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

under their control until his transfer to the Tajik authorities.
116. On the basis of these findings, the Court will proceed to examine the applicant's complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

117. The applicant complained that as a result of his unlawful removal to Tajikistan he had been exposed to ill-treatment and persecution for his political views, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. The parties' submissions

118. The Government contested that argument and claimed that the applicant's abduction of 15 April 2005 had not been imputable to the respondent State. The Government argued that the Russian authorities could not bear responsibility for any ill-treatment that the applicant might sustain in Tajikistan and that his complaint was therefore incompatible ratione loci. In the Government's submission, the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies was irrelevant in the present case, given that the alleged violation had not been imputable to the respondent State.
119. The applicant maintained his claims. He stated that by 15 April 2005 there had been substantial grounds for fearing that he would be subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on his return to Tajikistan. Furthermore, he stated that he had in fact been ill-treated while detained in Tajikistan. The applicant further alleged that the Russian authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his unlawful transfer to Tajikistan and to ensure his return to Russia. He also asserted that he had exhausted all available domestic remedies in relation to his complaint.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

120. As to the Government's argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible ratione loci, the Court reiterates that the Convention does not govern the actions of States not Parties to it, nor does it purport to be a means of requiring the Contracting States to impose Convention standards on other States (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 86, Series A No. 161). It emphasises, however, that liability of an extraditing Contracting State under the Convention arises not from acts which occur outside its jurisdiction, but from actions imputable to that State which have as a direct consequence exposure of an individual to illtreatment proscribed by Article 3 (see Soering, cited above, § 91, and Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 69, Series A No. 201). The Court thus dismisses the Government's objection concerning the respondent State's lack of territorial jurisdiction.
121. The Court further notes that it is not called upon to decide whether the applicant exhausted the effective domestic remedies available to him in the present case, given that the Government did not raise a non-exhaustion plea (see Mechenkov v. Russia, No. 35421/05, § 78, 7 February 2008).
122. Lastly, the Court considers that applicant's complaint under Article 3 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It is not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) General principles
123. The Court reiterates at the outset that in order to fall within the scope of Article 3 ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment or punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physica



> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 17 18 19

	Поделиться:	Tweet