Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, § 86).
83. As to the applicant's allegation that detainees suffer ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, the Court has recently acknowledged that this general problem still persists in the country (see, for example, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, No. 2947/06, §§ 120 - 121, 24 April 2008, and Muminov v. Russia, No. 42502/06, §§ 93 - 96, 11 December 2008). No concrete evidence has been produced to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in this area in this country for several years. Given these circumstances, the Court considers that ill-treatment of detainees is a pervasive and enduring problem in Uzbekistan.
84. As to the applicant's personal situation, the Court observes that he was charged with politically motivated crimes. Given that an arrest warrant was issued in respect of the applicant, it is most likely that he would be placed in custody directly after his extradition and would therefore run a serious risk of ill-treatment.
85. As to the Government's argument that assurances were obtained from the Uzbek authorities, the Court has already cautioned against reliance on diplomatic assurances against torture from a State where torture is endemic or persistent (see Chahal, cited above, and Saadi v. Italy [GC], No. 37201/06, §§ 147 - 148, ECHR 2008-...). Given that the practice of torture in Uzbekistan is described by reputable international sources as systematic (see paragraphs 71, 72 and 74 above), the Court is not persuaded that assurances from the Uzbek authorities offer a reliable guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment.
86. Accordingly, the applicant's forcible return to Uzbekistan would give rise to a violation of Article 3 as he would face a serious risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment there.
II. Alleged violations of Article 5 §§ 1
and 4 of the Convention
87. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention that his detention pending extradition had been unlawful and indefinite in its duration, in violation of the relevant provisions of the domestic law. The relevant parts of Article 5 § 1 (f) read as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition."
88. He also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to review the lawfulness of his detention. Article 5 § 4 of the Convention reads as follows:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
A. The parties' submissions
89. The Government insisted that the applicant's detention pending extradition had been lawful as it had been based on the decision of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of 1 November 2007. They submitted that after that his detention had been authorised by the same court on 30 January 2008 and that it fully complied with the provisions of Article 466 § 1 of the CCP. They further stated that the duration of the detention had lengthened owing to the applicant's request for refugee status and the application of the interim measures by the Court.
90. The Government contended that the applicant's complaint concerning the alleged failure of the domestic courts to review the lawfulness of his detention was manifestly ill-founded as he had challenged the lawfulness of his detent
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
