CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s17DFA3EA { width:76.98%; border-collapse:collapse } .s967C2AB0 { width:9.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD5D4A205 { width:42.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s70EFFAA { width:5.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4DEF88DA { width:18.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8D05D4DB { width:24.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s659EAE36 { width:9.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4C763B9F { width:42.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE47EB2B1 { width:5.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s43591389 { width:18.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s55652D55 { width:24.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 14 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 12767/20 I.U. and Z.K. against Russia lodged on 10 March 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Supreme Court’s repeated authorisation of the applicants’ extradition to Uzbekistan following findings of this Court that the applicants’ rights under Article 3 of the Convention would be violated in case of their removal to their country of origin (see I.U.   v.   Russia , no.   48917/15, 19 January 2017, and S.S. and Others v.   Russia , nos.   2236/16 and 3 others, 25 June 2019). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the general situation in Uzbekistan and the applicants’ personal circumstances, would they face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if extradited to their country of origin (see   F.G. v. Sweden   [GC], no.   43611/11,   §   114, 23 March 2016)?   2.     Before deciding on the applicants’ extradition, did the Russian authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of their claim about the risks of ill-treatment in their country of origin (see Sufi and Elmi v.   the   United Kingdom , nos.   8319/07 and 11449/07, §   214, 28   June 2011, and F.G.   v.   Sweden   [GC], cited above,   §   119)?       ANNEX   No. Applicant’s Name Gender Birth year Nationality 1 I.U. M 1988 Uzbekistan 2 Z.K. M 1995 Uzbekistan