Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Клейн (Klein) против России» [англ.]

whether, in the event of extradition to Colombia, there would also be a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;
4. Holds by five votes to two that there is no need to make a separate examination of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention on its merits;
5. Holds unanimously that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;
6. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction;
7. Decides unanimously to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to extradite the applicant until such time as the present judgment becomes final or further order.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Christos ROZAKIS
President

{Andre} WAMPACH
Deputy Registrar

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 f the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the joint dissenting opinion of Mr Kovler and Mr Hajiyev is annexed to this judgment.

C.L.R.

A.W.

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES KOVLER AND HAJIYEV

We cannot agree with the conclusion of the Court that the implementation of the extradition order against the applicant would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. We share the general approach of the Court concerning this delicate matter of extraditions on the basis of respect for the elementary rights of extradited persons. It is significant that the Court concludes that "the mere possibility of ill-treatment on account of an unsettled situation in the receiving country does not in itself give rise to a breach of Article 3... Where the sources available to the Court describe a general situation, an applicant's specific allegations in a particular case require corroboration by other evidence" (see paragraph 47 of the judgment).
We agree that the information from various reliable sources, including those referred to by the applicant (see paragraphs 31 - 35), undoubtedly illustrates that the overall situation in Colombia is far from perfect. At the same time we could not find in these reports any indication of the existence of a situation comparable to that of the applicant. It is improbable that the applicant would be subjected to coercion in order to make a self-incriminating statement after his conviction. Given that he would presumably be detained in order to serve his sentence once in Colombia, the risks of his being killed by the military under the pretence of a fight with paramilitaries would be virtually non-existent. The applicant has never claimed to be a member of any targeted group such as human-rights advocates. Moreover, he did not apply for refugee status on account of his alleged persecution on political or any other grounds, as is the case in many other applications to the Strasbourg Court. The materials before the Court do not provide accounts of instances of ill-treatment of persons convicted by a court of terrorism-related activities. Although on 4 February 2004 the Committee against Torture expressed its concerns that measures adopted or being adopted by Colombia against terrorism and illegal armed groups could encourage the practice of torture, no further details describing such practices were given either in the Committee's Conclusions and Recommendations of that date or in any other reports.
In our view, the applicant has not submitted evidence permitting the unequivocal conclusion that he would be serving his sentence in an overcrowded cell or otherwise poor conditions. Nor, on the basis of the evidence at i

> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 16