CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 septembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } 689 23.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Iskandarov v. Russia (application no. 17185/05)     EX-LEADER OF THE TAJIK POLITICAL OPPOSITION UNLAWFULLY REMOVED FROM RUSSIA TO TAJIKISTAN   Unanimously   Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) Violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Mukhamadruzi Iskandarov, is a Tajikistani national who was born in 1954 and lives in Dushanbe.   The case concerned Mr Iskandarov’s complaint that he was unlawfully abducted and transferred from Russia to Tajikistan by the Russian authorities despite the serious risk he ran of being ill-treated there.   One of the leaders of the United Tajik Opposition during the 1990s, Mr Iskandarov openly criticised the President of Tajikistan some time before he moved to Russia on 11   December   2004.   Having been charged, in Tajikistan and in his absence, with terrorism and various other offences, he was placed on an international “wanted” list and, on 1 December 2004, the Russian Prosecutor General received an extradition request for him. He was arrested in Russia on 9 December 2004 pending extradition, which was however refused on 1 April 2005 in view of his pending asylum application. He was released on 4 April 2005 and thereafter stayed with his friend in the town of Korolev, Moscow Region.   In the applicant’s submission, while taking a walk in the evening of 15 April 2005, he was approached by two men wearing traffic police officers’ uniforms, who - assisted by several men with Slavic features who had surrounded the area – handcuffed him, placed him in a car and drove off. Detained and beaten overnight in a sauna in an unknown location, he was taken to a forest where his abductors spoke in unaccented Russian to other men, whom he concluded were Russian law-enforcement officers. He was then taken to an airport, blindfolded. His identity papers were not checked, on the plane he did not hear any instructions or other information usually conveyed on a civil aircraft. He remained blindfolded throughout the flight at the end of which he was handed over to the Tajik law-enforcement agencies upon landing at Dushanbe airport.   Detained under a false name for the first 10 days after his arrival, Mr Iskandarov claimed that he was regularly beaten, kept in a tiny dirty cell, not allowed to go for walks or to wash, and was hardly fed at all. He made a self-incriminating statement under threat of losing his life. He saw his lawyer for the first time only 13 days after his arrival in Tajikistan and his meetings with him took place in the presence of prison officials. In October 2005, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison. Following that, he sent numerous complaints to the Russian authorities related to his unlawful detention and transfer to Tajikistan, all of which either remained unanswered or were dismissed.   Various institutions, such as the European Union, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United States Department of State, reported on the detention of Mr   Iskandarov as well as on the general human rights situation in Tajikistan up to 15 April 2005.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 3 and 5, Mr Iskandarov complained that he had been unlawfully detained and removed to Tajikistan, as a result of which he had been ill-treated and persecuted for his political views.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6   May   2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg) Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway) Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Establishment of the facts   The Court pointed out that Mr Iskandarov had provided a generally clear and coherent description of his removal from Russia to Tajikistan. His allegations that he had been unlawfully extradited by the Russian authorities had been supported by the reports of the US Department of State. The Russian Government had provided no explanation about how he, who had last been seen in the Moscow region in the evening of 15 April 2005, had arrived in Tajikistan. Given that the shortest road between Korolev and Dushanbe was 3,660 kilometres long and passed through two sovereign States - Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan - the Court found it implausible that Mr Iskandarov could have been illegally transferred by his kidnappers to Tajikistan in less than two days by any means of transport other than aircraft. Consequently, the Court accepted Mr Iskandarov’s allegations that he had been arrested and put on a plane by Russian State agents who transferred him to Tajikistan without having to go through the regular cross-border controls.   Ill-treatment   The Court first considered the general political climate in Tajikistan at the time, looking at evidence from a number of objective sources. It found that the overall human rights situation in Tajikistan, including the treatment of detainees, had given rise to serious concerns. In particular, reports had showed that torture by State officials had been common practice and that perpetrators had enjoyed immunity. Prison conditions had been harsh, even life ‑ threatening, a number of prisoners having died of hunger.   Examining the personal situation of Mr Iskandarov, the Court noted that he had been one of the possible challengers to the Tajik President in the presidential race at the time. When Mr Iskandarov had been removed from Russian territory, reports had shown that another prominent opposition leader critical of the regime, Mr Shamsiddinov, had been ill-treated. Consequently, even though it had not been possible to establish whether Mr Iskandarov had actually been ill-treated in Tajikistan, the special distinguishing features of his profile and situation should have enabled the Russian authorities to foresee that he might be ill-treated in Tajikistan. As there had not been an extradition order concerning him, Mr Iskandarov could not appeal before a court against his removal.   Accordingly, his removal to Tajikistan had been in breach of the obligation of the Russian authorities to protect him against risks of ill-treatment, and thus in violation of Article 3.   Unlawful detention   The Court found it deeply regrettable that opaque methods had been used by State agents in respect of Mr Iskandarov. It emphasised that his detention had not been carried out on the basis of a decision issued in accordance with national laws and concluded that he had been unlawfully removed in order to circumvent the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office dismissal of the extradition request. Mr Iskandarov’s detention had neither been acknowledged nor logged in any arrest or detention records and had thus constituted a complete negation of right to liberty and security of people.   Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   Just satisfaction   The Court held that, under Article 41, Russia had to pay to Mr Iskandarov 30,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 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 Articles 43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .