CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 2025

.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 } .s42C679A8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-11.3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Published on 7 April 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 53102/22 Artur YEGHIYAN against Armenia lodged on 7 November 2022 communicated on 18 March 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Artur Yeghiyan, is a Russian national, who was born in 1992 and is detained in Ejmiatsin, Armenia. He is represented before the Court by Ms A. Yesayan and Ms S. Hayrapetyan, lawyers practising in Yerevan. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows: The applicant, who is of Armenian origin, alleges that on 27 September 2020 he fled from Russia to Armenia due to repeated threats from powerful criminals to whom he owed significant amount of money. On 20 October 2020 the Russian authorities issued a search warrant with respect to the applicant and on 24 February 2022 charged him in absentia of aggravated robbery committed in April 2020. On the same day a court in Russia issued a detention order in respect of the applicant. On 2 June 2022 the applicant was arrested in Armenia and on 3 June 2022 he was remanded in custody on the basis of an official detention request made by the Russian authorities under the 1993 CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases. On 22 June 2022 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Armenia received a request from the Russian authorities seeking the applicant’s extradition. The request contained assurances that he would be treated properly, including (a)   guarantees against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) that there would no political or discriminatory grounds for prosecution; and (c) that he would be afforded every opportunity to defend himself and have access to a lawyer. On 7 July 2022 the acting Prosecutor General of Armenia concluded that there were no grounds under either international or domestic law to reject the extradition request and authorised the applicant’s extradition to Russia. Section 3 of this decision stated that the police and the administration of the relevant detention facility should carry out the applicant’s surrender to the Russian authorities after receiving an additional notification from the Prosecutor General’s Office of Armenia concerning the absence of circumstances precluding the surrender. On 11 July 2022 the applicant submitted an asylum application to the Migration Service. In his asylum application (and later during the interview with the Migration Service) he expressed fear about his safety if extradited to Russia. He insisted that the criminal case against him had been fabricated in cooperation between his powerful creditors and the police to secure his return to Russia where he would face retaliation. The applicant further claimed that when the Russian police had arrested his co-accused S.S. (also of Armenian origin) back in 2020, the officers had forced him to give incriminating statements against himself and the applicant and had severely beaten him up while offending his national identity and making hateful remarks against Armenians. That is why he was concerned that he would be treated the same way by the Russian authorities and would not fully enjoy his Convention rights, including due process guarantees. The applicant also claimed that his mother, sister and wife, who had remained in Russia, had been threatened by the police officers in order to push them to disclose his whereabouts. On 18 July 2022 the Migration Service rejected the examination of the applicant’s asylum application on the grounds that he had missed the deadline for its submission. In particular, he had been notified by the police about his right to seek asylum on 2 June 2022 following his arrest, as required by law, but failed to submit an application within the fifteen-days’ statutory time ‑ limit. On 19 July 2022 the applicant lodged an appeal against the Prosecutor General’s decision of 7 July 2022 with the Criminal Court of Appeal. He submitted that he had a “well-founded fear” as provided in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Refugee Convention”), based on the country profile of Russia and his personal circumstances, that he would be subjected to ill-treatment like his co-accused S.S., and would be deprived of fair trial safeguards. The applicant complained that the Prosecutor General’s office had not properly assessed the diplomatic assurances that he would be protected from ill-treatment in Russia. He argued that the prosecution had to base their assessment of those diplomatic assurances on credible evidence, including information gathered through personal discussions with him and his family members who had been threatened. Otherwise, the state would fail in its positive obligation to exclude the possibility of ill-treatment and would demonstrate merely formal approach to extradition requests. Lastly, the applicant asked the court to suspend the extradition proceedings and the examination of his appeal pending the asylum proceedings. On 28 July 2022 the applicant again applied to the Migration Service, explaining that he had not been notified about his right to seek asylum as required by law, but to no avail. On the same date the applicant applied to the Prosecutor General informing him that he had submitted an asylum application and asking to stay his surrender to the Russian authorities pending the examination of his application. On 5 August 2022 the Prosecutor General’s office replied that the actual surrender of the applicant would be carried out in accordance with the procedure provided for by the Armenian legislation. On 15 August 2022 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Administrative Court against the refusal of the Migration Service to examine his asylum application, arguing that he had not been notified about his right to seek asylum, as required by law, including the deadline and conditions of submitting an asylum application in a timely manner. On 31 August 2022 the Criminal Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal of 19 Jully 2022. The court, in particular, dismissed the applicant’s argument that his safety and rights would not be ensured in Russia because such assurances had been given by an official having the authority to do so. It also noted that the applicant had not produced any evidence to support his account. It further held that it could not suspend the examination of the case, as requested by the applicant, only because he had submitted an asylum application or an appeal to the Administrative Court against the refusal of the Migration Service to examine his asylum application. This fact in itself did not mean that the Prosecutor General’s decision was unlawful; and such possibility was not provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition, the court referred to the part of the Prosecutor General’s decision in question indicating that the applicant’s surrender would be carried out after receiving an additional notification concerning the absence of circumstances precluding his extradition. On 24 October 2022 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law against this decision inadmissible for lack of merit. On the same date the Administrative Court granted the applicant’s appeal of 15 August 2022 and obliged the Migration Service to examine his asylum application, finding that there was no evidence to show that the applicant had been notified about his right to seek asylum as required by law. On 27 October 2022 the applicant applied to the Prosecutor General requesting that the decision on granting his extradition and the extradition procedure itself be suspended on the grounds that the Migration Service had provided him with a card of an asylum seeker which meant that he was entitled to “ non-refoulment ” protection. On 28 October 2022 the Prosecutor General’s office replied that the legislation did not provide for suspension of extradition procedure; and that the actual surrender of the applicant would be carried out in accordance with the law, including the obligations and procedures prescribed in international treaties, while ensuring the applicant’s guaranteed rights. On 24 January 2023 the Migration Service decided to reject the applicant’s asylum application, concluding that the applicant did not comply with the definition of “refugee” under international and national law and that the criminal prosecution against him in Russia was not due to his race, religion, national or social origin or political opinion as foreseen in the Refugee Convention. That being so, the Migration Service held that the principle of non-refoulement protection provided in Section 9 § 3 of the Refugees and Asylum Act was applicable to the applicant’s case and he was not to be removed to Russia. The Migration Service found, in particular, that the applicant’s fear that, if surrendered to Russia, he would be subjected to treatment contrary to that provision was well-founded and the factual circumstances submitted by him were credible. It further held, on the basis of the assessment of Russia’s country profile, that the criminal subculture was widespread in that country and persons having authority in criminal circles had close connections with the law-enforcement bodies which allowed for their impunity. The criminals could also buy services from the law ‑ enforcement bodies. Taking into account the multiple threats against the applicant and his family members, the Migration Service believed that it was possible that those threats would materialise and that the law-enforcement bodies would not provide him with proper protection. It follows from the information provided by the applicant that he has not been removed to Russia as of 17 January 2025. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK Constitution (1995; with amendments introduced in 2015) Article 55 § 1 of the Constitution provides that no one may be expelled or extradited to a foreign state, if there is a real danger that he or she may be subjected to death penalty, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in that country. Refugees and Asylum Act (2009) The Refugees and Asylum Act governs the asylum procedures as well as ensures the application of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Section 5 § 3 provide that a foreign national or a stateless person, who has submitted an asylum application in the territory of Armenia, shall be considered an asylum seeker and shall enjoy all the rights of asylum seekers prescribed by this Act until a final decision is taken on his or her asylum application. Section 9, entitled “Non-refoulement”, provides that the principle of non ‑ refoulement is the non-return of a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his or her life or freedom may be in danger on the ground of his or her race, religion, national or social origin, political opinion or widespread violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violations of human rights or other serious events disrupting public order. An asylum seeker may not be expelled from the territory of Armenia until a final decision is taken on his or her asylum application. A foreign citizen or a stateless person may not be expelled, returned or extradited to another country where there is a well-founded risk that he or she would be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including torture. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his extradition to Russia would put him at risk of treatment incompatible with the guarantees of that Article and that the domestic authorities did not carry out a proper assessment of the risk in the scope of the extradition proceedings. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 13 in conjunction with Article   3 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy against the risk of ill ‑ treatment. He argues, in particular, that the Criminal Court of Appeal did not examine the risks he faced in Russia thoroughly and that the asylum procedure did not have an automatic suspensive effect on the extradition proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if the extradition order were enforced (see, among other authorities, Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia [GC], nos.   28492/15 and 49975/15, §§ 93-112, 29 April 2022)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no.   30696/09, § 293, 21 January 2011)? In particular, did the combination of the remedies available to the applicant (proceedings challenging the extradition decision and asylum proceedings) ensure Convention-conform examination of the risk of ill-treatment in the destination country?