CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 25 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5297CEC5 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s440A90EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .sF9E8C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sDECD9755 { 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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .sB706BD6C { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { 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; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; 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 } .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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; 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 } .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 } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s829C9466 { width:149.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF ALI v. SERBIA (Application no. 4662/22)       JUDGMENT   Art 3 (procedural) • Extradition • Domestic authorities’ failure to examine, in a manner compatible with the Court’s case-law requirements, the applicant’s claim of a risk of ill-treatment prior to extraditing him to Bahrain Art 34 • Hinder the exercise of the right of application • Non-compliance with interim measure under Rule   39   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 25 March 2025   FINAL   25/06/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ali v. Serbia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Peeter Roosma,   Darian Pavli,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   4662/22) against the Republic of Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Bahraini national, Mr Ahmet Jaafar Mohamed Ali (“the applicant”), on 21 January 2022; the decision to give notice to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicant’s extradition to Bahrain and the risk of his being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment there and an alleged lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the decision of 21 January 2022 to indicate an interim measure to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the case under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court; the decision of 28 January 2022 to lift the interim measure indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 4 March 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case mainly concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention that at the time of his extradition there were substantial grounds for believing that, if extradited, he would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment; that his extradition would expose him to a sentence of life imprisonment with no prospect of ever being released; and that the domestic authorities did not take any of these issues into consideration when deciding about his extradition. It also concerns his extradition from Serbia to Bahrain in disregard of an interim measure granted by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently in prison in Bahrain. He was represented by Mr M. Štambuk, a lawyer practising in Belgrade. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms. Z. Jadrijević Mladar. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s arrest and extradition proceedings 5 .     On 3 November 2021 the applicant was arrested in Serbia under an international arrest warrant issued by Interpol in Bahrain. He was assigned a State-appointed representative. 6 .     On the same day a High Court ( Viši sud ) preliminary proceedings ( prethodni postupak ) judge in Belgrade ordered his detention as there were circumstances indicating that he would flee or hide in order to avoid extradition following the issuing of an international arrest warrant by Interpol Bahrain. The detention order noted that on 7 October 2013, after a trial in   absentia, the applicant had been convicted in Bahrain under terrorism legislation of the production, use and possession of explosive devices, endangering public safety, and damaging State and private property. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The detention order recited that the applicant was a citizen of Bahrain, that he had no registered residence or address ( boravište ) or employment in Serbia, and that at the time of his arrest he was carrying a forged Serbian passport. The decision also recorded that the applicant had declined to answer any questions directed at establishing whether the criteria for extradition were met, including questions about his personal circumstances, his citizenship, his relationship to the requesting State and the extradition request. 7.     On 12 November 2021 Bahrain requested the applicant’s extradition in order to have him serve the term of life imprisonment he had been sentenced to on 7 October 2013 (see paragraph 6 above). 8 .     On the same day, 12 November 2021, the applicant’s State-appointed representative appealed against the detention order. She submitted that the applicant was a political prisoner and as such eligible ( podoban ) to seek asylum, and that he had been convicted of the offences in relation to which his extradition had been requested as a means of “settling accounts” ( način obračuna ) with the religious minority to which the applicant belonged. She referred to Article 6 of the Asylum Act, which provided that nobody could be extradited or returned to a territory where their life or freedom would be endangered because of their religion (see paragraph 47 below). She also submitted that the applicant had been lawfully in Serbia for the purposes of education. 9 .     On 15 November 2021 the applicant wrote a letter to the High Court. He maintained that he had been falsely accused of being a terrorist in his home country, that he was a political activist and a Shiite, and that if extradited he would be first tortured and then killed, which was why he was seeking protection and asylum. He submitted that he had come to Serbia from Iraq, via Turkey. He also asked to be allowed to make a telephone call to his family so that he could get a “private” lawyer. The same day the High Court forwarded a copy of the applicant’s letter to his State-appointed representative for information ( na upoznavanje ). 10 .     On 17 November 2021 the High Court dismissed the appeal of the applicant’s representative (see paragraph 8 above), confirming its earlier findings (see paragraph 6 above). The court also found the submissions of the applicant’s representative that the applicant was a political prisoner and that he could seek asylum irrelevant, given that in fact he had not sought asylum. 11 .     On 7 December 2021 the High Court established that all the statutory requirements for the applicant’s extradition had been met. The court referred, in particular, to Articles 6-12 of the European Convention on Extradition (see paragraphs 61-67 below) and Article 7 paragraph 1 subparagraphs 1-3 and Article 16 of the International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (see paragraphs 51-52 below). In particular, the court observed that the applicant had been tried in his absence and that the relevant authority in Bahrain had given assurances ( data garancija ) that the applicant would be re-tried in his presence. It further found that the applicant was not a citizen of Serbia; that the criminal offences for which his extradition had been requested had not been committed in the territory of Serbia; that those offences had not been committed against Serbia or its citizens; that they constituted criminal offences in Serbia as well; that prosecution for the offences and the enforcement of the sentence had not been time-barred; that the offences had not been covered by an amnesty; and that the applicant had not been indicted for them or acquitted of them in Serbia. The High Court did not address whether the applicant faced a risk of torture or ill-treatment if extradited. 12 .     On 9 December 2021 the applicant submitted another letter to the High Court, denying the accusations against him. He submitted that he was a political activist in the field of workers’ rights, and that he had documents and photographs to prove that. He maintained that when the revolution in Bahrain had begun he had been placed on the list of activists, which was when he had left for Iran. He asked to see a lawyer and a judge to explain his submissions in more detail and submit evidence in that regard, and to meet a UN officer, as he had come to Serbia to seek asylum. 13 .     On 13 December 2021 the applicant’s State-appointed representative appealed on his behalf against the decision of 7 December 2021 (see paragraph 11 above). She submitted that he was a political prisoner and a Shiite and that he would be at risk of torture and ill-treatment and potentially the death sentence if he were to be extradited. She maintained that the High Court had not considered his submissions of 15 November 2021 (see paragraph 9 above), notably the point that, if extradited, he would be first tortured and then killed. She claimed that the requesting State did not respect even a minimum level of human rights, and that it persecuted, tortured and ill-treated Shiites, political opponents, human rights activists and those who criticised the authorities. She referred to two newspaper articles about the sentencing to death of three Bahraini nationals and about the further deterioration of human rights in Bahrain. She also referred to Article 6 of the Asylum Act (see paragraph 47 below). 14 .     On 14 December 2021 the applicant wrote another letter to the High Court. He asked to be allowed to contact his family and to see his lawyer as he had been in detention for more than 40 days without contact with either his family or a lawyer. He maintained that he had proof that he was innocent. 15 .     On 21 December 2021 he wrote another letter to the High Court, asking to contact his family, as he had not been allowed to contact anyone since his arrest. 16.     On 29 December 2021 a hearing was held in the Court of Appeal ( Apelacioni sud ) in Belgrade. The notes of the hearing recorded that the applicant’s representative was not present because of the lawyers’ strike (paragraph 37 below) and that the applicant, in reply to a question from the court, had stated that his representative had never visited him in detention nor had he had any contact with her. The hearing was then adjourned. 17 .     On 17 January 2022 the Court of Appeal held a further hearing. The applicant’s representative repeated the grounds for appeal she had given earlier in her submissions (see paragraph 13 above). The applicant claimed that he had been a political activist since 1994, for which he had evidence, and that he had had no contact with his legal representative or his family in the preceding three months. He maintained that he had been sentenced to life imprisonment for something that he had not done; that it would be impossible for him to have his case re-heard and that every political activist in Bahrain was treated as a terrorist and tried without any right to present a defence. He was also a Shiite, and Shiites were politically segregated. He stated that he had previously written several letters and had recently written a further one, but had not received any reply. He stated that in that further letter he had asked to be allowed to contact a lawyer in order to submit the documentation he had to the court for examination. He also asked to be allowed to continue his studies and his life in Serbia, and to contact his family. 18 .     The same day the applicant submitted a letter to the Court of Appeal. He maintained that he had been a labour activist in Bahrain from 1994 to 2011, but the situation had become dangerous and in 2011 he had left for Iran, where he had spent the following ten years. He submitted that he had had the evidence to support his claims, but that he had not had any meeting with a lawyer in the preceding three months and he asked to be allowed to contact his family in order to hire a lawyer who could bring all the documents to court. 19 .     On 17 January 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision, referring to its analysis and conclusions as to the fulfilment of the criteria for extradition as provided in the European Convention on Extradition and the International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (see paragraph   11 above). It dismissed the claim that the applicant could face the death sentence (see paragraph 13 above) if extradited, on the grounds that the relevant Bahraini statute did not provide for the death sentence for the criminal offence in relation to which the applicant’s extradition had been requested. The court did not examine whether the applicant would be at risk of ill-treatment if he were to be extradited. 20 .     On 18 January 2022 the Minister of Justice granted the request for the applicant’s extradition given that all the preconditions for it had been met, in particular, those provided for in Article 16 of the International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (see paragraph 52 below). The decision set out that the extradition was allowed under certain conditions. More specifically, without the consent of Serbia (a) the applicant could not be prosecuted for other criminal offences committed before the extradition; (b) no criminal sanction imposed on him for other criminal offences committed before the extradition could be executed; and (c) he could not be extradited to a third State for prosecution for other criminal offences committed before the extradition. The decision referred to the courts’ findings in detail (see paragraphs 11 and 19 above) and specified that it would be carried out by the Ministry of the Interior. The decision did not address whether the applicant risked ill-treatment if extradited. The EXTRADITION OF THE applicant 21 .     On 19 January 2022 the applicant’s State-appointed representative sought assistance from the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights (hereinafter “the BCHR”). 22 .     On 20 January 2022 the applicant’s sister contacted the BCHR because his family did not know his whereabouts. She asked them to represent the applicant. She also authorised two lawyers to represent her and apparently her brother. 23.     The same day, 20 January 2022, the BCHR wrote an e-mail to the Asylum Office, the Border Crossing Police, and the representatives of the UNHCR to inform them that the applicant, who was a Shiite, had been sentenced to life imprisonment in Bahrain and was awaiting extradition. They further informed them that the applicant wanted to apply for asylum and asked for him to be given access to the asylum process ( omogućite pristup postupku azila ). They specified that the applicant had indicated his intention to seek asylum before the courts during the extradition proceedings. 24.     On 21 January 2022 the Border Crossing Police replied by e-mail that in order to engage the asylum process it would be necessary for the applicant to contact them personally or through a representative who should also produce the authority to act. 25.     On the same day, 21 January 2022, the two lawyers and some of the employees from the BCHR (see paragraph 22 above) visited the applicant in detention. He told them that he had repeatedly stated that he wanted to apply for asylum in Serbia. He authorised five employees of BCHR and two lawyers to represent him, including in his asylum claim. At 3.21 p.m. the same day, one of the applicant’s new representatives forwarded by mail the applicant’s authority to act to the Border Crossing Police and the Asylum Office and again asked for the applicant to be given access to the asylum process. The Asylum Office closes at 3.30 p.m. 26 .     The same day a police officer informed the High Court preliminary proceedings judge by telephone that the applicant’s extradition was planned for Tuesday 25 January 2022. 27 .     At 1.13 p.m. the same day, Friday 21 January 2022, the Court received a request from the applicant’s representatives to indicate an interim measure to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court preventing the applicant’s extradition to Bahrain. At 7.57 p.m. the same day, the Court issued an interim measure, which specified that the applicant should not be extradited to Bahrain until 25   February 2022. The Government was informed about it immediately. 28 .     At 9.23 p.m. that evening the BCHR informed the Border Crossing Police and the Asylum Office of the interim measure by e-mail. The same evening, at 10.18 p.m., the Agent’s Office informed the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice about it by e-mail. The same information was also sent to these bodies by post on Monday, 24   January. 29 .     On 22 January 2022, a Saturday, Interpol Bahrain asked for the applicant to be extradited early in the morning of Monday 24 January. 30 .     The same day, a police officer informed the High Court preliminary proceedings judge by telephone that the applicant’s extradition would take place on 24 January early in the morning. The judge instructed the District Prison Administration ( Uprava Okružnog zatvora ) by letter to allow two police officers to take the applicant from the prison during the night of 24   January in order to hand him over to Bahraini representatives at 4 a.m. on 24 January. 31 .     On 23 January 2022 a police officer informed the same judge by telephone that Interpol had been informed that the Court had issued an interim measure in effect staying the applicant’s extradition, and asked if the judge could “finally resolve the issue”. The judge told him that the Ministry of Justice was the only authority competent to decide in the case. 32 .     On 24 January 2022 at 4 a.m. the applicant was extradited to Bahrain. 33.     On 25 January 2022 the BCHR made enquiries of the Border Crossing Police’s Asylum Office about the applicant’s asylum claim. 34.     On 27 January 2022 the Border Crossing Police informed the BCHR that the applicant had neither been registered as having expressed an intention to seek asylum under Article 35 nor made an asylum claim under Article 36 of the Asylum Act (see paragraphs 49-50 below). 35.     On 28 January 2022 the Court lifted the interim measure of 21 January 2022 (see paragraph 27 above). 36.     On 18 February 2022 the applicant’s representatives lodged a constitutional appeal against the decisions of 17 and 18 January 2022 of the Court of Appeal and the Ministry of Justice respectively (see paragraphs 19-20 above). They submitted that even though the applicant had stated on several occasions that he feared persecution if extradited, which was why he had wanted asylum, the domestic bodies had failed to consider both that issue and the question of whether there was a possibility of conditional release in the case of a sentence of life imprisonment. They also maintained that he had not been allowed access to the asylum process. Moreover, his State-appointed representative had not been carrying out her duties professionally and in a timely manner, as she had visited him in detention only immediately after he had been arrested: the second time she had seen him had been together with his new representatives. The applicant sought compensation of 1,000,000   Serbian dinars (approximately 8,500 euros (EUR)) for non-pecuniary damage. On 11 February 2025 the applicant’s constitutional appeal was still pending. Other relevant facts 37 .     Between 24 December 2021 and 18 January 2022 the lawyers in Serbia were on strike. 38.     On 24 January 2022, the date on which the applicant was extradited, the Bahrain News Agency and the Bahraini Ministry of the Interior reported the applicant’s extradition and that he had been sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment and a ten-year prison sentence for terrorism-related offences.   On 29 January 2022 the Bahrain News Agency reported that the applicant had been sentenced to four life sentences. 39 .     On an unspecified date in 2022 the Ombudsman’s office ( Zaštitnik građana ) initiated an examination procedure of its own motion, after having learnt from the media that the applicant had been extradited in disregard of the Court’s interim measure. The Ombudsman found, inter alia , that in his submissions to the High Court of 9, 14 and 21 December 2021 the applicant had expressed his intention to claim asylum in Serbia, stating his reasons for leaving his country and why he had had a justified fear that he would be at risk of torture and ill-treatment if he were to be returned. He also found that the applicant had neither been registered in accordance with Article 35 nor applied for asylum in accordance with Article 36 of the Asylum Act. The Ombudsman further found that the applicant’s letter to the High Court of 15   November 2021, in which he had expressed his intention to claim asylum in Serbia, had been passed to his representative for action. The Ombudsman further established that the Ministry of Justice had been officially notified about the Court’s interim measure on 24 January 2022, and that, pursuant to Article 37 of International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (see paragraph 58 below), the extradition had been carried out by agreement between the Ministry of the Interior and the requesting State and that the Ministry of Justice had not participated in the practical arrangements. In view of all the facts established, the Ombudsman found in his report of 9 August 2022 that there had been no unlawfulness or irregularities either in the extradition procedure or in the asylum process in the applicant’s case. 40 .     On 28 November 2022 the applicant’s representatives asked the Court to issue another interim measure ordering the Government to attempt to have the applicant returned to Serbia. In support of that request the applicant’s representatives submitted a written statement of 23 November 2022 by S.A.A., a Bahraini human rights advocate and a founding member of the London-based Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy. S.A.A. reported that after having been extradited the applicant had been held in solitary confinement, deprived of exercise, exposed to Covid-19, held in inadequate conditions, and denied medical assistance. In particular, the applicant had been permitted to leave his cell for the first time only ten days after the extradition, on 3 February 2022. On 21   February 2022 he had been assaulted by three prison guards, sustaining a chest injury. Nevertheless, it was the applicant who had been charged and sentenced to one year in prison, for having assaulted the three prison officers. S.A.A. submitted that the judgments had been delivered on the basis of the prison guards’ statements and in disregard of the video footage, which had shown the contrary, and in disregard of the chest injury the applicant had sustained during the assault.   The applicant’s chest injury had been left unattended until November 2022, when he had been taken for an X-ray. At the time of S.A.A.’s writing of his statement, no results of the applicant’s X-ray were yet available. The applicant had been transferred to another part of the prison on the day of the assault and had therefore gone on hunger strike, which he had continued until 5 March 2022. S.A.A. also submitted that the applicant’s appeals had been rejected following sham court proceedings, that in many instances he had had no lawyer and in many other instances he had been barred from attending hearings. 41 .     The request was refused the next day. 42 .     The applicant’s representative before the Court submitted that after extradition the applicant had been held in Jau Prison, that he had had no access to a lawyer, that his family had not been permitted to visit him, and that he had only been allowed to make telephone calls to five numbers.   In August 2023 several hundreds of Jau prisoners, including the applicant, had gone on hunger strike in protest at the harsh prison conditions. During the strike, the applicant had been pepper-sprayed and handcuffed and had had his legs tied, he had been laughed at and mocked, and he had been placed in solitary confinement, still in handcuffs. He had been also punched twice while he was being transferred to solitary confinement. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE relevant domestic law Constitutional Court Act ( Zakon o Ustavnom sudu , published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia – OG RS – nos. 109/2007, 99/2011, 18/2013, 103/2015 and 40/2015) 43 .     Articles 82-92 of the Constitutional Court Act set out the process for the adjudication of constitutional appeals in Serbia. 44 .     Article 86 provides that a constitutional appeal is not generally suspensive of the decision or action being appealed against. However, the Constitutional Court may stay ( odložiti ) the execution of the disputed decision or action, at the proposal of an appellant, where execution would cause irreparable harm to the appellant, if the stay is not contrary to the public interest and would not cause greater damage to a third party. 45.     Article 89 provides that a constitutional appeal can be either accepted or dismissed as unfounded. When the Constitutional Court finds a violation of a human or minority right or a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, it may quash ( poništiti ) the disputed decision, prohibit certain actions, or order that some action be undertaken in order to remedy the harmful consequences of the violation found, and it may rule on redress. When accepting a constitutional appeal, the Constitutional Court shall also give a decision on any claim by the appellant for compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. Asylum and Temporary Protection Act (“Asylum Act”; Zakon o azilu i privremenoj zaštiti , published in the OG RS no.   24/2018) 46 .     The Asylum Act sets out, inter alia , the rights and duties of asylum-seekers, and the conditions and process for the recognition and termination of the right to asylum. 47 .     Article 6 provides, inter alia , that persons cannot be returned to a territory where their life or freedom would be endangered because of their religion, because they belong to a particular social group or because of their political beliefs. This does not apply to a person who has been found guilty of a criminal offence for which he or she can be sentenced in Serbia to a prison sentence of five years or more because such a person constitutes a danger to public order. Regardless of that, no one can be extradited or returned against his or her will to a territory where there is a risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 48.     Article 20 provides that all proceedings for the recognition and termination of the right to asylum are entirely conducted by the Asylum Office, which is the organisational unit of the Ministry of the Interior in charge of asylum-related matters, and which also gives all decisions on the right to asylum. 49 .     Article 35, insofar as relevant, provides that a foreign national ( stranac ) may express an intention to claim asylum ( zahtev za azil ) orally or in writing to an authorised police officer of the Ministry of the Interior at a border crossing when entering the Republic of Serbia or on the territory of the Republic of Serbia. Exceptionally, a foreign national may express an intention to apply for asylum at an asylum centre, in another facility designated for the accommodation of asylum-seekers, or in a hostel for foreigners. An authorised police officer of the Ministry of the Interior must issue a certificate of registration (“registration certificate”) to a foreign national who has expressed an intention to claim asylum. 50 .     Article 36 provides, inter alia , that the asylum process is initiated by making an asylum claim to an authorised officer of the Asylum Office within fifteen days from the day of registration. If an authorised officer of the Asylum Office does not allow a foreign national who has been issued a registration certificate to apply for asylum within the specified period, the asylum seeker may do so by filling out the asylum application form within eight days from the expiry of the fifteen-day period. The asylum procedure is treated as having been commenced when an application form is submitted to the Asylum Office. The application for asylum is made in person, except in cases provided for by statute. If the application for asylum is made through another person under the relevant provisions of the statute, the asylum-seeker must be present in person. International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act ( Zakon o međunarodnoj pravnoj pomoći u krivičnim stvarima , published in the OG RS no. 20/09) 51 .     Article 7 paragraph 1 subparagraphs 1-3 set out the preconditions for international legal assistance. They include requirements that the criminal offence in respect of which international legal assistance is requested constitutes a criminal offence in Serbia; that no criminal proceedings in respect of the same criminal offence have been finally concluded before the domestic courts; that the sentence for the offence has not been fully executed; and that the prosecution or sentence has not been time-barred or excluded by an amnesty or pardon. Paragraph 1 subparagraphs 4-5 of this Article further provide that the extradition request must not relate to a political offence, an offence related to a political offence or an offence which consists only of a violation of military duties unless it is an offence under international humanitarian law; and that providing the international legal assistance would not violate the sovereignty, security, public order of Serbia or other interests of the greatest significance to the country. The decision on whether the first three criteria are fulfilled is a matter for the courts, and on the other two for the Minister of Justice. 52 .     Article 16 sets out the preconditions for extradition, which are: (1) that the person whose extradition is requested is not a citizen of Serbia; (2) that the offence for which extradition is requested was not committed in the territory of Serbia, against Serbia or against a Serbian national; (3) that no criminal proceedings are being conducted against the same person in Serbia for the criminal offence for which extradition is requested; (4) that, under domestic law, it is possible to hold a re-trial for the criminal offence in respect of which extradition has been requested; (5) that the identity of the person whose extradition is requested has been established; (6) that there is a final court decision that the person whose extradition is requested has committed the criminal offence for which extradition is requested; (7) that the requesting State provides guarantees that, in case of a conviction in absentia , the proceedings will be reopened ( postupak biti ponovljen ) in the presence of the extradited person; (8) that if the death penalty is prescribed in the requesting State for the offence for which extradition is requested, the requesting State provides guarantees that it will not be imposed or executed. 53 .     Article 21, in so far as it is relevant, provides that an investigating judge must hear a person whose extradition has been requested on all the circumstances relevant for establishing the preconditions for extradition and, in particular, about the person’s personal circumstances, citizenship and relations with the requesting State and about the extradition request. 54.     Article 27 provides that the court shall either refuse extradition or decide that the preconditions for extradition have been met. 55 .     Article 29 provides that if the preconditions for extradition have been met the court shall issue a decision to that effect. An appeal may be filed within three days of service of that decision. After hearing the public prosecutor, the person whose extradition has been requested and his or her representative, the appellate court shall uphold, quash or vary the decision that the conditions for extradition have been met. 56 .     Article 31 requires a final decision that the preconditions for extradition have been met to be transmitted to the Minister of Justice, who then decides whether or not to grant the extradition request. 57 .     Article 33 provides that the Minister of Justice must refuse to extradite a person if the requirements set out in Article 7(1)(4-5) of this Act have not been met (see paragraph 51 above). The extradition will also be refused if, in the course of any trial in absentia , the person whose extradition is requested did not have a fair trial. 58 .     Article 37 provides that a decision to extradite will be executed by the Ministry of the Interior. In particular, the Ministry will agree the place, time and manner of the extradition with the appropriate authorities in the requesting State. relevant domestic practice 59 .     On 30 October 2014 the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of an appellant from Somalia and quashed a judgment of the Administrative Court, which had upheld an Asylum Office decision to reject the appellant’s asylum claim. The Constitutional Court said that the Administrative Court should consider the reports of international and relevant non-governmental organisations about the conditions in Somalia at the time - in particular, reports on security and the political situation - in fresh proceedings. The court rejected the appellant’s application for a stay of the enforcement of the Ministry of the Interior decision ordering that he leave the country within 30   days as he had not lodged a constitutional appeal against that decision. 60 .     The applicant submitted that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in that case had lasted for 1,046 days. The Government did not contest that. international materials European Convention on Extradition 61 .     Article 6 of the European Convention on Extradition provides that Contracting Parties have the right to refuse to extradite their nationals. 62.     Article 7 provides that a requested Party may refuse to extradite a person for an offence which is treated under its own law as having been committed in whole or in part in its territory or in a place treated as its territory. When the offence for which extradition is requested has been committed outside the territory of the requesting Party, extradition may only be refused if the law of the requested Party does not allow prosecution for the same category of offence when committed outside its territory or does not allow extradition for the offence concerned. 63.     Article 8 provides that the requested Party may refuse to extradite a person if the authorities of that Party are proceeding against him in respect of the offence or offences for which extradition is requested. 64.     Article 9 provides that extradition must not be granted if a final judgment has been given by the authorities of the requested Party upon the person claimed in respect of the offence or offences for which extradition is requested. Extradition may be refused if the competent authorities of the requested Party have decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings in respect of the same offence or offences. 65.     Article 10 provides that extradition must not be granted when the person can no longer be prosecuted or punished under the law of either the requesting or the requested Party by reason of lapse of time. 66.     Article 11 provides that if the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the law of the requesting Party, and if under the law of the requested Party that offence does not carry the death penalty or the death penalty is not normally carried out, extradition may be refused unless the requesting Party gives such assurances as the requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty will not be carried out. 67 .     Article 12 sets out how to make an extradition request and the supporting documents required. United Nations Committee Against Torture (UNCAT) Concluding Observations on the second and third periodic reports of Bahrain (adopted by the Committee at its sixtieth session (18 April - 12 May 2017)) 68 .     In its 2017 Concluding Observations the UNCAT expressed its concern about the continued numerous and consistent allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in all places of detention and elsewhere in order to extract confessions or as punishment. The UNCAT was further concerned at the climate of impunity which seemed to prevail as a result of the low number of convictions for torture and the sentences given to persons responsible for torture resulting in, inter alia , death, which were not commensurate with the gravity of the crimes. It was also concerned about the current use of prolonged periods of solitary confinement as a punishment in various detention centres, that overcrowding remained a problem in detention facilities, and about reports of poor material and hygiene conditions in places of detention, including inadequate bathing and toilet facilities, lack of access to adequate quantities of food or to food of sufficient quality, lack of access to health care, lack of outdoor activities and unnecessary restrictions on family visits. European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on the human rights situation in the Kingdom of Bahrain, in particular the cases of death row inmates and human rights defenders (2021/2578(RSP)) 69.     In its Resolution of 11 March 2021 the European Parliament expressed its deep concern that ten years after the Bahraini “Arab Spring” uprising the human rights situation in the country was continuing to worsen. It expressed particular concern about the misuse of anti-terrorism laws in Bahrain. It also condemned the continuing use of torture, the denial of medical care, and other cruel and degrading treatment or punishment of detainees, including peaceful protesters and civilians. It also called for thorough and informed investigations into all torture allegations in order to hold those responsible to account. They reported, inter alia , that no political opposition was tolerated, and that human rights lawyers, journalists and political activists faced ongoing systematic targeting, harassment, detention, torture, intimidation, travel bans and revocation of citizenship. The report also deplored the dire prison conditions in the country. It noted that health and hygiene conditions in Bahrain’s overcrowded prisons remained extremely serious, and that prisoners were denied urgent medical attention. OTHER MATERIALS Human Rights Watch Reports Human Rights Watch report “Torture Redux – The Revival of Physical Coercion during Interrogations in Bahrain”, February 2010 70 .     A report of February 2010 by the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch concluded that from the end of 2007 Bahraini officials had resumed torturing those suspected of endangering security. Based on interviews and a review of documentary records, Human Rights Watch concluded that there was credible evidence that since December 2007 Bahraini security forces had been using electric shock devices against detainees; had suspended them in painful positions; had beaten their feet with rubber hoses and/or batons; had slapped, punched, and kicked them and beaten them with implements; had forced them to stand for prolonged periods of time; and had threatened them with death and rape. Many of those detained were young men from the majority Shiite Muslim community whose street protests about alleged discrimination against them by the Sunni-dominated government had regularly led to confrontations with security forces. 71 .     The report recounted interviews with a number of people, including the applicant. In his interview, which had been conducted in June 2009, the applicant alleged that he had been arrested in December 2007 and taken to the Criminal Investigation Department. He had been blindfolded, fully suspended in the air at least twice, hit with what felt like a rubber hose and kicked. Ministry of Health doctors who had subsequently examined him on the order of a court following the applicant’s reports of abuse had found healed wounds on his wrist that they had concluded could have resulted from pressure applied by handcuffs. The applicant also stated that he had been threatened with a black device that looked like an electric shaver, and that an officer had threatened to rape him. The Human Rights Watch Report of January 2012 on Bahrain 72 .     In January 2012 Human Rights Watch reported that Bahraini forces had used lethal force to suppress peaceful anti-government and pro-democracy protests in mid-February 2011, leading to the deaths of more than 40 people, including four who had died in custody in April 2011 from torture or medical neglect. They further reported that this had been followed by a systematic campaign of retribution in which thousands of demonstrators or individuals who supported or were suspected of supporting the protests had been arrested. Dozens of detainees, including doctors, nurses and paramedics who had been arrested in March and April 2011, alleged after being released that they had been abused or tortured during their detention, often to force them to confess. Some of the opposition leaders and activists who had been arrested for alleged terrorist offences in 2010 and released in February 2011 also stated that they had been subjected to both physical and psychological abuse, some of which had amounted to torture. The abuse had included threats; humiliation; solitary confinement; beatings to the head, chest, and other sensitive areas; beatings on the soles of feet with sticks o