CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 24 September 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 72510/12 Zokir TURDIKHOJAEV against Ukraine lodged on 27 October 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention while the possibility of his extradition to Uzbekistan was being examined by the Ukrainian authorities. On 19 June 2012 the applicant, a national of Uzbekistan, was arrested in Ukraine at the request of Uzbekistan authorities who asked for his extradition on charges of membership in an extremist or fundamentalist organisation. From 26 June 2012 on the applicant was detained in the Kyiv pre-trial detention centre (SIZO). According to him, he was held in cells measuring about 1.4 sq.m per person. Following an enquiry, on 25 January 2013 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine (GPO) decided to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan. The applicant appealed against that decision to the domestic courts. On 10   April   2013 the applicant was granted asylum by Swedish authorities and authorised to resettle in Sweden. According to the applicant, on 12   April   2013 the Regional Representation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees informed the GPO of that decision, urging the authorities to refuse extradition and release the applicant. Allegedly, the Swedish Embassy also informed the GPO of the Swedish authorities’ decision. According to the applicant, he was not immediately released following receipt of that information as the GPO requested further proof of the applicant’s refugee status. On 6 June 2013, allegedly at 12.00 noon, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the GPO’s initial extradition decision. According to the applicant, in the course of the hearings before the Court of Appeal he was kept in a metal cage. On 7 June 2013, allegedly at 2 p.m., the applicant was released. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Kyiv pre ‑ trial detention centre (SIZO), in particular the personal space available in the cell amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s alleged placement in a metal cage during court hearings (see   Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.   Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   113-39, ECHR   2014 (extracts), and Korneykova and Korneykov   v.   Ukraine , no. 56660/12, §§ 164-66, 24 March 2016)?   3.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (i)     did the applicant’s detention comply with the requirements of Article   5   §   1   (f) of the Convention after the Ukrainian authorities were informed of his refugee status in Sweden (see, for example, Eminbeyli v.   Russia , no.   42443/02, §§ 7, 17, 48, 26 February 2009)? (ii)     did the authorities conduct the proceedings for the applicant’s extradition with requisite diligence (see, for example, Khamroev and Others   v. Ukraine , no. 41651/10, §§ 91-99, 15 September 2016)?   4.     Does the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention allegedly in contravention of Article 5   §   1, as required by Article   5   §   5 of the Convention (see, for example, Korneykova v.   Ukraine , no.   39884/05, §§   79-82, 19   January   2012, and Taran v. Ukraine , no. 31898/06, §§   87-90, 17 October 2013)?