ted above, §§ 88 - 89), and Ryabikin v. Russia (No. 8320/04, § 139, 19 June 2008) where it was established that the applicants had no formal status under national criminal law because there was no criminal case against them in Russia and they could not therefore have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed by a court.
105. It follows that throughout the term of the applicant's detention he did not have at his disposal any procedure through which the lawfulness of his detention could have been examined by a court.
There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
III. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
106. The applicant alleged that he had had no effective remedies against the above violations. He referred to Article 13, which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
A. The parties' submissions
107. The Government contended that the applicant had had access to domestic courts in respect of his complaints about the risk of ill-treatment. He had appealed against the extradition order to domestic courts. They contended that this remedy was effective and the absence of a desirable outcome of the applicant's appeals did not demonstrate its ineffectiveness.
108. The applicant reiterated his complaint.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
109. The Court notes that the applicant's complaint under Article 13 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
110. The Court notes that the scope of a State's obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint under the Convention. Given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the alleged risk of torture or ill-treatment materialised and the importance which the Court attaches to Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires (i) independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there are substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of the applicant's expulsion to the country of destination, and (ii) the provision of an effective possibility of suspending the enforcement of measures whose effects are potentially irreversible (or "a remedy with automatic suspensive effect" as it is phrased in Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, No. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-V, which concerned an asylum seeker wishing to enter the territory of France; see also Jabari v. Turkey, No. 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII; Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 460; Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, No. 24668/03, § 35, ECHR 2006-X; and Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, No. 1948/04, § 154, ECHR 2007-I (extracts).
111. Judicial review proceedings constitute, in principle, an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention in relation to complaints in the context of expulsion and extradition, provided that the courts can effectively review the legality of executive discretion on substantive and procedural grounds and quash decisions as appropriate (see Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], No. 48321/99, § 99, ECHR 2002-II). Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the decision of the Prosecutor General's Office to extradite the applicant was upheld on appeals by the Moscow City Court and the Supreme Court. In their decisions the domestic courts did not conduct a detailed examinat
> 1 2 3 ... 14 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
