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

y a prison sentence of six to twelve years, with or without confiscation of property.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

61. The first applicant complained that her extradition to Turkmenistan would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. Compatibility ratione personae

62. The Government argued that the first applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention since the decision of the Prosecutor General's Office of 11 March 2008 had remained unenforced and would remain so until the Court had considered the case.
63. The Court notes the exceptional nature of the application of the "victim" notion in Article 3 cases involving extradition, namely, "by reason of foreseeable consequences" (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 90 Series A No. 161). The Court further notes that the decision of the Prosecutor General's Office of 11 March 2008 to extradite the first applicant was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court and remains in force. The Court accordingly dismisses this objection.

B. Otherwise as to admissibility

64. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

C. Merits

1. Submissions of the parties

65. The first applicant alleged that the decision to extradite her to Turkmenistan would expose her to torture and inhuman treatment and punishment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Soldatenko v. Ukraine, she argued that "the mere fact of being detained as a criminal suspect in [Turkmenistan] provides sufficient grounds for fear that [the applicant] will be at serious risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Soldatenko v. Ukraine, No. 2440/07, § 72, 23 October 2008). The first applicant argued that as a non-Turkmen she would be particularly vulnerable in the face of violations of human rights. She also argued that the Russian authorities had failed to take into account her arguments of such treatment, since they had relied on the materials that were either incomplete, such as the statements of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or biased, such as letters from the General Prosecutor's Office of Turkmenistan. The first applicant finally considered that by sending a letter directly to the Turkmen authorities with a reference to her allegations of ill-treatment and lack of guarantees of a fair trial, the Moscow City Court had put her at an even greater risk of persecution, since she could now be perceived as a dissident and someone who had slandered the image of Turkmenistan abroad.
66. The Government disputed these allegations. They insisted that the first applicant's claims about the risk of persecution and ill-treatment had been duly evaluated in the course of proceedings related to the granting of refugee status and territorial asylum, and dismissed. The first applicant had appealed against these decisions to the courts and lost in adversarial proceedings. Within the proceedings related to the extradition requests courts at two levels had specifically examined the first applicant's argument that she was in danger of ill-treatment and found it to be unsubstantiated. The Government relied on the complete and unambiguous wording of the assurances received from the General Prosecutor's Office of Turkmenistan in relation to the first applicant's case. Furthermore, they cited the legislation of Turkm



> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 12 13 14

	Поделиться:	Tweet