Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 21.10.2010 «Дело Гафоров (Gaforov) против России» [англ.]

urt's view, lends further credibility to his submissions concerning the events following his arrest in Tajikistan in 2006 (see paragraph 14 above).
136. Regard being had to the climate of impunity for law enforcement officials practising torture (see paragraphs 93, 95, 98 and 99 above) and the fact that, if extradited, the applicant will likely be held in the same detention facility pending trial, the Court considers that his allegation that he would run a greater risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 in retaliation for his escape from custody cannot be discarded as completely without foundation. In this connection it takes note of the applicant's submission that his relatives were approached by law enforcement officials who threatened them and the applicant with reprisals (see paragraphs 13, 29 and 106 above, see also Ismoilov and Others, cited above, § 124).
137. It is also significant for the Court that the office of the UNHCR, after having interviewed the applicant and carefully examined his case, found that he was unable to return to Tajikistan as a person persecuted for his imputed political opinions and that he was eligible for international protection under its mandate (see paragraph 55 above).
138. Lastly, in so far as the domestic authorities relied on diplomatic assurances from the Tajikistani Prosecutor General's Office, the Court would note that they are 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 are manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention (see Saadi, cited above, §§ 147 - 48).
139. In view of the above, the Court considers that substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3 if extradited to Tajikistan.
140. The Court concludes therefore that implementation of the extradition order against the applicant would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
(b) Article 13 of the Convention
141. The applicant complained that he had had no effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13.
142. The Government contested the applicant's submission.
143. Having regard to the applicant's submissions, the Court considers that the gist of his claim under Article 13, which it considers "arguable" (see Muminov, cited above, § 99), is the domestic authorities' alleged failure to carry out a rigorous scrutiny of the risk of him being subjected to ill-treatment in the event of his extradition to Tajikistan (see paragraphs 106 - 108 and, in particular, paragraph 107 above).
144. In this respect the Court notes that it has already examined that allegation in the context of Article 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 123 - 127 above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine this complaint separately on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], No. 50385/99, §§ 84 - 86, ECHR 2004-XI).

II. Alleged violations of Article 5 of the Convention

145. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention that his detention had been unlawful in that it had not been extended after 16 November 2006 and the related court decisions mentioned no time-limits for it. He also stated that the applicable legal provisions lacked clarity and precision and thus did not satisfy the "quality of the law" requirements under Article 5 of the Convention. He also submitted, under Article 5 § 4, that he had been deprived of the right to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed by a court, referring to the courts' refusal to examine his complaints about detention and requests for relea



> 1 2 3 ... 27 28 29 ... 38 39 40

	Поделиться:	Tweet