CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 }   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 47679/17 M.I. against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 5 July 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, a Russian national, left his country of origin in 2014. The criminal proceedings are pending against him in the Russian Federation for organisation of or participation in an illegal armed formation. He was apprehended in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a person appearing on international list of wanted persons. His claims regarding a risk of ill-treatment in the country of origin were dismissed in the extradition proceedings, for procedural reasons. The applicant was excluded from the refugee protection in the asylum proceedings, where it was also held that his extradition would not present a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant is represented before the Court by Vaša Prava , a NGO based in Sarajevo. He faces extradition to the Russian Federation. The applicant has been placed in immigration detention. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that his extradition to the Russian Federation would entail a violation of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. He also argues under Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3, that he was denied access to the asylum procedure upon entering Bosnia and Herzegovina and during the extradition proceedings. Furthermore, he claims that his arguments relating to his claims under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention were not thoroughly examined at the domestic level and that he did not have access to a remedy with an automatic suspensive effect in relation to his claims under those articles. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention if the extradition order was enforced (see, mutatis mutandis , I.K. v. Austria , no. 2964/12, §§ 34 ‑ 55, 28   March 2013; I v. Sweden , no.   61204/09, §§   27-39, 5   September 2013; and R.M. and Others v. France , no. 33201/11, §§ 50-55, 12 July 2016)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 2 and 3, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? In particular, did such a remedy have automatic suspensive effect (see Čonka v. Belgium , no. 51564/99, §   79, ECHR   2002 ‑ I; Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France , no.   25389/05, §   58, ECHR   2007 ‑ II; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no.   27765/09, § 200, ECHR 2012; and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 276, ECHR 2016)?