eld the decision of the district court.
48. On 5 October 2008, in his appeal against the extradition order, the applicant lodged a detailed complaint with the Supreme Court challenging the lawfulness and the length of his detention pending extradition (see paragraph 29 above). In its decision of 22 December 2008 the Supreme Court did not examine the applicant's complaints concerning the lawfulness and length of his detention pending extradition (see paragraph 31 above).
49. On 18 November 2008 the applicant again complained to the Kalininskiy district court stating that for more than eight months his detention pending extradition had not been extended by court orders.
50. On 20 November 2008 the Kalininskiy district court refused to examine the applicant's complaint stating that the applicant had failed to specify "...whether any criminal proceedings had been pending against him in Tyumen and by which local authority they had been initiated...".
51. On 27 January 2009 the applicant again complained to the Kalininskiy district court, stating that for more than ten months his detention had not been extended by court orders.
52. On 6 February 2009 the district court left the applicant's complaint without examination as he was supposed to use a different procedure to appeal against the alleged unlawfulness of his detention.
53. On 3 August 2009 that decision was upheld by the Tyumen regional court through the supervisory review procedure.
54. On 6 September 2009 the maximum eighteen-month detention period laid down in Article 109 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure expired, but the applicant remained in detention.
55. On 17 December 2009 the applicant again complained to the Kalininskiy district court that his detention pending extradition was unlawful and requested to be released.
56. On 14 January 2010 the district court refused to order the applicant's release and stated that his detention was warranted by the application of the interim measure by the Court. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Tyumen regional court.
57. On 16 February 2010 the Tyumen regional court held that the applicant's detention had exceeded the maximum detention period prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered his release.
58. On 5 March 2010 the applicant was released from detention.
B. Information submitted by the Government
59. The Government disagreed with the statement of facts as presented by the applicant and, without referring to any specific documents and/or submitting copies of them, they stated the following.
60. According to the Government's submissions, the Uzbek Prosecutor General's office provided the Russian authorities with the following assurances; "... the applicant will be prosecuted only for the crimes listed in the extradition request; after the trial and the completion of sentence he will be able to leave Uzbekistan without restraint. The applicant will not be deported or extradited to a third country without the consent of the Russian Federation".
61. They further stated that the sanctions for the crimes with which the applicant had been charged by the Uzbek authorities did not extend to the death penalty.
62. The Russian Prosecutor General's office requested that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Russian Federal Security Service provide information concerning the applicant's alleged persecution in Uzbekistan. According to their replies, there were no circumstances preventing the applicant's extradition to Uzbekistan; no information had been received confirming that the persecution had been politically motivated.
63. During the examination of the applicant's allegations "...the Russian courts of the first and the second instances noted tha
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
