CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 octobre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   752 23.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SOLDATENKO v. UKRAINE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Soldatenko v. Ukraine (application no. 2440/07).   The Court held unanimously that:   the applicant’s extradition to Turkmenistan would be in violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; there had been a violation of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention; and, there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 (right to liberty and security).   The applicant made no claim under Article 41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Nikolay Ivanovich Soldatenko, was born in 1961 and is currently detained in a penitentiary institution in the Kherson region (Ukraine), awaiting his extradition to Turkmenistan. The applicant’s lawyer claims that Mr   Soldatenko is a stateless person. According to the Government, he is a Turkmen national. The applicant himself does not deny his Turkmen nationality and has not raised the issue of his allegedly stateless status before the Ukrainian authorities.   On 7 July 1999 an indictment was issued against him in Turkmenistan on charges of inflicting light and grievous bodily harm and his arrest was ordered. In October 1999 he left Turkmenistan, allegedly to flee persecution to which he had been subjected on ethnic grounds. Since then he has resided in Ukraine.   On 4 January 2007 he was arrested by the Ukrainian police and his relatives were subsequently informed that his arrest had been made in accordance with an international search warrant. Four days later he was brought by the police before a judge of the Kakhovsky District Court of the Kherson Region, who ordered his detention pending the extradition proceedings against him.   On 15 January 2007 the applicant asked the European Court of Human Rights to adopt an interim measure under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court in his case. On 16 January 2007 the President of the competent Chamber granted this request and indicated to the Ukrainian Government that the applicant should not be extradited to Turkmenistan pending the Court’s decision.   On 19 January 2007 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Turkmenistan requested the applicant’s extradition with a view to his prosecution for the offences with which he was charged. It also gave certain assurances and affirmed that he would never be discriminated against on the grounds of social status, race, ethnic origin or religious beliefs.   In a letter of 19 April 2007 the First Deputy Prosecutor General of Turkmenistan, in reply to the request from the Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s Office, gave further assurances, notably that the applicant’s rights under Articles 3 and 6 of the European Convention would be guaranteed.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 January 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Renate Jaeger (German), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   Mr   Soldatenko complained that, if extradited, he would face a risk of being subjected to torture and inhuman or degrading treatment by the Turkmen law-enforcement authorities. He relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 5 (right to liberty and security) and   6 (right to a fair trial).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted the existence of numerous and consistent credible reports of torture, routine beatings and use of force against criminal suspects by the Turkmen law-enforcement authorities. There were reports of beatings of those who required medical help and denial of medical assistance. According to the Report of the United Nations Secretary-General, torture was also used as a punishment for persons who had already confessed. Reports equally noted very poor prison conditions, including overcrowding, poor nutrition and untreated diseases. It appeared from different reports that allegations of torture and ill-treatment were not investigated by the competent Turkmen authorities.   On the other hand, there was no evidence in the available materials that the criminal suspects of non-Turkmen origin were treated differently from the ethnic Turkmens.   Nevertheless it was clear from the available materials that any criminal suspect held in custody ran a serious risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Despite the fact that the applicant was wanted for a relatively minor offence which was not politically motivated, the mere fact of being detained as a criminal suspect in such a situation provided sufficient grounds to fear that he would be at serious risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.   With regard to the assurances given, it was not established that the officials concerned had been empowered to make such undertakings on behalf of the State. Furthermore, given the lack of an effective system of torture prevention, it would be difficult to see whether such assurances were respected. Finally, the international human rights reports had also showed serious problems as regards the international cooperation of the Turkmen authorities in the field of human rights and categorical denials of human rights violations despite the consistent information from both intergovernmental and nongovernmental sources.   In the light of these different considerations, taken together, the Court was satisfied that the applicant’s extradition to Turkmenistan would be in violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court concluded that the applicant had not had an effective domestic remedy by which he could challenge his extradition on the ground of the risk of ill-treatment on return, in violation of Article 13.   Article 5 § 1 (f)   The Court found that Ukrainian legislation did not provide for a procedure that was sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application to avoid the risk of arbitrary detention pending extradition. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f).   Article 5 § 4   The Court referred to its findings under Article 5 § 1 about the lack of legal provisions governing the procedure for detention in Ukraine pending extradition. These findings were equally pertinent to the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 4, as the Government had failed to demonstrate that the applicant had at his disposal any procedure through which the lawfulness of his detention could have been examined by a court. The Court accordingly concluded that there had also been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Article 6   Having no reasons to doubt that the respondent Government would comply with the present judgment, it considered that it was not necessary to decide the hypothetical question whether, in the event of extradition to Turkmenistan, there would also be a violation of Article 6.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.