Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.07.2010 «Дело Юлдашев (Yuldashev) против России» [англ.]

the procedure established in the CCP, or in excess of the time-limits fixed therein.
(c) Constitutional Court decision No. 158-O of 11 July 2006 on the Prosecutor General's request for clarification
65. The Prosecutor General asked the Constitutional Court for an official clarification of its decision No. 101-O of 4 April 2006 (see above), for the purpose, in particular, of elucidating the procedure for extending a person's detention with a view to extradition.
66. The Constitutional Court dismissed the request on the ground that it was not competent to indicate specific criminal-law provisions governing the procedure and time-limits for holding a person in custody with a view to extradition. That was a matter for the courts of general jurisdiction.
(d) Constitutional Court decision No. 333-O-P of 1 March 2007
67. In this decision the Constitutional Court reiterated that Article 466 of the CCP did not imply that detention of a person on the basis of an extradition request did not have to comply with the terms and time-limits provided for in the legislation on criminal procedure.
(e) Ruling of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 22 of 29 October 2009
68. In this ruling the Supreme Court reiterated that the arrest and detention of a person in view of his/her extradition under Article 466 of the CCP should comply with the requirements of Article 108 of the CCP and that the detention pending extradition could be extended only in compliance with the requirements of Article 109 of the CCP.

B. Relevant documents concerning the use of diplomatic
assurances and the situation in Uzbekistan

69. UN General Assembly resolution 62/148 of 18 December 2007 ("Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (UN Doc.: A/RES/62/148)) reads as follows:
"The General Assembly...
12. Urges States not to expel, return ("refouler"), extradite or in any other way transfer a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, and recognizes that diplomatic assurances, where used, do not release States from their obligations under international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law, in particular the principle of non-refoulement..."
70. In his interim report submitted in accordance with Assembly resolution 59/182 (UN Doc.: A/60/316, 30 August 2005), the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, reached the following conclusions:
"51. It is the view of the Special Rapporteur that diplomatic assurances are unreliable and ineffective in the protection against torture and ill-treatment: such assurances are sought usually from States where the practice of torture is systematic; post-return monitoring mechanisms have proven to be no guarantee against torture; diplomatic assurances are not legally binding, therefore they carry no legal effect and no accountability if breached; and the person whom the assurances aim to protect has no recourse if the assurances are violated. The Special Rapporteur is therefore of the opinion that States cannot resort to diplomatic assurances as a safeguard against torture and ill-treatment where there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment upon return.
52. The Special Rapporteur calls on Governments to observe the principle of non-refoulement scrupulously and not expel any person to frontiers or territories where they might run the risk of human rights violations, regardless of whether they have officially been recognised as refugees."
71. Specifically referring to the situation regarding torture in Uzbekistan and retu



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 15 16 17

	Поделиться:	Tweet