CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 18 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 60124/17 and 79223/17 A.M. against Russia and B.Z. against Russia lodged on 18 August 2017 and 22 November 2017 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicants are nationals of Uzbekistan. Their initials, dates of birth, nationalities, the dates on which their applications were introduced, application numbers, the particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the Appendix. 2.     On various dates they were charged with religious and politically motivated crimes, their pre-trial detention was ordered in absentia , and international search warrants were issued by the authorities. 3.     The Russian authorities arrested and detained the applicants under the above-mentioned search warrants. Subsequently they took final decisions to remove (that is to say to extradite or expel) the applicants to their respective countries of origin, despite consistent claims that in the event of their removal they would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. 4.     On various dates the applicants’ requests under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court were granted. It was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicants should not be removed from Russia for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. It was further decided that the applicants’ identities would not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4) and that the applications should be granted priority treatment (Rule 41). COMPLAINTS 5.     The applicants complain that they would be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if removed to Uzbekistan. 6.     The applicants further complain under Article 5 § 4 about an absence of an effective procedure by which they could have challenged their continued detention. 7.     Lastly, the applicant in the case no. 60124/17 complains that his detention pending expulsion is incompatible with the requirements of Article   5 of the Convention in terms of the foreseeability of the length of detention COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Would the applicants face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to their respective countries of origin? 2.     In the domestic proceedings, did the relevant national authorities adequately assess the applicants’ claims that they would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to their respective countries of origin? 3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention pending expulsion, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTION A.M. v. Russia, no. 60124/17 Having regard to the Court’s conclusion in the case of Azimov v.   Russia ( Azimov v. Russia , no. 67474/11, 18 April 2013), was the applicant’s detention pending expulsion compatible with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention in terms of the foreseeability of the length of such detention?   APPENDIX   No. Name, date of birth, nationality   application no., lodged on,   represented by   Dates of detention and release Removal proceedings (type, progress, outcome) Refugee and/or temporary asylum proceedings Other relevant information 1. A.M. v. Russia 26 September 1992 Uzbekistan   no. 60124/17 18 July 2017   Daria TRENINA Eleonora DAVIDYAN Kirill ZHARINOV   Detention pending extradition   2 July 2016 – arrested and subsequently detained 1 July 2017 – release due to expiry of the maximum statutory period of detention   Detention pending expulsion   25 October 2017 – arrested and subsequently detained   Extradition proceedings   6 February 2015 – international search warrant and detention order in absentia issued by Uzbek authorities   29 July 2016 – extradition request on charges of extremism   27 April 2017 – extradition request granted by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office   12 December 2017 – extradition order upheld by the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   Expulsion proceedings   20 November 2017 – the applicant’s expulsion upheld by the final judgment of the Moscow City Court   Refugee status proceedings   19 July 2017 – refusal to grant refugee status by the migration authorities 5 December 2017 – refusal upheld by the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow   Temporary asylum proceedings   27 July 2017 – refusal to grant temporary asylum by the migration authorities 15 November 2017 – refusal upheld by the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow   22 August 2017 – interim measure preventing the applicant’s removal   25 October 2017 – the head of the Counter-terrorist Division of the Ministry of Interior of Uzbekistan informed the Russian authorities that the decision to detain the applicant in Uzbekistan is no longer effective   30 November 2017 – the Prosecutor General’s Office of Uzbekistan informed the Russian authorities of their wish to pursue the extradition and that the detention order was still effective   2. B.Z. v. Russia 2 August 1983 Uzbekistan   no. 79223/17 22 November 2017   Bakhrom KHAMROYEV   Detention pending extradition   11 November 2015 – arrested and subsequently detained 16 March 2017 – released by the order of the Moscow Regional Court   15 June 2017 – repeatedly arrested 16 June 2017 – released   Detention pending expulsion   8 November 2017 – arrested and subsequently detained   Extradition proceedings   unspecified date in 2015 – international search warrant and detention order in absentia issued by Uzbek authorities   4 December 2016 – extradition request on charges of extremism   11 August 2016 – extradition request granted by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office   16 March 2017 – extradition order annulled by the Moscow Regional Court   3 May 2017 – lower court’s judgement upheld by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   Expulsion proceedings   22 November 2017 – the applicant’s expulsion upheld by the final judgment of the Moscow City Court   Temporary asylum proceedings   4 September 2017 – refusal to grant temporary asylum by the migration authorities   22 November 2017 – interim measure preventing the applicant’s removal