been suspended only as a result of the application of the interim measures by the Court.
B. The Court's assessment
88. The Court reiterates that an individual may no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention where the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (see, among many authorities, Achour v. France (dec.) No. 67335/01, 11 March 2004, where the authorities annulled the expulsion order against the applicant, and Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).
89. As to the specific category of cases involving expulsion measures, the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a measure which is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A No. 241-B; see also Pellumbi v. France (dec.), No. 65730/01, 18 January 2005, and Etanji v. France (dec.), No. 60411/00, 1 March 2005). It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), No. 51342/99, §§ 55 - 56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (No. 2), No. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, No. 36378/02, § 355, ECHR 2005-III; {Andriy} v. Sweden (dec.), No. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), No. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; and Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), No. 13531/03, 18 January 2005).
90. The present application concerns the applicant's extradition to Uzbekistan where, according to him, he would face a serious risk of ill-treatment by the authorities on account of his political and religious beliefs. The Court observes firstly that the decision concerning the applicant's extradition was made final by the Russian authorities on 23 December 2008 (see paragraph 29 above); secondly, the decision not to extradite the applicant until further notice from the European Court was taken by the Russian authorities in November 2008 only because of the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Clearly, the fact that the applicant had not been handed over to the Uzbek authorities did not constitute any acknowledgment, whether explicit or implicit, on the part of the Russian authorities that there had been or would have been a violation of Article 3 or that the applicant's extradition order had been deprived of its legal effect.
91. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant may claim to be a "victim" for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
92. The applicant complained that his extradition to Uzbekistan would expose him to a real risk of torture and ill-treatment prohibited by 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
93. The Government submitted that the allegation of politically motivated persecution of the applicant had been assessed by the Russian courts when examining his appeals against the extradition order, and rejected as unfounded. The Russian courts had relied on the statement from the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan to the effect that the applicant would face no risk of ill-treatment if he were to be extradited to Uzbekistan and on the fact that the Russian authorities such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the FSB did not have any information confirming his allegation. Referring to the assurances from
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
