CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 13 December 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no 76558/16 S.B. against Russia lodged on 13 December 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant is an Uzbek national, who is charged in his home country with religious and politically motivated crimes. The applicant complains that in case of his removal to Uzbekistan he would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS 1.     Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention in case of his removal to Uzbekistan?   2.     In the domestic proceedings, did the competent national authorities assess adequately the applicant’s claim that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to Uzbekistan?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective administrative or judicial domestic remedy for his complaint under Article   3, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? Did this remedy in principle and in the applicant’s case afford for the due consideration of these complaints? Did it provide for an automatic suspensive effect in respect of the applicant’s transfer to Uzbekistan?