there were no political prisoners and that they did not make any politically motivated arrests. Opposition parties and local observers claimed the government selectively prosecuted political opponents. There was no reliable estimate of the number of political prisoners, but former opposition leaders claimed there were several hundred such prisoners held in the country, including former fighters of the UTO."
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
89. The applicant alleged that, if extradited to Tajikistan, he would be subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He also claimed that the Russian authorities had failed to assess the risks of ill-treatment that he would run in the requesting country. Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
90. The Government contested the applicant's arguments.
91. The Tajik Prosecutor General's Office had given diplomatic assurances to the effect that the applicant would be prosecuted only in relation to the crimes mentioned in the extradition request, that he would be able to leave Tajikistan freely after standing trial and serving a sentence and that he would not be expelled, transferred or extradited to a third State without the Russian authorities' consent. According to the Tajik Criminal Code, its task was to protect human rights; and a sentence applied to a criminal could not pursue the aim of causing him or her physical suffering or humiliating the person in question.
92. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had informed the Russian Prosecutor General's Office that there had been no reason not to extradite the applicant because Tajikistan, a UN member, had undertaken to comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a Tajik ombudsman's office had been created. Tajikistan had ratified the ICCPR of 1966, the Refugee Convention of 1989, the Convention against Torture of 1984 and other treaties.
93. The applicant's allegations of risks of ill-treatment in Tajikistan had not been substantiated. Accordingly, his extradition would not amount to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention.
94. The applicant maintained his claims.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
95. The Court notes that the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention 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 and must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) General principles
96. The Court reiterates at the outset that in order to fall within the scope of Article 3 ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment or punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], No. 24724/94, § 68, 16 December 1999). Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], No. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
97. The Court further reiterates that extradition by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue und
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
