ecuted in Tajikistan on ethnic and political grounds. Moreover, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 1 April 2009 for the reason that the Moscow City Court had failed to analyse the defence's argument concerning political persecution (see paragraph 35 above).
113. Nonetheless, when re-examining the appeals against the extradition order, the City Court merely stated that Ms Ryabinina's report had been unsubstantiated (see paragraph 37 above). The Supreme Court, in its turn, limited its analysis of the risk of the applicant's being subjected to ill-treatment to a reference to the assurances by the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office (see paragraph 38 above). The Court is struck by the fact that both the City Court and the Supreme Court claimed that the letters from the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office of 10 April and 26 May 2009 had provided assurances that the applicant would not be ill-treated in Tajikistan, whereas it is clear from those documents that no such assurances were given. It concludes therefore that the domestic courts failed to study carefully the documents produced in the applicant's extradition case. It is also noteworthy that the domestic courts made no attempt to examine the fact that the charges against the applicant concerned events that had occurred in the context of the aftermath of the civil war and that the Tajik authorities might have brought them with a view to retaliating against their former political opponents.
114. In such circumstances the Court is unable to conclude that the Russian authorities duly addressed the applicant's concerns with regard to Article 3 in the domestic extradition proceedings.
115. The Court finds therefore that implementation of the extradition order against the applicant would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violations of Article 5 of the Convention
116. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention that his ongoing detention pending extradition had been "unlawful". He also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he could not challenge in the Russian courts the lawfulness of his detention pending extradition.
117. Article 5 of the Convention reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
...
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
A. The parties' submissions
1. The Government
118. The Government contested the applicant's arguments. They claimed that the applicant's detention pending extradition had been authorised by the decision of 18 June 2008 and that the decision in question had been taken after a court hearing held in the presence of the applicant and his counsel. The applicant had been advised of the avenues of appeal against the decision to place him in custody. In sum, the applicant's detention had been "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
119. The Government further referred to the decision by the Russian Constitutional Court of 1 March 2007 (see paragraphs 76 and 77 above) stating that the applicant's detention had been governed by Article 466 § 1 of the CCP read in conjunction with Chapter 13 of the CCP and that those legal pr
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 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
