Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 23.09.2010 «Дело Искандаров (Iskandarov) против России» [англ.]

cember 2008).
129. The Court will first consider whether the general political climate prevailing at the material time in Tajikistan could have given reasons to assume that the applicant would be subjected to ill-treatment in the receiving country. The Court points out in this connection that the evidence from a number of objective sources undoubtedly illustrates that in 2005 the overall human-rights situation in Tajikistan gave rise to serious concerns. For instance, Amnesty International observed that torture by State officials was common practice in Tajikistan and that perpetrators enjoyed immunity (see paragraph 87 above). The US Department of State also reported frequent use of torture by security officials and pointed out that prison conditions remained harsh and life-threatening, to the extent that a number of detainees had died of hunger (see paragraph 88 above). Given that the Government failed to counter the allegations made in the aforementioned reports by reputable organisations, the Court is ready to accept that in 2005 ill-treatment of detainees was an enduring problem in Tajikistan.
130. Nonetheless, the Court points out that the above-mentioned findings attest to the general situation in the country of destination and should be supported by specific allegations and corroborated by other evidence. In the same context, the Court should examine whether the authorities assessed the risks of ill-treatment prior to taking the decision on removal (see, mutatis mutandis, Ryabikin, cited above, § 117).
131. The Court will therefore now examine whether the applicant's personal situation gave reasons to suggest that he would run a serious risk of ill-treatment in Tajikistan. It points out in this connection that the applicant had been one of the possible challengers to President Rakhmonov in the presidential race. By the time of his removal from Russian territory reports concerning the political persecution and ill-treatment of Mr Shamsiddinov, another opposition leader and critic of the regime, had already been issued (see paragraphs 89 and 92 above). In such circumstances the Court considers that there existed special distinguishing features in the applicant's case which could and ought to have enabled the Russian authorities to foresee that he might be ill-treated in Tajikistan (see, by contrast, Vilvarajah and Others, cited above, § 112).
132. The fact that it is impossible to establish whether the applicant was actually subjected to ill-treatment following his return to Dushanbe, as he alleged both before the Court and before other international organisations, has no bearing on the Court's findings.
133. Lastly, the Court points out that it is particularly struck by the fact that the Russian authorities blatantly failed to assess the risks of ill-treatment the applicant could face in Tajikistan. In the absence of an extradition order the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to appeal to a court against his removal - a very basic procedural safeguard against being subjected to proscribed treatment in the receiving country.
134. In the light of the above considerations, the Court considers that the applicant's removal to Tajikistan was in breach of the respondent State's obligation to protect him against risks of ill-treatment.
135. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

III. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention

136. The applicant complained that on 15 April 2005 he had been arrested by Russian officials in breach of domestic law. He invoked Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person aft

> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17 ... 18 19