CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 10 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; 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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E503E34 { width:34.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF I.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 340/18 and 4 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 10 July 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of I.M. and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the risk of torture in case of removal to the destination country. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the risk of torture in case of removal to the destination country. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention. 8.     The Grand Chamber in the case of Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia ([GC] , nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, 29 April 2022) established the relevant general principles for the assessment of the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. In the leading cases of K.I. v. Russia (no.   58182/14, 7 November 2017) and Mamazhonov v. Russia (no. 17239/13, 23 October 2014) the Court examined the situation in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases. 9.     The Court accordingly finds that the present complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. They should therefore be declared admissible, 10.     Furthermore, the Court, having examined all the material submitted to it and the case-law on the subject, considers that the Russian authorities exposed the applicants to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention by removing them to the destination countries despite the genuine and serious nature of the risks indicated in the removal proceedings. 11.     In particular the Court notes that the applicants have been the persons wanted by the Tajik and Uzbek authorities on charges of religious and/or political extremism and, therefore, falling within the vulnerable category previously identified by the Court and facing a heightened level of risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see K.I., and Mamazhonov, both cited above). The Russian authorities authorising and effecting their removals to their countries of origin have failed to dispel, with reference to relevant and convincing proof, the applicants’ allegations concerning the risks they face in the destination countries. That failure to adequately assess the existing risks stemming from the general situation, the applicants’ belonging to a vulnerable group, as well as from their individual circumstances, is in stark defiance of the principles elucidated in the Court’s case-law (see Khasanov and Rakhmanov, cited above, §§ 102-16). 12.     Given the failure of the domestic authorities to adequately assess the above-mentioned risk of ill-treatment, the Court finds itself compelled to examine independently whether or not the applicants are exposed to such a risk in the event of their removal to their countries of origin. 13.     The Court reiterates that previously it had consistently concluded that the removal of an applicant charged with religiously and politically motivated crimes in Uzbekistan and in Tajikistan exposes that applicant to a real risk of ill-treatment in the country of origin (see e.g. Mamazhonov , cited above; Kholmurodov v. Russia , no. 58923/14, 1 March 2016; K.I. , cited above; T.M. and Others v. Russia , [Committee], no. 31189/15, 7 November 2017; and B.U. and Others v. Russia , nos. 59609/17, 74677/17, 76379/17, 22 January 2019). 14.     Nothing in the present cases or the relevant material from independent international sources provides at this moment a sufficient basis for a conclusion that the persons prosecuted for religiously and politically motivated crimes no longer run such a risk. 15.       Accordingly, there has been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article   3 of the Convention. ALLEGED breach OF ARTICLE 34 of the Convention 16.     The applicants in the cases I.M. v. Russia , application no. 340/18, and M.Z. v. Russia , application no. 6646/18, complained that their removal to the destination countries despite the interim measures indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court has breached Article 34 of the Convention. 17.     The Court notes that on various dates (see the appended table) it was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicants should not be removed to the destination countries for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. Despite indication of such measures the applicants were forcefully removed to the destination countries by the Russian authorities. 18.     Having examined all the material submitted to it and the case-law on the subject, the Court considers that the Russian authorities failed to comply with the interim measures indicated to them under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and, therefore, interfered with the right of the individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention. 19.     Accordingly, there has been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 34 of the Convention in the cases I.M. v. Russia , no. 340/18, and M.Z. v.   Russia , no. 6646/18. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 20.     The applicants in the cases I.M. v. Russia , application no. 340/18 and M.Z. v. Russia , application no. 6646/18, also raised complaints under Article   13 of the Convention. The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 21.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 22.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, O.O. v. Russia, no. 36321/16, § 69, 21 May 2019, and Rakhimov v. Russia, no. 50552/13, § 156, 10 July 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints concerning the risk of torture in case of removal to the destination countries admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 340/18 and 6646/18 inadmissible; Holds that that there has been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that Russia has failed to comply with its obligations under Article   34 of the Convention in respect   of the applicants in the cases I.M. v.   Russia , application no.   340/18, and M.Z. v. Russia , application no.   6646/18; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (risk of torture in case of removal to the destination country) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Final removal decision (expulsion or extradition) Destination country Nature of the risk Other relevant information Relevant case ‑ law Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     340/18 04/01/2017   I.M. 1990   Trenina Daria Vladimirovna Moscow Internal Affairs Department of Tambov Region, 15/12/2017 Tajikistan Religious persecution On 04/01/2018 the Court granted the interim measure request from the applicant under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, seeking to prevent his removal. In February 2018 the applicant appealed against the deportation decision, but proceedings were adjourned in view of the interim measure indicated by the Court. On 02/08/2018 the applicant was removed to Tajikistan by Russian law-enforcement agents in breach of the interim measure. On 05/10/2018 the applicant was convicted in Tajikistan and sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment. Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia [GC], nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, 29 April 2022,   K.I. v. Russia , no.   58182/14, 7   November 2017,   Mamazhonov v.   Russia , no.   17239/13, 23   October 2014 Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition – on account of the respondent State’s failure to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court 20,000     6646/18 02/02/2018   M.Z. 1987   Trenina Daria Vladimirovna Moscow Provoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk, 05/03/2018 Tajikistan Religious persecution On 05/02/2018 the Court granted the interim measure request from the applicant under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, seeking to prevent his removal. On 06/02/2018 the applicant was deported to Tajikistan by Russian law-enforcement agents in breach of the interim measure. On 09/02/2018 police airport unit by an official letter informed the applicant’s representative that they had no information about the interim measure on the day of deportation. On 18/04/2018 the applicant was convicted in Tajikistan and sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment. Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia [GC], nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, 29 April 2022,   K.I. v. Russia , no.   58182/14, 7   November 2017,   Mamazhonov v.   Russia , no.   17239/13, 23   October 2014 Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition – on account of the respondent State’s failure to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court 20,000     25969/21 05/07/2021   S.M. 1991   Trenina Daria Vladimirovna Moscow Moscow Regional Court, 10/06/2021 Tajikistan Religious persecution Removed to Tajikistan on 31/05/2022 despite the interim measure indicated on 08/06/2021. Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia [GC], nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, 29 April 2022;   K.I. v. Russia , no.   58182/14, 7   November 2017;   Mamazhonov v.   Russia , no.   17239/13, 23   October 2014   20,000     27939/21 03/06/2021   M.M. 1974   Zharinov Kirill Moscow Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg, 24/05/2021 Uzbekistan Religious persecution On 27/05/2021 before the removal decision entered into force the applicant was transferred to Uzbekistan. According to his account the removal happened by force and against his will. According to the authorities he was removed at his own request (the tickets were bought by the unknown persons in Uzbekistan and the flight had only 2 passengers on board). The applicant currently serves his sentence in Uzbekistan. On 06/03/2024 he confirmed his wish to pursue the proceedings despite certain previous statements to the contrary (allegedly made under pressure from the Uzbek authorities). Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia [GC], nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, 29 April 2022,   Mamazhonov v.   Russia , no.   17239/13, 23   October 2014   20,000     52017/21 25/10/2021 R.B. 1969   Zharinov Kirill Moscow Moscow Regional Court, 02/11/2021 Tajikistan Religious and political persecution Removed to Tajikistan on 31/05/2022 despite the interim measure indicated on 02/11/2021. Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia [GC], nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, 29 April 2022;   K.I. v. Russia , no.   58182/14, 7   November 2017;   Mamazhonov v.   Russia , no.   17239/13, 23   October 2014   20,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.