Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Клейн (Klein) против России» [англ.]

oubts about it (see Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04, § 112, 19 June 2008).
47. As regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court considers that it can attach certain 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).

2. Application of the above principles to the present case

48. In line with its case-law cited above, it is necessary to examine whether the foreseeable consequences of the applicant's extradition to Colombia 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.
49. In the applicant's submissions, his fears of possible ill-treatment in Colombia 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 personally would run an even greater risk of ill-treatment than any other person serving a sentence in Colombia since the Vice-President had publicly threatened to have him "rot in jail".
50. The Court will therefore first consider whether the general political climate in Colombia 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 submissions, Colombia, a party to major international treaties, respected basic human rights. Reiterating that in cases concerning aliens facing expulsion or extradition the Court 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), it observes that in 2009 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the U.S. Department of State reported a considerable number of human rights violations that have recently taken place in Colombia (see paragraphs 33 - 35 above).
51. The information from various reliable sources, including those referred to by the applicant (see paragraphs 31 - 35 above), undoubtedly illustrates that the overall human-rights situation in Colombia is far from perfect. For instance, State agents are presumed liable for a number of extrajudicial killings of civilians, forced disappearances and arbitrary detentions.
52. The findings above that attest to the general situation in the country of destination should be supported by specific allegations and require collaboration by other evidence (see Mamatkulov and 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



> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 14 15 16

	Поделиться:	Tweet