CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 septembre 2010

.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 } .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. 133 August-September 2010 Iskandarov v. Russia - 17185/05 Judgment 23.9.2010 [Section I] Article 3 Extradition Unlawful removal of a Tajik opposition leader to Tajikistan without assessing risks of ill-treatment: violation   Article 5 Unacknowledged detention and unlawful removal designed to circumvent extradition procedures: violation   Facts – The applicant, one of the Tajik opposition leaders, was charged, in Tajikistan and in his absence, with terrorism and various other offences and placed on an international “wanted” list. In December 2004 the Russian Prosecutor General received a request for his extradition. The applicant was arrested, but his extradition was refused in view of his pending asylum application. He was released on 4   April 2005 and thereafter stayed with a friend in the Moscow region. According to the applicant, while taking a walk in the evening of 15   April 2005, he was apprehended by several men wearing traffic-police uniforms who handcuffed him, placed him in a car and drove off. He was detained and beaten overnight in an unknown location. He heard his abductors speak in unaccented Russian to other men, who he concluded were Russian law-enforcement officers. He was taken, blindfolded, to an airport, where he was put on a plane without his identity papers being checked. Once on board he did not hear any of the instructions or other information that was usually conveyed on a civil aircraft. After landing at Dushanbe airport (Tajikistan) he was handed over to the Tajik law-enforcement agencies. He was held under a false name for the first ten days after his arrival, during which time he says he was regularly beaten, kept in a tiny, dirty cell, not allowed to go for walks or to wash, and hardly fed at all. He made a self-incriminating statement under threat of losing his life. In October 2005 he was sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. He subsequently 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. Law – Establishment of the facts : The applicant had provided a generally clear and coherent description of his removal from Russia to Tajikistan. His allegation 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, after last being seen in the Moscow region in the evening of 15   April 2005, he had ended up in a Tajik prison two days later. Given that the shortest route by road between Korolev and Dushanbe was 3,660   kilometres long and passed through two sovereign States with their own border controls – Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan – the suggestion that the applicant could have been transferred to Tajikistan other than by aircraft was implausible. The applicant’s allegation that he had been boarded on a plane by Russian agents who were allowed to cross the border without complying with the regular formalities appeared credible. The Government had not produced any border or customs registration logs showing where and when the applicant had left Russian territory. Nor had they provided any plausible explanation as to how the applicant could have arrived in Dushanbe unless accompanied by Russian officials. The Court accordingly found it established that on 15   April 2005 the applicant had been arrested by Russian State agents and had remained under their control until his transfer to the Tajik authorities. Article 3: The Court first considered the general political climate in Tajikistan at the material time on the basis of evidence from a number of objective sources. It found that the overall human-rights situation, including the treatment of detainees, had given rise to serious concerns. In particular, reports had showed that torture by State officials was common and that perpetrators enjoyed immunity. Prison conditions were harsh, even life‑threatening, and a number of prisoners had died of hunger. As regards the applicant’s personal situation, the Court noted that he had been a possible challenger to the Tajik President in the presidential race. At the time he was removed from Russian territory, reports showed that another prominent opposition leader critical of the regime had been ill-treated. Consequently, the special distinguishing features of his profile and situation should have enabled the Russian authorities to foresee that the applicant might be ill-treated in Tajikistan. As no order had been made for his extradition, he had not been able to appeal to 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. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 1: The applicant’s situation while under the control of Russian State agents following his abduction on 15   April 2005 had amounted in practice to a deprivation of liberty. Article 5 §   1 was therefore applicable. The Court found the use of opaque methods by State agents deeply regrettable. The applicant’s detention had not been on the basis of a decision issued in accordance with national law but was in pursuance of an unlawful removal designed to circumvent the dismissal of the extradition request. It had not been acknowledged or logged in any arrest or detention records and had thus constituted a complete negation of the right to liberty and security of person. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 30,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Article 46: The applicant had requested that the respondent Government should be required to ensure his release from the Tajik prison and his return to the Russian Federation. Given that the individual measure sought by the applicant would require the respondent Government to interfere with the internal affairs of a sovereign State, the Court did not find it appropriate to indicate any individual measures to be adopted in order to redress the violations found.   © 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