ember 2005 the request was dismissed. The applicant's lawyers challenged the prosecutor's decision before the prosecutor's office of the Moscow Region, but to no avail.
50. The applicant himself requested the Korolev town prosecutor's office to question him as a victim in Russian territory.
51. On 6 October 2005 the Korolev town prosecutor's office dismissed the applicant's request. The applicant's lawyers challenged the refusal before a court.
52. On 24 April 2006 the Korolev Town Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the applicant had not been permitted to join the proceedings as a victim. That decision was quashed. On 25 September 2006 the Moscow Regional Court dismissed the complaint at final instance on the ground that the applicant's rights had not been breached.
53. On 12 December 2005 the Moscow City Court dismissed at final instance the complaint about the Russian Prosecutor General's inaction.
54. On 27 March 2006 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed at first instance the applicant's complaint about the Russian Prosecutor General's Office's inaction. On 23 May 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision.
55. On 6 April 2006 the applicant's lawyers challenged in court the investigators' decision. On 25 September 2006 their complaint was dismissed at final instance by the Moscow Regional Court.
6. The proceedings before the UNHCHR
56. In November 2004 two Tajik lawyers filed a complaint with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) concerning alleged violations of the applicant's rights in the course of the criminal proceedings against him in Tajikistan.
57. On 20 October 2005 the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the Office of the UNHCHR put questions on the applicant's detention to the Tajik Government.
58. On 24 November 2005 the Tajik Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in reply to the request by the Office of the UNHCHR, submitted a seventeenpage document in Russian describing the charges against the applicant and the proceedings against him. The document read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
"...[i]n accordance with the Minsk Convention, Mr Iskandarov was arrested by the Russian law-enforcement agencies in Moscow in December 2004.
In reply to the Russian Prosecutor General's Office's requests, the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office produced the necessary documents concerning Iskandarov's extradition to the Tajik authorities within the time-limits laid down by the Minsk Convention, as well as comprehensive proof of Iskandarov's guilt in respect of the crimes he had been charged with. After that, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office informed the Tajik authorities that a favourable solution would be found to the question of Iskandarov's extradition.
It is noteworthy that on 4 April 2005 the Russian law-enforcement agencies released Mr Iskandarov from custody prior to deciding on his extradition but did not officially notify the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office of the grounds and reasons for the release under the Minsk Convention.
Mr Iskandarov was officially extradited to the Tajik authorities by the Russian law-enforcement agencies and on 17 April 2005 he was placed in the remand prison of the Tajik Ministry of Security."
59. On 29 September 2006 the Office of the UNHCHR forwarded the letter from the Tajik Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the applicant's Tajik counsel and notified her that, in order to consider the applicant's case during its 47th session, its Working Group expected to receive her comments on it.
60. It appears that the proceedings before the UNHCHR concerning the alleged violations of the applicant's rights in Tajikistan are still pendin
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 17 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
