g detention of persons with a view to extradition were neither precise nor foreseeable in their application and fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention (see, for example, Nasrulloyev, cited above, § 77; Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, No. 2947/06, § 140, 24 April 2008; Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04, § 130, 19 June 2008; Muminov v. Russia, No. 42502/06, § 122, 11 December 2008; and Khudyakova v. Russia, No. 13476/04, § 73, 8 January 2009).
24. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant was detained in Russia pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by a prosecutor's office in Kyrgyzstan. His detention was not confirmed by a Russian court, contrary to the provisions of Article 466 § 1 of the CCP, which requires such authorisation unless the detention in the country seeking extradition has been ordered by a court. Therefore, the applicant's detention pending extradition between 9 July and 14 October 2003 was not in accordance with a "procedure prescribed by law" as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
25. Furthermore, as to the Government's argument that the applicant's detention in view of his extradition was eventually authorised on 14 October 2003 by the Babushkinskiy District Court, the Court notes that, apart from authorising his detention as of that date, the domestic court did not order or take steps to ensure that the applicant was released or otherwise remedy the violation of his right to liberty and security.
26. The Court upholds the findings made in the above-mentioned cases (see paragraph 23 above) and finds that, in the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention with a view to extradition and setting time-limits for such detention, the deprivation of liberty to which the applicant was subjected was not circumscribed by adequate safeguards against arbitrariness. In particular, the Court observes that the detention order of 14 October 2003 did not set any time-limit for the applicant's detention. Under the provisions governing the general terms of detention (Article 108 of the CCP), the time-limit for detention pending investigation was fixed at two months. A judge could extend that period to up to six months. Further extensions could only be granted by a judge if the person had been charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences. However, upon the expiry of the maximum initial two-month detention period (Article 109 § 1 of the CCP), no extension was granted by a court in the present case. The applicant was in detention pending extradition for more than one year, at least until 29 July 2004, when the extradition order against him was finalised by the Supreme Court. During that period, no requests were lodged for his detention to be extended. Thus, the national system has failed to protect the applicant from arbitrary detention, and his detention cannot be considered "lawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In these circumstances, the Court does not need to separately consider whether the extradition proceedings were conducted with due diligence.
27. In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant's detention during the period in question was unlawful and arbitrary, in violation of Article 5 § 1. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
28. The Court has examined another complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 3 of the Convention alleging that his extradition to Kyrgyzstan would subjected him to a real risk of ill-treatment. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows
> 1 2 3 4
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
