nd Askarov, cited above, § 73). In the same context, the Court should examine whether the authorities assessed the risks of ill-treatment prior to taking the decision on extradition (see Ryabikin, cited above, § 117).
107. The applicant argued that the risk of his being subjected to ill-treatment in Tajikistan was exacerbated by his ethnic Uzbek origin. The Court points out in this connection that instances of discrimination against Uzbeks in Tajikistan have been reported (see paragraph 86 above). Furthermore, the applicant brought to the Russian authorities' attention the fact that the charges against him concerned events that had taken place in the aftermath of the civil war. The Court observes in this connection that, according to the US Department of State, several hundred political prisoners, including former opponents of the governing party who fought in the civil war, are being held in Tajikistan (see paragraph 88 above).
108. The Court also observes that the Russian Office of the UNHCR, having studied the applicant's case, concluded that the criminal charges of banditry had amounted to disguised persecution "on the grounds of political views attributed to the applicant, since [the Tajik authorities] associate the applicant with anti-governmental activities because he had been a member of militia groups suspected of involvement in the armed conflict of August 1997" (see paragraph 46 above). In such circumstances the Court considers that the applicant's personal situation would be more likely to increase the risk to him of harm in Tajikistan (see, mutatis mutandis, Chahal, cited above, § 106).
109. The Government's reference to the fact that the applicant did not apply for asylum immediately after his arrival in Russia does not necessarily refute his allegations of risks of ill-treatment since the protection afforded by Article 3 of the Convention is in any event broader than that provided for in Articles 32 and 33 of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (see, mutatis mutandis, Saadi, cited above, § 138). Moreover, it is noteworthy that the Russian Office of the UNHCR acknowledged that, in its opinion, the applicant qualified as a "refugee" within the meaning of the 1951 Convention (see paragraph 46 above).
110. In view of the above, the Court considers that substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention if extradited to Tajikistan.
111. The Court further notes that the Government relied on assurances from the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office to the effect that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment in Tajikistan (see paragraphs 34 and 36 above). However, the Court observes that the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office's letters of 10 April and 26 May 2009, which the Government described as diplomatic assurances, contained no reference whatsoever to the protection of the applicant from treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. The mere statement that Tajikistan had ratified the Convention against Torture could not be considered a warranty against the risk of being subjected to torture that the applicant might face in Tajikistan. In any event, diplomatic assurances are not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment where 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 - 48).
112. Lastly, the Court will examine the applicant's allegation that the Russian authorities did not conduct a serious investigation into possible ill-treatment in the requesting country. The Government did not dispute that the applicant had brought to the domestic authorities' attention the fact that he had been pers
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 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
