003-3969764-4607840

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 239 (2012)   05.06.2012   Detention and extradition procedure in Russia of two Uzbek   nationals was lawful and respected family life   In today’s two Chamber judgments in the cases Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia   (application no. 64809/10) and Shakurov v. Russia (no. 55822/10), which are not final1,   the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   no violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European   Convention on Human Rights in the Khodzhamberdiyev case;   no violation of Article 5 § 1 and violation of Article 5 § 4 in the Shakurov case; and,   no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment) and no violation of Article 8   (right to private and family life) in the Shakurov case.   The cases concerned the complaints of two Uzbek nationals that, if removed from Russia,   they risked ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, and that they had been detained unlawfully with a   view to extradition without effective judicial review.   The Court found in particular that, contrary to some earlier Russian cases concerning   extradition proceedings, the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention had been authorised and   extended by a court in line with domestic and Convention requirements.   Principal facts   The applicants, Davronbek Khodzhamberdiyev and Askhat Shakurov, are two Uzbek   nationals who were born respectively in 1971 and 1972 and live in two different towns in   Russia.   They arrived in Russia from Uzbekistan in early 2000 in search of work.   Mr Khodzhamberdiyev left behind his wife and children, while Mr Shakurov’s wife and two   children moved in 2004 from Uzbekistan to Russia where they obtained Russian citizenship.   Criminal proceedings were opened in Uzbekistan against both applicants: in 2002 against   Mr Shakurov for desertion from the army, and in 2006 against Mr Khodzhamberdiyev on   suspicion of attempting to overthrow the existing regime. A further set of criminal   proceedings was opened against Mr Shakurov in 2009 in Russia on suspicion of having   threatened his spouse with death. Between 2002 and 2004, Mr Khodzhamberdiyev served a   prison term in Russia for drug-related offences.   At the request of the Uzbek authorities, both Mr Khodzhamberdiyev and Mr Shakurov were   arrested in early 2010 in Russia with a view to their extradition to Uzbekistan. Their   detention awaiting extradition was authorised, and subsequently extended, by the   respective Russian district courts.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Mr Khodzhamberdiyev applied for refugee status and temporary asylum in Russia, without   success. However, he was released in December 2010 following the annulment of his   extradition order by the regional court. That was upheld by the Supreme Court, following   which his extradition case was not pursued meaning his removal from Russia to Uzbekistan   became impossible. In July 2011, the Moscow Office of the UNHCR (United Nations High   Commissioner for Refugees) found that he was eligible for international protection as a   refugee.   Mr Shakurov’s application for refugee status, which he lodged in 2010, was also refused. He   was released in January 2011 and has since been ordered not to leave his town of   residence. In April 2011 he was granted a year-long temporary asylum.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1 and 4, and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), both   applicants complained that, if removed from Russia, they risked ill-treatment in Uzbekistan,   and that they had been detained unlawfully with a view to extradition without effective   judicial review. Mr Shakurov also complained under Article 8 that his extradition would   negatively affect his wife and children, who live in Russia and have Russian citizenship.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 November   and on 19 July 2010 respectively.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President,   Anatoly Kovler (Russia),   Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),   Julia Laffranque (Estonia),   Erik Møse (Norway), sitting in both cases, and   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece) in the Khodzhamberdiyev case,   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark) in the Shakurov case,   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Detention with a view to extradition (Article 5 § 1)   Lawfulness of detention   The Court observed that, unlike in some previous cases in respect of Russia, with which it   had dealt and which concerned detention with a view to extradition, Mr Shakurov’s and   Mr Khodzhamberdiyev’s detention had been ordered and/or extended, by a Russian, as   opposed to a foreign, court or a non-judicial authority. The court orders had contained time-   limits and had been subject to regular reviews by the relevant Russian courts. They had   been based on the applicable national law – the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.   The Court found that Mr Khodzhamberdiyev’s and Mr Shakurov’s detention with a view to   extradition had been lawful, given that neither applicant had put forth, before the Russian   courts or the European Court of Human Rights, any serious argument to the contrary, There   had, therefore, been no violation of Article 5 § 1 in respect of either applicant.   Length of detention with a view to extradition   The Court recalled the general principle that deprivation of liberty with a view to deportation   would only be acceptable under Article 5 for as long as the extradition proceedings were in   progress. If those proceedings were not conducted diligently, detention was no longer   permissible.   Mr Khodzhamberdiyev had been detained for some nine months, and Mr Shakurov for 12   months. There had been no significant unjustified periods of delay or inaction on behalf of   the Russian authorities. The Court concluded that there had, therefore, been no violation of   Article 5 § 1 in respect of either applicant.   Review of detention (Article 5 § 4)   In respect of Mr Khodzhamberdiyev, the Court, once again observed that, unlike in some   previous Russian cases concerning detention with a view to extradition, his detention had   been ordered and extended by a Russian, and not by a foreign, court or a non-judicial body.   Also, each extension order had been based upon a prosecutor’s request and had been valid   for a specific period of time. Thus, there had been a periodic judicial review of the   lawfulness of his detention, including before a court of appeal. Mr Khodzhamberdiyev had,   therefore, been able to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention could be   effectively assessed. There had, therefore, been no violation of Article 5 § 4 in respect of   him.   As regards Mr Shakurov, the Court observed that there had been two delays – of 13 and of   days respectively – in examining his appeals against two detention orders. The Russian   courts had not breached the applicable domestic-law procedural time-limits, and neither   Mr Shakurov nor his lawyer had contributed to the length of the appeal proceedings.   Apparently, the bigger delays had occurred when the case file had been transferred from   the first-instance court to the appeal court, the domestic legislation not having set out time-   limits for that purpose. The Court, therefore, concluded that it was up to the State to   organise its legal system in a way allowing for speedy examination of detention-related   issues, especially where, as in this case, the determination of the lawfulness of the   applicant’s detention had involved no complex issues, Consequently, as a result of the   delays in examining Mr Shakurov’s appeals against the detention orders, there had been a   violation of Article 5 § 4 in respect of him.   Right to family life (Article 8)   The Court observed that Mr Shakurov enjoyed family life in Russia and that extradition   would constitute interference with that right. At the same time, as he had not claimed that   his extradition would be unlawful, the only issue remaining for the Court to determine was   whether his extradition would be proportionate to the aim pursued.   As the Russian courts had noted, Mr Shakurov had not acquired Russian nationality and had   not regularised his residence in the country. He had not complained that his arrest and   detention in 2010 had negatively affected his family life. The Court recalled that Article 8   could be breached in extradition cases only in “exceptional circumstances”.   In the absence of elements showing that an extradition would have exceptionally grave   consequences for Mr Shakurov’s family life, the Court concluded – with regard to the gravity   of the charges against him and the legitimate interest of Russia in honouring its extradition   obligations – that the extradition decision had been proportionate to the aim pursued. There   would, therefore, be no violation of Article 8 if Mr Shakurov were extradited to Uzbekistan.   Prohibition of ill-treatment (Article 3)   In respect of Mr Shakurov, the Court noted a number of reports from international sources   signalling problems with the human rights situation in Uzbekistan. However, a general   problem with human rights in a country was not sufficient, on its own, to bar extradition.   Mr Shakurov had been charged not with a political or religious crime, but with deserting the   army – an ordinary criminal offence. No evidence had been presented before the Court to   show that he would be treated differently in Uzbekistan than other criminal suspects: he did   not belong to a banned religious movement or any vulnerable group at risk of being ill-   treated, nor had he or any member of his family been previously ill-treated or persecuted.   He had left Uzbekistan for Russia in search of economic well—being and had not submitted   asylum or refugee applications until after he had been detained with a view to extradition.   Finally, he had not appealed against the refusals of the domestic court of his refugee and   asylum applications.   Consequently, the Court found that Mr Shakurov had not substantiated his alleged fear of   ill-treatment and there would be no violation of Article 3 if he were extradited to Uzbekistan.   As regards Mr Khodzhamberdiyev, his extradition order had been annulled in December   and that annulment upheld in March 2011 by the Supreme Court. That judgment had   remained in force and Mr Khodzhamberdiyev was no longer at risk of being extradited.   Consequently, the factual and legal circumstances present when he had applied to the Court   were no longer at stake. Therefore, Mr Khodzhamberdiyev was no longer at risk of being ill-   treated. Finally, Mr Khodzhamberdiyev had been recognised by the UNHCR as eligible for   international protection. As a result, the Court dismissed his application under Article 3 as   inadmissible.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Russia was to pay Mr Shakurov 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-   pecuniary damage.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe   Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on   Human Rights.   4