hat this provision allows for up to forty days' custodial detention pending receipt of the official request for extradition from the requesting country (see paragraph 71 above). The period that elapsed between the date of the applicant's arrest and the date of issue of the Tajik request for extradition amounts to twenty-four days. In such circumstances the Court has no grounds on which to conclude that the applicant's detention prior to receipt of the Tajik authorities' official request for his extradition, that is, between 27 November and 21 December 2007, was "unlawful" merely owing to the lack of an official request for extradition.
138. However, an issue arises as to whether the judicial authorisation of the applicant's detention given by the Town Court on 30 November 2007 was sufficient to hold the applicant in custody for any period of time - no matter how long - until the decision on the extradition request had been made, or whether the detention was to be reviewed at regular intervals (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia, No. 656/06, § 73, 11 October 2007).
139. In the Government's submission, the term of the applicant's custodial detention was governed by Article 109 of the CCP, which permits up to twelve months' detention in cases concerning serious crimes. The Court notes at the same time that, in order to be considered "lawful" within the meaning of Article 109 § 2 of the CCP, custodial detention exceeding two months necessitates further judicial authorisation (see paragraph 56 above).
140. According to the Government, the applicant's placement in custody was authorised by the Town Court, pursuant to Article 108 of the CCP, on 30 November 2007 and then again on 28 December 2007 (see paragraphs 34 and 36 above). The Court is perplexed by the fact that the same town court chose the same preventive measure in respect of the applicant on two occasions within twenty-eight days, although the applicant had not been released from custody during that period. Nonetheless, even assuming that on 28 December 2007 the Town Court erroneously referred to Article 108 of the CCP governing the initial placement in custody, and not extension of the term of detention, and in fact extended the term of the applicant's detention before it had exceeded two months as required by Article 109 § 2 of the CCP, there was no further judicial decision on extension of the term of detention from then on.
141. In the absence of any domestic court decision extending the applicant's detention, the Court is bound to conclude that after 29 May 2008, that is, six months after the date of his placement in custody, the applicant was detained in breach of the provisions of Article 109 § 2 of the CCP. It thus finds that the applicant's detention pending extradition cannot be considered "lawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
142. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
III. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
143. The applicant further complained that the criminal proceedings against him in Tajikistan would not be fair and that his extradition would expose him to the risk of a flagrant denial of justice. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:
"1. In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by an independent and impartial tribunal..."
144. The Government rejected that argument.
145. The applicant maintained his complaint.
A. Admissibility
146. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
> 1 2 3 ... 20 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
