CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juin 2012

.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 } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .sDA30A789 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       THIRD SECTION Application no. 37146/12 A.Y. against Slovakia lodged on 15 June 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant is a Russian national. At present he is detained in Banská Bystrica (Slovakia). He is represented by Mr M. Hrbáň, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1. Extradition proceedings On 21 March 2012 the Trnava Regional Court found that the applicant’s extradition to Russia for the purpose of his criminal prosecution was admissible, with reference to guarantees offered by the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation. On 12 June 2012 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera, dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the first-instance decision. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the decision as to whether the applicant should be extradited lies with the Minister of Justice. 2. Asylum proceedings The applicant’s first asylum request was rejected by a decision which became final on 18 November 2010. Proceedings on the applicant’s second request for asylum are pending. 3. Other relevant facts In a letter to the Minister of the Interior the UNHCR Regional Representative expressed concern over the manner the Slovak authorities interpreted the non-refoulement principle, in particular the fact that the applicant’s extradition had been declared admissible notwithstanding that asylum proceedings are pending. In a release Amnesty International has expressed concern regarding the possible extradition of the applicant. The view is expressed that the applicant risks, in case of his removal, being subjected to ill-treatment. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he would be at risk of torture in case of his extradition to Russia. 2. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that (i)   his right to a fair hearing was breached in the extradition proceedings, and (ii) he would not benefit from the guarantees of a fair hearing in the criminal proceedings against him in Russia in the event of his extradition. 3. Finally, the applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he has no effective remedy at his disposal in Slovakia in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 6.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES     1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if the extradition decision were enforced?   2.     If extradited, would the applicant be at real risk of a flagrant denial of justice, contrary to Article 6 of the Convention, arising, in particular, from the use of evidence obtained by treatment contrary to Article 3 (see also the recapitulation of the relevant principles in Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom , no. 8139/09, §§ 258-267, 17 January 2012)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 3 (see Diallo v. the Czech Republic , no. 20493/07, § 74, 23 June 2011) and 6, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?