CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 décembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1D1639D9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   946 11.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] [1] Koktysh v. Ukraine (application no. 43707/07)   EXTRADITION TO BELARUS would be IN BREACH OF THE CONVENTION   Three violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 5 (1) (4) (5) (right to liberty and security) Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Igor Koktysh, is a Belarussian   national who was born in 1980. He is currently detained in Pre-Trial Detention Centre No.   15 in Simferopol, Ukraine.   In December 2001, the applicant was acquitted of murder and robbery by the Belarussian courts   which found that a confession had been extricated from him using force during interrogations. Upon appeal by the prosecutor,   the acquittal was quashed under extraordinary review procedure in May 2002 and the criminal proceedings against Mr   Koktysh resumed. In June 2002, the applicant moved to Ukraine. An international warrant was issued for his arrest, leading to his apprehension in June 2007 in Sevastopol, Ukraine. He was remanded in custody with a view to his extradition to Belarus. In July 2007, the Chief Public Prosecutor of Belarus requested that the applicant be extradited offering assurances that Mr   Koktysh would not be sentenced to death; these assurances were reiterated three months later and broadened to the effect that the applicant would not be tortured, otherwise ill-treated or discriminated against, and would be given a fair trial and, if necessary, would receive medical care.   Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in October 2007,   the European Court of Human Rights indicated to Ukraine that Mr   Koktysh should not be extradited to Belarus. In May 2008, the competent Sevastopol court informed the applicant that, in the absence of legal provisions to the effect,   his request for release pending extradition could not be considered.   Since 6 July 2007, the applicant has been detained in the Pre-Trial Detention Centre No.   15 in Simferopol after spending 10   days in Sevastopol Temporary Detention Centre. According to Mr   Koktysh, in both establishments, his conditions of detention were inadequate, as were the conditions under which he was transported between them. The Ukrainian government contested most of the applicant’s claims.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article   3, Mr Koktysh complained that, if extradited to Belarus, he could be sentenced to death, tortured and tried unfairly. He complained, also under Article   3, of the conditions of his detention, transport and   inadequate medical care.   Further, relying on Articles   5 and   13, he complained of his unlawful detention which he could not challenge in court.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 October 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , Mykhaylo Buromenskiy (Ukraine), ad hoc judge , and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Article 3 (extradition)   The Court noted that it could not speculate about the possible outcome of the applicant’s criminal case in Belarus. It observed, however, that international organisations had reported   numerous human rights violations, including ill-treatment and torture, and serious problems concerning the Belarusian authorities’ international cooperation in the field of human rights.   The Belarusian courts had themselves found that the applicant had been ill-treated while detained in Belarus. The above rendered insufficient the Belarusian assurances that Mr   Koktysh would not be ill-treated or face the death penalty. Therefore the Court unanimously found that Ukraine would violate Article 3 should it extradite the applicant to Belarus.   Article 3 (conditions of detention, transportation and medical care)   The Court noted that it had already found a violation in respect of the conditions in the Sevastopol Temporary Detention Centre in its earlier case law. Further, the Government had not provided evidence in support of their submissions about the conditions in the Pre-Trial Detention Centre No.   15 in Simferopol. The Court also relied on the findings of the Ukrainian Commissioner for Human RIghts and of the Council of Europe’s anti-torture watchdog (the CPT) to accord credibility to the applicant’s allegations as regards conditions of transport and detention. Consequently, it found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3. The Court found no violation related to medical care.   Article 5 (unlawful detention and no compensation)   The Court recalled its earlier case law on these matters and found no reason to reach a different conclusion in the case of Mr Koktysh. Accordingly, it found unanimously a violation of Article   5   (1)   (4) and   (5).   Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)   The Court found unanimously that no effective or accessible remedy had been available to Mr Koktysh in respect of his complaints about the conditions of his detention, in violation of Article   13.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 7,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.