CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2021

.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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 19 April 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 16138/21 Alisen Aybatulakhovich MAGARAMOV against Russia lodged on 5 March 2021 Communicated on 30 March 2021 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant is a Turkmen national of Lezgin origin. He claims that he arrived to Russia in 2002 with his parents based on resettlement program. He has not settled his status in Russia ever since. 2.     On 16 September 2000 an investigator of Balkanabad Town, Turkmenistan brought criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 101 of the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan (aggravated murder). 3.     On the same date search order and detention order were issued in his respect. 4.     On 15 January 2019 the applicant was arrested in Russia. On 18 January 2019 Suleyman-Stalskiy District Court of Dagestan Republic issued a detention order in his respect. 5.     On 15 February 2019 the applicant was released. 6.     On 25 April 2019 Suleyman-Stalskiy District Court of Dagestan Republic convicted the applicant of breach of migration rules to fine of 2000 roubles. The court with reference to Article 8 of the Convention decided not to apply administrative removal as it would constitute an interference with the applicant’s family life. 7.     On 15 August 2020 the applicant was arrested again. On 16 August 2020 Derbent Town Court of Dagestan Republic issued detention order in his respect. The detention was prolonged for the last time until 14 June 2021 by decision of Derbent Town Court of Dagestan Republic of 30 December 2020. 8.     On 25 August 2020 Prosecutor General of Turkmenistan lodged an extradition request with a deputy Prosecutor General of Russia. 9.     On 16 September 2020 criminal charges against the applicant were altered, he was finally accused of aggravated murder, murder attempt and hooliganism. 10.     On 02 December 2020 deputy Prosecutor General of Russia granted the extradition request on murder and murder attempt charges. 11.     Despite the applicant’s consistent claims about risks of ill-treatment in Turkmenistan and existence of close family ties in Russia, the extradition order was upheld on 25 December 2020 and 12 February 2021 by Supreme Court of Dagestan Republic and Third Appellate Court respectively and thus became final. COMPLAINTS 12.     The applicant complains that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in event of his removal to Turkmenistan . 13.     The applicant also complains that his removal to Turkmenistan would entail disproportionate interference with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the general situation in Turkmenistan and the applicant’s personal circumstances, would he face a risk of   being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if removed to his country of origin? (see F.G. v. Sweden   [GC] , no.   43611/11,   §   114, 23   March 2016, Allanazarova v. Russia , § 73-83, no 46721/15, 14 February 2017)?   2.     Before deciding on the applicant’s extradition, did the Russian authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of his claim about the risks of ill-treatment in his country of origin (see Sufi and Elmi v.   the   United Kingdom , nos.   8319/07 and 11449/07,   §   214, 28   June   2011, F.G.   v.   Sweden   [GC] , cited above,   §   119 and Allanazarova v.   Russia , cited above, § 102-105)?   3.     Would there be an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his   family life if the extradition order was enforced? If so, would such interference amount to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see Butt v.   Norway , no. 47017/09, § 76-91, 4 December 2012).