Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 20.05.2010 «Дело Хайдаров (Khaydarov) против России» [англ.]

sequences of the applicant's extradition to Tajikistan are such as to bring Article 3 of the Convention into play. Since he has not yet been extradited, owing to the 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.
102. In the applicant's submission, his fears of possible ill-treatment in Tajikistan are justified by two factors. First, referring to a number of reports, the applicant argues that the general human-rights situation in the receiving country is deplorable. Secondly, he claims that he would personally run an even greater risk of ill-treatment since the criminal proceedings against him were of a political nature and because of his ethnic Uzbek origin.
103. The Court will accordingly first consider whether the general political climate in Tajikistan could give reasons to assume that the applicant would be subjected to ill-treatment in the receiving country. It notes that, in the Government's submission, Tajikistan respects basic human rights. However, the Court reiterates that in cases concerning aliens facing expulsion or extradition it is entitled to compare materials made available by the Government with materials from other reliable and objective sources (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, No. 1948/04, § 136, ECHR 2007-I, and Saadi v. Italy [GC], No. 37201/06, § 131, ECHR 2008-...).
104. The Court points out in this connection that the evidence from a number of objective sources undoubtedly illustrates that the overall human-rights situation in Tajikistan gives rise to serious concerns. For instance, the Committee against Torture pointed out that the Tajik law regarding prohibition of torture was not fully in conformity with the text of the Convention against Torture, which in itself might raise suspicions as to the degree of protection accorded to those alleging ill-treatment. The Committee also emphasised that detainees were often kept in unrecorded detention without access to a lawyer or medical assistance and that interrogation methods prohibited by the Convention against Torture were frequently used (see paragraph 85 above). Human Rights Watch observed that granting impunity to State officials for acts of rampant torture was a common practice (see paragraph 87 above). The US Department of State also reported frequent use of torture by security officials and pointed out that the Tajik authorities denied independent observers, including employees of the International Committee for the Red Cross, unhindered access to detention facilities (see paragraph 88 above).
105. The Court is not persuaded by the Government's argument that the mere fact of ratification by Tajikistan of major human-rights instruments excludes the possibility that the applicant would run a risk of ill-treatment in the requesting country. The existence of domestic laws and accession to international treaties guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights in principle are not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment where, as in the present case, reliable sources have reported practices resorted to or tolerated by the authorities which are manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention (see Saadi, cited above, § 147 in fine). Given that the Government failed to convincingly show that the human-rights situation in Tajikistan had drastically improved when compared with the situation described in the aforementioned reports by reputable organisations, the Court is ready to accept that ill-treatment of detainees is an enduring problem in Tajikistan.
106. Nonetheless, the Court points out that the above-mentioned findings attest to the general situation in the country of destination and should be supported by specific allegations and require corroboration by other evidence (see Mamatkulov a

> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 20 21 22

0.1998 с