CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 octobre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 102 November 2007 Nasrulloyev v. Russia - 656/06 Judgment 11.10.2007 [Section I] Article 5 Article 5-1-f Extradition Inconsistent interpretation of provisions applicable to detainees awaiting extradition: violation   Facts : The applicant, a Tajikistani national, was charged by the Tajikistan Prosecutor General's Office with numerous criminal offences (notably manslaughter, kidnapping and participation in an armed group with a view to attacking Government institutions) allegedly committed during the 1992 to 1997 civil war in that country. On 13 August 2003 the applicant was arrested in Moscow and detained on the basis of a subsequent court order of 21 August 2003 with a view to being extradited to Tajikistan. The order contained no time-limit for the applicant's detention. The applicant on several occasions sought to be released from detention, but to no avail. Following the deputy prosecutor's request, on 1 July 2006 a court extended the applicant's detention by fourteen days. Several days later the Prosecutor General informed the applicant about the decision to extradite him to Tajikistan. The applicant appealed against that decision claiming that he was being prosecuted on political grounds and that he risked a death sentence if found guilty as charged. On 12 July 2006 the Court indicated to the Russian Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court not to extradite the applicant until further notice. Subsequently, on 21 August 2006 a court overturned the Prosecutor General's decision, at the same time ordering the applicant's release, since the Tajikistan Government had not furnished necessary guarantees required under the Russian law. The Supreme Court upheld that decision. Law : Article 5   §   1   (f) – The Court firstly examined whether the initial decision on the applicant's detention dated 21 August 2003 had been sufficient for holding him in custody for any period of time. The Court observed the inconsistent legal interpretation of domestic authorities on the issue of provisions of Russian law applicable to detainees awaiting extradition and concluded that they were neither precise nor foreseeable. They therefore fell short of the “quality of law” standard required under the Convention and the applicant's detention was consequently found to be unlawful: violation . Article 5   §   4 – The Court observed that Articles 108 and 109 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, regulating review of detention, provided that the prosecutor was to request the court extension of a custodial measure and that the detainee was allowed to take part in such proceedings and plead for his or her release. However, nothing in the wording of those provisions indicated that such proceedings could be taken on the initiative of the detainee, the prosecutor's application for an extension of a custodial measure being the required element for institution of such proceedings. In the present case such a review was initiated only once during the applicant's three-year-long detention. Consequently, during his time in detention the applicant did not have at his disposal a procedure through which he could have challenged the lawfulness of his detention in court: violation . Article 41 – EUR 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes