003-4246873-5054671

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 40 (2013)   05.02.2013   Deportation from Russia of Uzbek man suspected of   membership of illegal religious organisation exposed him to risk   of ill-treatment in his home country   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Zokhidov v. Russia (application   no. 67286/10), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading   treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;   violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 (right to liberty and security); and,   a violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   The case concerned the extradition of an Uzbek national from Russia to Uzbekistan,   where he was wanted in connection with his presumed membership of the illegal   religious organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir.   The Court found that Mr Zokhidov had been at real risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan.   His removal there, in contravention of an interim measure indicated by the Court, had   moreover removed him from Convention protection, making it impossible for this   judgment to be effectively enforced.   Principal facts   The applicant, Rustam Zokhidov, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1972 and is   currently serving a term of imprisonment in Uzbekistan. He lived in Russia between 2005   and December 2011.   In May 2010, criminal proceedings were brought against Mr Zokhidov in Uzbekistan on   suspicion of having participated, between 2001 and 2005, in activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir,   a religious organisation banned in Uzbekistan. He was charged with public appeals to   overthrow the constitutional order in connection with his presumed membership of the   organisation and his name was placed on an international wanted list. In July 2010, he   was arrested in St. Petersburg and detained on 15 July with a view to his extradition to   Uzbekistan. His detention was again ordered by the prosecutor on 24 August 2010, and   it was subsequently extended until his release in April 2011.   In the meantime, a request from the Uzbek authorities for Mr Zokhidov’s extradition to   Uzbekistan, received by the Russian authorities on 16 August 2010, was approved by the   Russian deputy Prosecutor General in September 2010, the decision stating that Mr   Zokhidov was charged with offences which were prescribed by Russian criminal law.   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   Informed of the extradition order in October 2010, Mr Zokhidov appealed, arguing that   he ran a real risk of being exposed to ill-treatment if extradited. On 19 November 2010,   the European Court of Human Rights granted Mr Zokhidov’s request for an interim   measure and indicated to the Russian Government that he should not be extradited to   Uzbekistan until further notice. The St Petersburg city court initially dismissed Mr   Zokhidov’s appeal against the extradition order, noting in particular that the Uzbek   authorities had given assurances to the effect that he would not be subjected to   treatment in breach of Article 3. The decision having been quashed by the Supreme   Court, the city court set aside the extradition order in April 2011, finding that the legal   classification of the charges against Mr Zokhidov under Russian law was incorrect and   that his criminal prosecution had become time-barred, and ordered his release.   In parallel, Mr Zokhidov brought asylum proceedings in October 2010, stating that he   was persecuted in Uzbekistan on account of his religious beliefs. His request for refugee   status was dismissed. The migration authorities referred in particular to the fact that he   had applied for asylum only more than two months after his arrest with a view to his   extradition and that he had breached the residence regulations by submitting false   information. His complaint against that decision was rejected by the district court in   November 2011.   On 21 December 2011, Mr Zokhidov was deported to Uzbekistan. According to his   submissions, a group of police officers and officials of the migration service burst into the   flat where he lived with his family on the pretext of an identity check. They subsequently   took him to the airport, where he was put on a plane to Uzbekistan, despite the fact that   he had informed the officers of the interim measure indicated by the European Court of   Human Rights and had shown them a copy of the Court’s letter as proof. According to   the Russian Government, there had not been any legal grounds for Mr Zokhidov’s stay in   Russia, given the refusal to grant him asylum. In Uzbekistan, he was convicted as   charged and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment in April 2012.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Zokhidov complained that his removal to Uzbekistan had been in violation of Article   3, in particular since, as a person accused of participating in a banned religious   organisation considered extremist by the Uzbek authorities, he ran a real risk of ill-   treatment. He further complained that he did not have any effective remedies in respect   of that complaint, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Also relying in   particular on Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complained that   his detention in Russia from July to September 2010 had been unlawful, that he had not   been informed promptly, in a language he understood, of the reasons for his arrest and   the charges against him, and that he did not have the possibility to effectively challenge   the detention orders. Finally, he complained that Russia failed to comply with its   obligations under Article 34 (right of individual petition) by disregarding the interim   measure indicated by the European Court of Human Rights to the effect that he should   not be extradited to Uzbekistan.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 November   2010.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),   Julia Laffranque (Estonia),   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),   Erik Møse (Norway),   Ksenija Turković (Croatia),   Dmitry Dedov (Russia),   and also André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court found that the Russian authorities had not carried out a thorough examination   of Mr Zokhidov’s allegations concerning the risk of his ill-treatment in Uzbekistan. In   particular, the Russian courts’ decision to set aside the order for his extradition was   mainly based on technical reasons, namely the fact that his prosecution had become   time-barred. The migration authorities, in their decisions to refuse his asylum request,   had mainly referred to the fact that he had waited too long before applying for refugee   status and had breached the residence regulations, but they had not specifically   addressed his detailed submissions concerning the risk of being subjected to ill-   treatment in case of his removal.   In previous judgments concerning potential removals to Uzbekistan, including in recent   cases, the Court had found, with reference to reliable international sources, that the   practice of torture against those in police custody was systematically used there. At the   same time, the Court emphasised that it was insufficient to simply refer to a general   problem concerning human rights observance in a particular country to bar extradition.   With regard to Mr Zokhidov’s personal situation it noted that, having been wanted on   charges of a number of offences in connection with his alleged membership of Hizb ut-   Tahrir, he belonged to a group in respect of which reliable sources confirmed a   continuing pattern of ill-treatment and torture by the authorities. The criminal   proceedings against him had been instituted in the aftermath of terrorist attacks of   2009, which had been followed by a wave of arbitrary arrests and ill-treatment of people   suspected of their involvement with Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Court thus considered that there   were substantial grounds to believe that Mr Zokhidov had faced a real risk of treatment   in breach of Article 3. The assurances given by the Uzbek authorities that he would not   be ill-treated had been couched in general terms and there was no evidence that they   were supported by any monitoring mechanism. Mr Zokhidov’s removal to Uzbekistan had   therefore violated Article 3.   The Court did not consider it necessary to examine Mr Zokhidov’s complaint separately   under Article 13, as it essentially contained the same arguments as those examined   under Article 3.   Article 5   The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of Mr   Zokhidov’s detention in Russia from 14 July to 15 September 2010. Neither the   prosecutor in his decision to order the detention nor the Russian Government had   referred to any provision under Russian law that would have authorised his placement in   custody between 14 July and 16 August 2010, when the prosecutor had received the   extradition request. After that date, Mr Zokhidov’s detention had been covered by the   relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, that provision lacked   clear rules on the procedures to be followed when ordering the detention of a person   whose extradition was sought and it did not set any time-limits for detention pending   extradition.   Furthermore, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 2, as Mr Zokhidov had not been   promptly provided with sufficient information concerning his arrest and the charges   brought against him. While his arrest and interview records contained a reference to the   fact that he was wanted by the Uzbek authorities, those documents did not mention the   reasons why those authorities were searching for him.   Finally, there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of Mr Zokhidov’s inability   to obtain a review of the detention orders of 15 July and 24 August 2010. The Russian   Government had referred to legal provisions which provided individuals detained with a   view to extradition with the possibility of bringing a judicial complaint. However, the   Court was not convinced that those legal provisions - in particular Article 125 of the   Code of Criminal Procedure, as interpreted by the Russian Supreme Court - explicitly   gave the court the competence to release a detainee in Mr Zokhidov’s situation.   Moreover, the Government acknowledged that Mr Zokhidov had been provided with the   detention orders of 15 July and 24 August 2010 after the domestic courts had already   authorised his ensuing detention, which made appeals against them devoid of purpose.   Article 34 (right of individual petition)   While the Russian Government acknowledged that Mr Zokhidov’s removal to Uzbekistan   had been in breach of the interim measure indicated by the Court and that this was   contrary to Article 34 of the Convention, they asserted that the migration authorities   which carried out the deportation order had not been aware of the interim measure and   that it had not been their intention to act in non-compliance with Article 34. The Court   was not convinced by this argument. In particular, according to Mr Zokhidov’s   submissions, uncontested by the Government, he had informed the migration officials of   the Court’s interim measure. He had moreover asserted, and those submissions were   also uncontested by the Government, that he had been prevented from contacting his   lawyer after having been taken away from his flat.   The Court pointed out that Mr Zokhidov’s removal to Uzbekistan had removed him from   Convention protection and had frustrated the purpose of the interim measure, which was   to maintain the status quo pending the Court’s examination of the application and to   allow its final judgment to be effectively enforced. There had accordingly been a violation   of Article 34.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Russia was to pay Mr Zokhidov 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of   non-pecuniary damage and EUR 11,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   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 here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   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