention conditions at the Harmandalı Removal Centre, the unlawfulness of his detention pending deportation proceedings and the lack of any effective domestic remedies by which to raise those allegations. He also requested, by way of an interim measure, the suspension of the deportation proceedings. 54.     On 21 May 2018 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for an interim measure on the grounds that the risks invoked had not been substantiated. It further referred to the previous refusal (during the extradition proceedings) of the applicant’s request for an interim measure (see paragraph 25 above). 55 .     In a subsequent decision of 5 October 2022, the Constitutional Court struck the applicant’s complaints concerning his threatened deportation out of its list of cases on the ground that the applicant had already been extradited to Kazakhstan on 16 October 2018 (see paragraph 57 below). The applicant’s remaining complaints were once again declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust the available domestic remedies, in line with the B.T. decision (see paragraphs 39 and 41 above). The applicant’s removal from Türkiye and alleged ill-treatment in Kazakhstan 56 .     In August 2018 the applicant was transferred from the Harmandalı Removal Centre to the Muğla Ula Foreigners’ Removal Centre. 57 .     Following the approval of the extradition request by the President of the Republic, on 16 October 2018 the applicant was extradited to Kazakhstan. 58 .     In a letter of 26 April 2022, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that, following his extradition to Kazakhstan, the applicant had been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and had been subjected to torture and various forms of ill-treatment in Stepnogorsk Prison (see paragraph 3 above). The applicant’s representative also submitted that although he and the applicant had requested copies of medical reports and other evidence to substantiate their allegations regarding the applicant’s ill-treatment in Kazakhstan, these efforts had been unsuccessful owing to the lack of cooperation by the Kazakh authorities. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Domestic law and practice Law no. 6458 on foreigners and international protection 59 .     A detailed description of the provisions of Law no. 6458 that governed (i)   the procedures to be followed when removing foreign nationals from Türkiye, (ii) the administrative detention of foreign nationals pending their removal, and (iii) judicial review of removal and detention orders can be found in the cases of G.B. and Others v. Turkey (no. 4633/15, §§   44-45, 17   October 2019), M.N. and Others v. Turkey (no. 40462/16, §§   18-19, 21   June 2022), and J.A. and A.A. v. Türkiye (no. 80206/17, § 21, 6   February 2024). Law no. 6706 on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters 60 .     The relevant provisions of Law no. 6706, which entered into force on 5   May 2016, provide as follows: Article 11 – Grounds requiring a refusal to extradite “ (1) A request for extradition shall not be granted if: ... b) There is a strong suspicion that the person whose extradition is requested would be subject to an investigation or prosecution or be punished or be subjected to torture or ill-treatment because of his/her race, ethnic origin, religion, nationality, ... connection to a certain social group or political opinions, ... d) The request for extradition is related to offences that carry a capital sentence or a criminal sentence that is incompatible with human dignity. ... (3) In the event of a ... refusal [to extradite] in the light of the nature of the criminal sentence, a request for extradition may be granted if the requesting State provides sufficient guarantees that the prescribed sentence will not be carried out. ...” Article 15 – Jurisdiction and Competence “... (2) The Chief Public Prosecutor shall request a decision from the Assize Court on the extradition request. ...” Article 12 – The connection between extradition and deportation proceedings “ (1) An alien shall not be deported before the [Ministry of Justice] issues its opinion on the extradition proceedings. ...” Article 18 – Extradition proceedings “ (1) ... the court shall examine the extradition request in the manner prescribed by this Law and by the international agreements to which Türkiye is a party and shall decide whether the request is admissible. ... (4) The Assize Court’s decision may be appealed. The Court of Cassation shall render a final decision on the appeal within three months. Upon the decision becoming final, the extradition file, along with the final decision, shall be transmitted to the [Ministry of Justice].” Article 19 – Extradition decision “ (1) Where an assize court decides that a request for extradition is admissible, the execution of that decision shall be subject to ... the approval of the President [of the Republic]. ...” Case-law of the Constitutional Court 61.     The relevant decisions of the Constitutional Court on the availability of domestic remedies in respect of complaints concerning the material conditions of detention at foreigners’ removal centres and the unlawfulness of the measure of administrative detention can be found in G.B. and Others , cited above, §§ 53-62). 62 .     In its plenary decision of 30 November 2017 in the case of B.T. (no.   2014/15769), the Constitutional Court ruled that, in the case of applications lodged after the release of a detainee from a removal centre, an action for compensation brought in an administrative court in respect of the adverse material conditions of detention constituted an effective remedy that had to be exhausted prior to the lodging of an individual application with the Constitutional Court. Regarding complaints alleging the unlawful deprivation of a person’s liberty, the Constitutional Court held that seeking compensation in the administrative courts would similarly constitute an effective remedy – but only if a magistrate’s court had already found the administrative detention in question to be unlawful. 63 .     The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “48. Given the absolute nature of the prohibition of ill-treatment (as guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution), in order for a remedy [in respect of complaints stemming from adverse material conditions of detention] to be effective, it must have a preventive nature capable of putting an end to the ongoing violation ... and, where necessary, providing reasonable compensation as a complementary element. Otherwise, the mere possibility to seek compensatory remedies for such violations would (partially/implicitly) legitimise ill-treatment and hamper the State’s obligations to maintain detention conditions complying with the standards guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, as in the case of the present application, for complaints concerning “conditions of detention incompatible with human dignity”, an effective remedy should offer prospects for the improvement of detention conditions – as well as compensation for damages. On the other hand, in addition to a purely compensatory remedy, the State must also establish an effective mechanism by which to swiftly bring such treatment to an end. 49. However, in the event that the person has left the [detention] premises, it can no longer be said that a violation arising from detention conditions persists, since [the confinement in question] has been terminated. In addition, a person who regains their liberty no longer has a stake in improving detention conditions. Accordingly, in respect of foreigners who are released from removal centres, it is no longer meaningful to resort to preventive legal remedies to ensure that the conditions of detention are improved for the future; rather, the existence of compensatory remedies in respect of the damage suffered would be sufficient. ... 70. ... Although administrative detention [constitutes] an administrative measure in terms of its legal nature, the legislature has designated magistrate’s courts as the judicial authority with jurisdiction to examine the lawfulness of [such] detention ...; [this is] because of the nature of the measure itself, which deprives a foreigner of his or her liberty. In this respect, administrative courts do not have any jurisdiction to review the legality of an administrative detention decision. 71. While there is no impediment to bringing an action in the administrative courts seeking a full remedy ( tam yargı davası ) in respect of unlawful administrative detention, the jurisdiction of administrative courts to examine compensation claims is limited to determining whether any damage has occurred and, if so, the amount of compensation [to be paid]. Administrative courts therefore lack jurisdiction to examine the lawfulness of administrative detention decisions. This is because the legislature has given the authority to oversee the legality of administrative detention exclusively to the magistrate’s courts. Therefore, an action seeking a full remedy cannot be brought in the administrative courts until the objections against the [lawfulness of the] impugned measure have been reviewed by a magistrate’s courts. 72. On the other hand, if the magistrate’s courts [dismiss the objections] and rule that the administrative detention decision [in question] is lawful, [the remedy of] bringing an action seeking a full remedy in the administrative courts would become ineffective. This is because administrative courts lack jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of a measure of administrative detention. In such cases, an individual application can be lodged directly with the Constitutional Court. ... 73. However, if the magistrate’s courts decide that the administrative detention measure is unlawful, an action seeking a full remedy (in the form of full compensation for [any] damage ... arising from the unlawful deprivation of liberty) can be brought in the administrative courts. In this latter scenario, an individual application cannot be lodged with the Constitutional Court prior to seeking ... damages in the administrative courts. ...” Case of Mr U.C. 64 .     In its judgment of 3 December 2013 (no. 2013/69), the Istanbul Anadolu 2nd Assize Court refused to allow the request for the extradition of Mr U.C., a Kazakhstani national whose extradition was requested on similar grounds as those presented in the present application. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “... an extradition request was made [in order that] the accused [could] be brought to trial under the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan for the offence of forming and leading a terrorist organisation and participating in terrorism-related offences, as well as for the offence of engaging in mercenary activities in the military