importance to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human-rights-protection associations such as Amnesty International, or governmental sources, including the US State Department (see, for example, Chahal, cited above, §§ 99 - 100, {Muslim} v. Turkey, No. 53566/99, § 67, 26 April 2005, Said v. the Netherlands, No. 2345/02, § 54, 5 July 2005, and Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), No. 35865/03, §§ 65 - 66, 20 February 2007). At the same time, the mere possibility of ill-treatment on account of an unsettled situation in the receiving country does not in itself give rise to a breach of Article 3 (see Vilvarajah and Others, cited above, § 111, and Fatgan Katani and Others v. Germany (dec.), No. 67679/01, 31 May 2001). Where the sources available to the Court describe a general situation, an applicant's specific allegations in a particular case require corroboration by other evidence (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 73, ECHR 2005-I).
(b) Application of the above principles to the present case
94. In line with its case-law cited above, it is necessary to examine whether the foreseeable consequences 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 an 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.
95. 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 than any other person detained in Tajikistan because the Tajik authorities suspect him of involvement in activities of Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
96. 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 in this respect that, in the Government's submission, Tajikistan respected 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-... (extracts), and Saadi v. Italy [GC], No. 37201/06, § 131, 28 February 2008).
97. The Court points out in this respect 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 72 above). Amnesty International reported that religious freedom in Tajikistan was subject to restrictions imposed by State authorities (see paragraph 73 above). Human Rights Watch observed that granting impunity to State officials for acts of rampant torture was a common practice (see paragraph 74 above). The US Department of State also reported frequent use of torture by security officials and pointed out that the State bodies denied unhindered access to independent observers, including empl
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 21 22 23