CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mai 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Published on 7 June 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 22706/20 N.M. against Russia lodged on 11 June 2020 communicated on 18 May 2021 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr N.M., was born in 1969 in Uzbekistan and currently resides in Novosibirsk, Russia. He is represented before the Court by   Ms   D.   Trenina, Mr K. Zharinov and Ms   E.   Davidyan, lawyers practising in   Moscow. The applicant was charged with religious extremism crimes by the authorities in   Uzbekistan, his pre-trial detention was ordered in absentia , and an   international search warrant was issued in his name. In 2018 the Russian authorities took final decision to extradite the   applicant despite his consistent claims that in the event of his removal he   would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant lodged an application with the Court. Having examined that case, the Court found that there would be a violation of the Article 3 of the Convention if the applicant were to be returned to Uzbekistan (see N.M. v. Russia , no. 29343/18, 3 December 2019). The applicant’s case was reopened on the domestic level following the Court’s abovementioned judgment. The applicant lodged the present application with the Court on 11 June 2020. On 12 June 2020 the applicant’s request of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was granted. It was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicant should not be removed to Uzbekistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The applicant’s case was also granted priority (under Rule 41), confidentiality (under Rule 33), and the applicant was granted anonymity (under Rule 47 § 4). On 9 September 2020 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the final decision to extradite the applicant due to alleged improvement of the human-rights situation in Uzbekistan. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in event of his removal to Uzbekistan. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the general situation in Uzbekistan and the applicant’s personal circumstances, would he face a risk of   being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if extradited to his country of origin (see   F.G. v. Sweden   [GC], no.   43611/11,   §   114, 23 March 2016) ?   2.     Before deciding on the applicant’s extradition, did the Russian authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of his claim about the risks of ill-treatment in his country of origin (see Sufi and Elmi v.   the   United Kingdom , nos.   8319/07 and 11449/07,   §   214, 28   June   2011, and F.G.   v.   Sweden   [GC], cited above,   §   119) ?