Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Колесник (Kolesnik) против России» [англ.]

tion in Turkmenistan and the fact that the first applicant is charged with crimes potentially entailing a lengthy prison sentence there (see paragraphs 59 - 60 above), the Court finds that she has sufficient grounds to fear that she would be at serious risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
73. In its previous judgments, the Court was also unwilling to accept the diplomatic assurances furnished by the Turkmen Government, given that there appeared no objective means to check whether they had been fulfilled (see Ryabikin, cited above, § 120, and Soldatenko, cited above, § 73). The Court also would state that it has already found that diplomatic assurances were not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment where reliable sources have reported practices resorted to or tolerated by the authorities which were manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention (see Saadi, cited above, §§ 147 - 148). Likewise, in the present case the Court cannot agree with the Government that the assurances given by the Turkmen authorities would suffice to guarantee protection for the first applicant against the serious risk of ill-treatment in the event of extradition.
74. In view of the above, the Court finds that the first applicant's extradition to Turkmenistan would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention

75. The first applicant complained that her detention pending extradition has not been lawful. She also argued that she had no means to obtain a review of the lawfulness of her detention. The relevant sections of Article 5 read:
"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:...
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. ...
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. ..."
76. The Government contested this claim. They argued that the provisions of the Russian law governing the detention of persons pending extradition were clear enough and foreseeable. In accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court of 4 April 2006 No. 101-O, the provisions of Article 466 and Chapter 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were applicable to such detention. The Government noted that the first applicant had been brought before a judge within forty-eight hours of her arrest. Under Article 109 of the Criminal Procedural Code, her detention could not exceed twelve months, while she had spent eleven months and twenty-five days in detention. In so far as the first applicant complained about the absence of review of her detention, the Government noted that she had made use of the relevant provisions of the Russian criminal procedural legislation and appealed to higher courts against the decisions by which her detention had been ordered. She could also make use of Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allowed the parties to the proceedings to seek judicial review of decisions of the investigation.
77. The applicants reiterated their complaints.

A. Admissibility

78. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. Alleged violati

> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12 ... 13 14