CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 avril 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 129 April 2010 Klein v. Russia - 24268/08 Judgment 1.4.2010 [Section I] Article 3 Extradition Proposed extradition of convicted mercenary to Colombia: extradition would constitute a violation   Facts – In 2001 the applicant was convicted by a Colombian criminal court of teaching military and terrorist tactics and given a lengthy prison sentence. In 2007 he was arrested in Russia. Colombia requested his extradition. A Russian newspaper then published an article in which the Colombian Vice-President was reported as saying that “it should be ensured that [the applicant] rot in jail”. Following assurances from the Colombian Government that the applicant would not be given the death penalty or ill-treated and would be indicted only in respect of the acts mentioned in the extradition request, the Prosecutor General of Russia ordered his extradition to Colombia. The applicant’s appeals to the Russian courts were dismissed, inter alia , on the basis of the diplomatic assurances given by the Colombian Government and the fact that the Colombian judiciary was independent of the executive. The applicant’s extradition was, however, stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings before the European Court. Law – Article 3: Reports from reliable sources indicated that the overall human-rights situation in Colombia was far from perfect. In particular, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United States Department of State had noted many recent instances of suspected human-right violations by State representatives, including extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances and arbitrary detentions. The UN Committee against Torture had also expressed concerns that people suspected of terrorism and illegal armed activities risked torture in Colombia. As to the applicant’s personal situation, the Colombian Vice-President’s statement that the applicant should “rot in jail” could be regarded as an indication that the applicant ran a serious risk of ill-treatment if extradited there. In addition, the Colombian Government’s assurances had been rather vague and were insufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment. Lastly, the Russian courts had limited their assessment of the situation to a mere observation that, as the Colombian judiciary were independent of the executive, they would not be affected by the Vice-President’s statement. In so doing, they had not duly addressed the applicant’s concerns. Conclusion : Extradition would constitute a violation (five votes to two). Article 41: Finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes