icant had stated that he had fled Tajikistan because he had been persecuted by the Tajik Ministry of Security but had not furnished any evidence in support of his statement. Instead, he had claimed that his brother had been sentenced to nine years' imprisonment because he had been a Hizb ut-Tahrir member. In the Government's view, the applicant had been bound to be aware of Hizb ut-Tahrir activities.
82. The applicant could not be persecuted for his religious practices because Islam was the official religion of Tajikistan. Moreover, none of the numerous religious groups in Tajikistan had been persecuted.
83. The applicant had not applied for refugee status upon his arrival to Russia or during the following six years. The Moscow FMS had reached the conclusion, upon careful examination of his case, that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criteria. They had studied the political and economic situation in Tajikistan with particular emphasis on the functioning of the judicial and penitentiary systems and the Tajik authorities' attitude towards Muslims.
84. 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 an aim of causing him or her physical suffering or humiliating the person in question.
85. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had informed the Russian Prosecutor General's Office that there had been no reasons not to extradite the applicant because Tajikistan, a UN member, had undertaken to comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that 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. The Russian authorities officially recognised that Tajikistan was a secular democratic State.
86. 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.
2. The applicant
87. The applicant had informed the Russian authorities that he had feared persecution because of his alleged involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir's activities. In particular, on 22 August 2008 he had informed the Moscow City Court that in 2001 he had been told that upon his return to Tajikistan he would be arrested. The applicant had been on a wanted list since 2001, which was proven by the fact that on 27 October 2001 he had been detained with a view to extradition as a person wanted in Tajikistan. The applicant stated that when questioned by the Moscow City Court on 22 August 2008 he had not been assisted by a lawyer and thus could not understand the legal consequences of his statement that he had arrived in Russia to look for employment. He also asserted that he had had a right to apply for refugee status at any time, not necessarily immediately upon his arrival in Russia. The applicant doubted the validity of the diplomatic assurances given in his case. In sum, the applicant claimed that his extradition to Tajikistan would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
88. 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 an
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 21 22 23
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
