enistan, which prohibited torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment and declared that no one could be restricted in the exercise of his rights, found guilty or subjected to a punishment otherwise than in strict conformity with the law. They noted that Turkmenistan was a State party to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment since 1999.
2. The Court's assessment
67. In line with the Court's consistent case-law, it is necessary to examine whether the foreseeable consequences of the first applicant's extradition to Turkmenistan are such as to bring Article 3 of the Convention into play. Since she has not yet been extradited, owing to an indication by the Court of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the material date for the assessment of that risk is that of the Court's consideration of the case (for an overview of the relevant case-law on this matter see, for example, Y. v. Russia, No. 20113/07, §§ 74 - 82, 4 December 2008, with further references).
68. The Court reiterates that it has held previously that extradition to Turkmenistan on criminal charges may entail a violation of Article 3. The following relevant factors were taken into account: credible and consistent reports from various reputable sources of widespread torture, beatings and use of force against criminal suspects by the Turkmen law-enforcement authorities; very poor conditions of detention; discrimination against persons of non-Turkmen ethnicity, which made them particularly vulnerable to abuses; the cumulative effect of the poor conditions of detention in view of the potential length of prison sentences; systematic refusal of the Turkmen authorities to allow any monitoring of the places of detention by international or non-government observers (see Soldatenko, cited above, § 71; Ryabikin, cited above, §§ 116, 119; and Garabayev v. Russia, No. 38411/02, § 78, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts)).
69. The Court notes that this assessment was done in 2007 and 2008. The latest reports by the government and non-government observers cited above (see paragraphs 62 - 63 above) do not demonstrate any improvement as to the situation in Turkmenistan on the most important points summarised in the previous paragraph. In particular, international observers, including the ICRC, have continued to be denied access to the places of detention.
70. The Court also finds that it cannot be ruled out that the request for information sent by the Moscow City Court to the authorities in Turkmenistan, which contained references to the first applicant's case and the nature of her claims about the situation in that country, could endanger her situation even further. It should be noted that the first applicant herself did not take any steps to make her claims about ill-treatment known to the authorities of Turkmenistan and thus create an "unwanted" publicity around her case (see N. v. Finland, No. 38885/02, § 165, 26 July 2005).
71. The Court does not lose sight of the Government's argument that the first applicant's complaints about the threat of ill-treatment have been examined in the domestic proceedings and dismissed. However, it reiterates that in cases concerning aliens facing expulsion or extradition it is entitled to compare material made available by the Government with material from other reliable and objective sources (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, No. 1948/04, § 136, ECHR 2007-I (extracts), and Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 13229/03, §§ 131, ECHR 2008-...).
72. The Court finds that the dismissal by the courts of the first applicant's complaints was based on the assumption that she had relied on general information which was not matched by her personal circumstances (see paragraph 37 above). However, having regard to the information about the situa
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
