Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Колесник (Kolesnik) против России» [англ.]

nal prosecution."
26. On 22 February 2008 the General Prosecutor's Office of Turkmenistan sent a letter to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia, guaranteeing that if extradited to Turkmenistan the first applicant would not be subjected to persecution on political grounds.
27. On 11 March 2008 the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia ordered the first applicant's extradition to Turkmenistan on charges under Articles 33 part 5, 218 parts 1, 2, 3 and 229 part 4 (a) of the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan. The document stated that the first applicant had been charged in Turkmenistan with embezzlement and use of forged documents, which entailed serious damage. It compared these acts with the crimes as described in the Russian Criminal Code, found no obstacles to the extradition and granted the request.
28. The first applicant challenged the extradition order before the Moscow City Court. In her complaint she submitted that her extradition to Turkmenistan might entail "catastrophic consequences to the point of physical elimination". There were no other arguments regarding her fears of ill-treatment in Turkmenistan, the grounds for her fears, or arguments concerning her removal from the family.
29. On 5 June 2008 the Moscow City Court rejected the first applicant's complaint as unfounded.
30. The first applicant appealed against the decision on the same date. In her appeal statement she mentioned her fears of ill-treatment in Turkmenistan.
31. On 9 June 2008 the first applicant applied to the Court with a request to apply interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to stay her extradition.
32. On 27 June 2008 the Court granted the request and indicated to the Government of the Russian Federation that the first applicant should not be extradited to Turkmenistan until further notice.
33. On 17 July 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia allowed the first applicant's appeal, set aside the decision of 5 June 2008 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. At the same time the Supreme Court set the time-limit for the first applicant's detention at 8 August 2008.
34. On 1 August 2008 the Moscow City Court again rejected the first applicant's complaint against the extradition order.
35. On 16 October 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia, on an appeal by the first applicant, quashed and remitted the decision of the Moscow City Court. It found that the City Court had failed to examine the first applicant's arguments that she risked ill-treatment and that her family was living in Russia.
36. In November and December 2009 the Moscow City Court requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan to comment on the first applicant's complaints about the threat of ill-treatment and about the allegations of unfair trial. In reply, on 15 January 2009 the General Prosecutor's Office of Turkmenistan stated that in the event of extradition the first applicant would not be subjected to political persecution, nor to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. The letter referred to Turkmenistan's obligations under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and the fact that the death penalty had been abolished in Turkmenistan in 1999. Furthermore, the letter stated that under the legislation of 1999, every year at the time of a Muslim festival there was an amnesty for convicted criminals if they had repented and taken the path to reform. On 9 February 2009, responding to a question from the Moscow City Court, the General Prosecutor's Office of Turkmenistan forwarded to the City Court a letter from the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of that country, by which their initial request had been forwarded to the Prosecutor's Office.
37. On 13 February 2009 the Moscow City Court again found the decision of the General Prosecutor



> 1 2 3 4 ... 12 13 14

	Поделиться:	Tweet