CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 juin 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   458 19.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT RYABIKIN v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ryabikin v. Russia (application no. 8320/04).   The Court held unanimously: that there would be a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the applicant were to be extradited to Turkmenistan; that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) concerning the applicant’s detention pending extradition; that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the absence of judicial review of the applicant’s detention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   8,299 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Aleksandr Ryabikin, is a Turkmen national of Russian ethnic origin who was born in 1953 in Ashkhabad (Turkmenistan). He currently lives in St Petersburg.   The case concerned Mr Ryabikin’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention pending extradition and that, if extradited to Turkmenistan, he was at risk of torture and ethnically motivated persecution.   In January 2001, fearing that he was in danger because he had been a witness in a criminal case against two officials, he left the country for the United Arab Emirates and then Moscow. He was then informed that a criminal case had been opened against him in Turkmenistan and that part of his property had been confiscated.     In 2003 Mr Ryabikin applied for refugee status in Russia. He submitted, in particular, that he feared persecution in Turkmenistan and that he was the subject of a criminal investigation. His request was ultimately rejected by the Russian migration authorities, and then by the courts, mainly on the grounds that:   the applicant had been allowed to leave Turkmenistan legally and without any hindrance; his family continued to reside safely in Turkmenistan; on arrival in Russia he had not immediately applied for asylum; and, the criminal proceedings in Turkmenistan were not in any way linked to his political, religious or ethnic background, but to his commercial activities.   In February 2004 the applicant was summoned to the St. Petersburg Passport and Visa Service and arrested on the basis of an international search warrant which included charges against him of embezzlement, an offence punishable under the Turkmen Criminal Code by eight to 15 years’ imprisonment. Kuybyshevskiy district court subsequently ordered his detention pending extradition to Turkmenistan.   On 9 March 2004 the European Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, requested the Russian authorities not to extradite the applicant to Turkmenistan until further notice. The same day, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Moscow issued a statement saying that the applicant’s appeal concerning his refugee status was pending and that his extradition to Turkmenistan prior to determination of his appeal might be in violation of national and international law.   Mr Ryabikin appealed against his detention on several occasions before the local courts. Ultimately, on 14 March 2005 Kuybyshevskiy district court decided to release him. The court noted that no decision on extradition had been taken by the Prosecutor General’s Office, in view of the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. It further noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) did not provide for the extension or alteration of a preventive measure in respect of a person arrested further to an extradition request. The district court directly applied Article 17 of the Constitution of Russia, which guarantees rights and freedoms in accordance with internationally recognised principles and norms of international law, and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The extradition proceedings against the applicant are currently still pending. In their latest observations submitted to the European Court in July 2007, the Russian Government stated that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Turkmenistan had provided, in a letter, guarantees to the effect that, if returned, the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment.   The applicant submitted a number of reports on the situation in Turkmenistan, including documents issued by the OSCE, the European Parliament, the UN Commission on Human Rights, the US State Department, Amnesty International, Memorial, Human Rights Watch and the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights. Those documents indicated that persecution of ethnic minorities (including Russians), extremely poor conditions of detention, as well as ill-treatment and torture, remained a great concern in that country. The documents also indicated that accurate information about the human rights situation was scarce and difficult to verify, in view of the exceptionally restrictive nature of the prevailing political regime, described as “one of the world’s most repressive and closed countries” (Human Rights Watch 2007 World Report), and the systematic refusal of the Turkmen authorities to allow any monitoring of places of detention by international or non-governmental observers. 2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5   March 2004 and declared admissible on 10   April 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr Ryabikin complained about the unlawfulness of his detention and that, if extradited to Turkmenistan, he was at risk of torture and ethnically motivated persecution. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5 §§   1   (f) and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court observed that to date no decision had been taken concerning the applicant’s extradition to Turkmenistan. Nevertheless, the parties had not disputed that the applicant remained under a threat of such extradition.   The Court noted that the evidence from the reports and documents submitted by the applicant had revealed serious human rights violations occurring in Turkmenistan and that the fate of even the most prominent prisoners often remained unknown, even to their families.   Moreover, although the Russian Government had requested assurances from the Prosecutor General of Turkmenistan, no copy of that letter had been submitted to the Court. In any event, even accepting that such assurances had been given, the Court noted that the various reports had indicated that the authorities of Turkmenistan had systematically refused access by international observers to the country, and in particular to places of detention. The Court therefore questioned the value of any such assurances. It also recalled that it had previously found that diplomatic assurances had not in themselves been sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment in countries where reliable sources had reported practices contrary to the principles of the Convention.   The Court further noted that the applicant’s claims for refugee status had been limited to the question of whether he could claim to be a victim of persecution on one of the grounds listed in the relevant provisions of domestic and international law. The Russian Government had stated that they had no reasons to look into the conditions of detention of the applicant in Turkmenistan, because he had not been detained there. However, the Court considered that such assessment had to take place prior to the decision on extradition and had to take into account the relevant factors in order to prevent the ill-treatment from occurring.   Furthermore, the Court observed that in Turkmenistan the applicant had been charged with a serious crime. It considered that if extradited there, Mr Ryabikin would almost certainly be detained and ran a very real risk of spending years in prison. The Court therefore found that there had been sufficient grounds for believing that the applicant's extradition would be in breach of Article 3.   Article 5 § 1 (f)   The Court noted, in particular, that throughout the applicant’s one year of detention, the Russian law-enforcement system had been unable to identify the competent body responsible for authorising that detention, to point to the applicable legal provisions and to determine the time-limits of such detention. It therefore considered that the relevant domestic legislation had failed to protect the applicant from arbitrariness.   Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) on account of the unlawful nature of Mr Ryabikin’s detention and the absence of the requisite diligence in the conduct of the proceedings.   Article 5 § 4   The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the unavailability of a judicial remedy by which to review the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention. It did not find it necessary to examine the applicant’s complaints that there had been procedural irregularities in the court proceedings relating to the review of his detention.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.