THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 65916/10 Ali Nurdinovich IBRAGIMOV against Slovakia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 June 2015 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President, Luis López Guerra, Ján Šikuta, Kristina Pardalos, Johannes Silvis, Valeriu Griţco, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to its decision of 14 September 2010 on the admissibility of applications nos. 21022/08 and 51946/08;

Having regard to the present application no. 65916/10 lodged on 15 November 2010,

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in the context of the present application and the fact that this interim measure has been complied with,

Having regard to the partial decision on the admissibility of the present application of 21 February 2012,

Having regard to its decision of 15 April 2014 on the admissibility of application no. 27145/14,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having regard to the third-party comments submitted by the Government of the Russian Federation and the reply thereto of the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, Mr Ali Nurdinovich Ibragimov, is a Russian national of Chechen ethnic origin, who was born in 1977 and is presently detained in Košice (Slovakia).

He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Ezheyev of the Goodwill Without Borders foundation and Ms H. Demeterová of the non ‑ governmental organisation Help a Man, who were succeeded by Ms I. Rajtáková, a lawyer practising in KoÅ¡ice.

2. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the respondent Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Piro šíková .

3. The present case is a sequel to application no. 51946/08, which had been submitted by the same applicant. The latter application was examined by the Court jointly with application no. 21022/08, which had been submitted by applicant Mr Anzor Chadidovich Chentiev.

4. The Court ’ s decision on the admissibility of applications nos. 21022/08 and 51946/08 is referred to below in paragraphs 17 and 18 .

A. The applicant ’ s asylum and extradition proceedings covered by the Court ’ s decision on the admissibility of applications nos. 21022/08 and 51946/08

5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and established by the Court in the context of applications nos. 21022/08 and 51946/08, may be summarised as follows.

6. The applicant was arrested by Slovakian border police on 18 January 2006, having no valid travel document.

7. On 15 February 2006 he applied for asylum in Slovakia. His request was ultimately dismissed, the final decision being given by the Supreme Court on 26 March 2008 and becoming final on 12 May 2008.

8. On 20 April 2006 the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (“OPGRF”) applied for the applicant ’ s extradition. The request was based on the fact that the applicant had been accused of several offences, namely banditry with aggravating circumstances and attempt on the life of officials of a law-enforcement agency. He was suspected of having participated, as a member of an organised group, in the killing of two agents of the Ministry of the Interior in Grozny in June 2001.

9. The above letter and another letter from the OPGRF dated 19 September 2006 indicated that the applicant would not be tried by the Special Court, would enjoy the guarantees of a fair trial including the assistance of counsel and that he would not be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. As to the risk of the death penalty, the letters indicated that there was a moratorium on the death penalty in Russia, that the applicant would not face the death penalty if extradited and that, should the applicant be sentenced to death, the sentence would not be carried out. Reference was made to the fact that the Russian Federation had signed Protocol No. 6 to the Convention and that under Articles 18 and 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 it had an obligation not to use the death penalty.

10. The applicant was placed in preliminary detention with effect from 28 April 2006. On 23 May 2006 the Košice Regional Court remanded him in custody pending extradition.

11. On 3 September 2008 the Regional Court found the applicant ’ s extradition to Russia inadmissible, but the Public Prosecution Service challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.

12. On 29 October 2008 the Supreme Court overturned the contested decision and held that the applicant ’ s extradition was admissible. It established that the applicant had been involved, as a member of an organised group, in the killing of two Russian servicemen in Grozny in 2001. That killing had taken place after the military conflict had ended and it was not therefore an exclusively political or military action within the meaning of the relevant provision of the Slovakian Code of Criminal Procedure, which prevented the extradition of foreigners in such cases. The Supreme Court further noted that Russia was a member State of the Council of Europe and that respect for human rights was permanently monitored.

13. Finally, the Supreme Court considered sufficient the guarantees offered by the OPGRF, which stated that the applicant would not face the death penalty and that such punishment was in any event not carried out in Russia, that he would not be tried by a Special Court as well as the undertaking that Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention would be respected in his case.

14. On 3 December 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 and referred to various reports on the situation in prisons in the Russian Federation. In particular, he invoked reports on treatment to which persons of Chechen origin suspected of fighting against Russian authorities were subjected. He also invoked the fact that the death penalty had not been formally abolished in Russia.

15. On 17 December 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as being manifestly ill-founded. It relied on the reasoning of the Supreme Court which it considered relevant and sufficient from the point of view of protecting the applicant ’ s rights under the Convention and the Constitution.

16. In a letter of 12 October 2009 addressed to the Slovakian authorities the OPGRF confirmed the guarantees previously given with regard to the applicant, including respect for his physical and psychological integrity. The letter indicated that, if he was convicted and given a prison sentence, the applicant would serve his sentence in a federal prison, where the Convention and the European Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners are taken into account. The Embassy of Slovakia to Russia would be informed of the place of the applicant ’ s detention and Slovakian diplomatic representatives would be able to visit the applicant and speak to him without the presence of third persons. The applicant would be provided with sufficient medical care. It was guaranteed that capital punishment would not be applied in respect of the applicant. Finally, the OPGRF guaranteed that the applicant would not be prosecuted for his political views or because of his race, religion or nationality.

B. Court ’ s decision on the admissibility of applications nos. 21022/08 and 51946/08

17. In applications nos. 21022/08 and 51946/08 the applicants M essrs Chentiev and Ibragimov complained, against a similar background, that their extradition to the Russian Federation would amount to a breach of their rights under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6.

18. On 14 September 2010 a Chamber of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to join applications nos. 21022/08 and 51946/08 and to declare them inadmissible. In view of the documents before it, it found nothing which could reasonably have given the Slovakian authorities grounds to doubt the credibility of the guarantees provided by the OPGRF during the decision-making process. Thus, the Court accepted the conclusion reached by the domestic authorities, namely that the facts of the case did not disclose substantial grounds for believing that the applicants Messrs Chentiev and Ibragimov, if extradited to Russia, faced a real and personal risk of torture or of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

C. Subsequent developments in proceedings before the Court

19. In view of additional information submitted by the newly appointed representatives of the applicants Mr Ibragimov and Mr Chentiev on 15 November 2010, the President of the Fourth Section decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicants should not be extradited to Russia in the context of the present application until 23 November 2010. On the last-mentioned date a Chamber of the Fourth Section extended the interim measure by indicating to the respondent Government that the applicants should not be extradited until further notice. It was considered appropriate that they should have the possibility of having their cases reviewed at domestic level with the benefit of the new material, and that they should not be extradited pending such review.

20. The new application of Messrs Ibragimov and Chentiev was registered under no. 65916/10 and the case was later transferred to the Third Section of the Court, following the re-composition of the Court ’ s sections on 1 February 2011.

21. On 21 February 2012 a part of application no. 65916/10 was declared inadmissible and its remainder was notified to the respondent Government.

22. On 18 March 2014 the interim measure of November 2010 (see paragraph 19 above) was lifted in so far as it concerned Mr Chentiev. Subsequently, the remainder of application no. 65916/10 concerning him was re ‑ registered under no. 27145/14, and it was declared inadmissible on 15 April 2014.

D. Developments in the asylum proceedings of Mr Ibragimov following the Court ’ s decision of 14 September 2010

23. On 6 December 2010 the applicant Mr Ibragimov filed a fresh asylum claim in Slovakia. He referred to the suffering which he had had to endure during the war in Chechnya and his state of health, and indicated that his relatives were being threatened. The applicant ’ s arguments included those on which he relies in the context of the present application (see below).

24. The Migration Office discontinued the proceedings on that claim on 4 February 2011, finding that the applicant had submitted no relevant new information in relation to that already examined before. He then filed an administrative appeal to the Ministry of the Interior.

25. On 31 March 2011 the Minister of the Interior dismissed the applicant ’ s administrative appeal and upheld the decision of the Migration Office.

The Minister ’ s decision stated that there had been no substantive change in the applicant ’ s situation which would justify departing from the previous decision on his earlier asylum claim.

26. On 31 May 2011 the applicant challenged the Minister ’ s decision by way of an administrative-law action, arguing that the refusal of his asylum claim had been contrary to the law and that the administrative authorities had failed duly to take into account additional information and documents on which he had relied in his renewed claim.

27. On 10 May 2012 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the action and its judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 1 August 2012 following the applicant ’ s appeal. However, the latter judgment was quashed by the Constitutional Court on 29 October 2013, following the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint.

28. After the quashing by the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court ’ s judgment of 1 August 2012, it became incumbent on the latter to determine anew the applicant ’ s appeal against the judgment of 10 May 2012, which it did, in a judgment of 12 February 2014, by quashing it as well as the ministerial decision of 31 March 2011.

29. In turn, it then became incumbent on the Ministry to determine anew the applicant ’ s appeal against the decision of 4 February 2011 discontinuing the proceedings on his new asylum claim, which it did on 14 August 2014, by quashing that decision and remitting the matter to the Migration Office.

30. The reasons behind the Constitutional Court ’ s judgment of 29 October 2013, as reflected in the subsequent quashing judgment of the Supreme Court of 12 February 2014 and the quashing decision of the Ministry of 14 August 2014, were that the authorities had failed to respond adequately to the new information and arguments submitted by the applicant, as a result of which their decisions lacked proper reasoning and manifested signs of arbitrariness, and this was contrary to the applicant ’ s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

31. The applicant ’ s new asylum claim is now pending at the administrative level.

32. Meanwhile, on 22 May 2012, the OPGRF had confirmed in a letter to the Slovakian authorities the validity of all guarantees previously offered. In particular, they submitted that, in the event of extradition, the applicant would not be submitted to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and would benefit from a fair trial, and the OPGRF would directly supervise the observance of all such guarantees.

E. Various other facts invoked by the applicant

1. The applicant ’ s situation

33. The applicant has been suffering from stomach ulcers for fifteen years and has had psychological problems. While in prison in Slovakia, he was kept in solitary confinement for significant periods. In the course of 2011, in reply to letters from the applicant ’ s representatives, the prison administration rebutted allegations that he had not been receiving appropriate medical treatment.

34. The applicant had a fight on 9 June 2010 with another detainee in the course of which the latter suffered physical injury. In a different context, on 31 August 2010, a prison officer accused the applicant of having attacked him. Criminal proceedings against the applicant in these two matters appear to be still pending.

35. The applicant submitted a press release of 24 November 2010 indicating that the Minister of the Interior had stated, after a meeting of the Cabinet, that Slovakia must not be a place where persons facing prosecution for serious criminal actions in one of the member States of the Council of Europe could move freely. The Minister further indicated that the applicant ’ s case had been sufficiently examined by the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. The press release indicated that the Minister had refused to speculate as to whether the applicants would be extradited.

2. The cases of A.M. Mukayev, M. Gasayev, A. Shakhayev and Z. Zubairayev

36. The applicant maintained that the criminal proceedings against him had been instituted in Russia on the basis of statements by A.M. Mukayev which had been extracted under torture. In that regard Mr Mukayev has a pending application before the Court against Russia (no. 22495/08).

The applicant also referred to the cases of M. Gasayev, A. Shakhayev and Z. Zubairayev. Mr Gesayev, for his part, had an application before the Court against Spain (no. 48514/06), which was declared inadmissible on 17 February 2009. Nevertheless, in 2012, he was granted asylum in France.

37. Further circumstances of these individual s are described in the Court ’ s partial decision of 21 February 2012 on the admissibility of the present application (see paragraphs 45 - 61 of that decision).

3. Other facts and documents

38. Other facts and documents referred to by the applica nt are described in paragraphs 62 – 68 of the Court ’ s partial decision of 21 February 2012 on the admissibility of the present application .

F. Situation of Mr Chentiev

39. In the decision of 15 April 2014 (see paragraph 22 above), the Court declared inadmissible application by Mr Chentiev, which had been submitted together with the present application, and which rested on identical or similar facts and allegations as the present application. The relevant part of the Court ’ s decision reads as follows:

“21. The documents before the Court indicate that in the proceedings on his renewed asylum request [ Mr Chentiev ] withdrew his action by which he had sought a review of the administrative authorities ’ decisions. On that ground the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings without addressing the merits of the case ...

22. Furthermore, as regards applications against Slovakia, a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution has been generally considered as an effective remedy in respect of alleged breaches of the Convention which the applicants have been required to use after having had recourse to other domestic remedies available ...

23. In view of the above, the Court considers that [ Mr Chentiev ] has failed to use the remedies available in Slovakia as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Therefore, the subsidiary role of the Convention mechanism ... prevents the Court from dealing with the application.”

40. Subsequently, Mr Chentiev was extradited to the Russian Federation.

G. Relevant international instruments and reports

42. A number of relevant international instruments and reports concerning the situation in Chechnya, and Russia in general, are summarised, for example, in the Court ’ s judgments in the cases of M.G. v. Bulgaria (no. 59297/12, §§ 39-58, 25 March 2014) and Chankayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 56688/12, §§ 44-52, 14 November 2013, with further references).

COMPLAINTS

43. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that, as a person of Chechen origin and former active combatant, he would be exposed to the risk of torture and his live would be under threat in the event of his extradition. In that regard, he maintained that unenforceable bilateral diplomatic assurances from one Government to another did not provide a reliable safeguard against serious human rights violations, such as ill ‑ treatment.

44. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal charges against him in Russia were invented and based on statements obtained under torture and that he would not benefit from the guarantees of a fair hearing in the event of his extradition to Russia.

THE LAW

A. Article 3, alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention

45. The applicant complained that he would be exposed to the risk of torture and that his life would be under threat in the event of his extradition.

46. The Court considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, these complaint falls to be examined under Article 3, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention.

These provisions read as follows:

Article 3:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 13:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

1. Arguments before the Court

In addition, they relied on the guarantees provided by the OPGRF, as renewed on 22 May 2012, the reliability of which they saw no reason to doubt.

Furthermore, the respondent Government emphasised that the Russian Federation was a Contracting Party with the same obligations under the Convention as the respondent Government and in relation to which the applicant disposed of equal protection under the Convention, including that under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. In their view, it was not logical to deprive the applicant of the possibility of making use of the protection under the Convention in relation to the Contracting Party ultimately associated with the alleged future but uncertain transgressions. They likewise considered it illogical to be liable for a violation of the applicant ’ s Convention rights in a situation where he could assert those rights directly against the Contracting Party directly involved in the alleged underlying violation.

In any event, relying on the Court ’ s decision in Gasayev v. Spain (no. 48514/06, 17 February 2009) and judgment in the case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia (no. 36378/02, ECHR 2005 ‑ III), the respondent Government were of the view that there was no support for the applicant ’ s claim that he would be mistreated in the Russian Federation.

Admitting that the applicant ’ s renewed asylum claim had as such no suspensive effect in relation to his extradition, they pointed out that the extradition was prevented by way of the Court ’ s interim measure and that Slovakia had respected that measure as well as the preliminary measure indicated in application no. 51946/08. Moreover, depending on the procedural stage, the applicant could seek interim protection of his Convention rights by the Constitutional Court in the context of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution as well by an administrative court in the context of an administrative-law action. In addition, the final decision on the applicant ’ s extradition lay with the Minister of Justice, who had discretion to disallow extradition subject to considerations under Article 3 and 6 of the Convention. In sum, in the respondent Government ’ s submission, the protection of the applicant ’ s Convention rights was effectively ensured.

48. The applicant responded by contesting the guarantees of 22 May 2012 as not containing any actual new assurances and as being in general inadequate. Referring to the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08 , 10 January 2012), he submitted that inadequate conditions of detention and the absence of an effective domestic remedy in that respect were a structural problem in the Russian Federation and that, already in view of this problem, the guarantees of the OPGRF could not be effective.

As regards the respondent Government ’ s argument concerning the possibility of obtaining protection by way of interim measures indicated by the Constitutional Court and an administrative court, the applicant emphasised that there was no legal claim to these remedies, that their application was within the authorities ’ discretion, and that they accordingly did not meet the Convention requirement of effectiveness.

Moreover, in so far as the respondent Government had relied on the case of Mr Gasayev (cited above) , the applicant submitted that his amnesty had been dependent and was based on his confession, which had been extracted by torture and that even after his release Mr Gasayev had been persecuted by the Russian authorities, which forced him to seek asylum in France.

In addition, the applicant considered that the respondent Government had misinterpreted the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Shamayev and Others (cited above), which in his view did not favour their argument but rather showed that it would be ineffective for the applicant to seek protection of his Convention rights against the Russian Federation while being in the Russian Federation.

Lastly, the applicant repeatedly pointed that the length of his detention in Slovakia was intolerable and urged the Court to examine his case.

49. In a further reply, the respondent Government submitted, inter alia , that their previous reference to the case of Shamayev and Others concerned the Court ’ s acceptance in that case of the diplomatic assurances provided by the Russian Federation, which in their view provided a precedent for the assessment of the assurances of the Russian authorities provided in the present case. In addition, in so far as the applicant had relied on the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Ananyev and Others , the respondent Government pointed out that the applicant ’ s argument concerned conditions of detention whereas the present case essentially concerns another matter, that is the applicant ’ s allegation that he would be mistreated by the Russian authorities in the event of his extradition.

50. In their third-party comments, the Government of the Russian Federation confirmed all the guarantees as regards the treatment of the applicant in the event of his extradition to the Russian Federation given in the context of the present application as well as of the applicant ’ s previous application no. 51946/08. They repeated that the applicant ’ s physical and moral integrity would be ensured, he would not be subjected to any treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, would benefit from a fair trial, would not be pursued on any charges other than those for which his extradition is sought, would not have death penalty imposed on him, and would be allowed to leave the territory of the Russian Federation on the completion of his trial and, as the case may be, his sentence. In addition, in so far as relevant, his deprivation of liberty would take place in a federal penitentiary institution with observance of all applicable standards and subject to inspection by representatives of the Embassy of the Slovak Republic in Moscow.

Moreover, the third party submitted that the applicant ’ s claims of ill ‑ treatment of persons of Chechen origin identified by him were no more than allegations, which were not officially confirmed, and were not illustrative of any general situation in the Russian Federation. Finally, as regards the situation of Mr Gasayev, the third party submitted that all of the guarantees given to the Government of Spain in regard of his treatment had been observed and that Mr Gasayev had been treated in full compliance with the applicable rules.

2. The Court ’ s assessment

(a) General principles

52. However, extradition by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, thereby engaging the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question would, if extradited, face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the requesting country. The establishment of such responsibility inevitably involves an assessment of conditions in the requesting country against the standards of Article 3 of the Convention. Nonetheless, there is no question of adjudicating on or establishing the responsibility of the requesting country, whether under general international law, the Convention, or otherwise. In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom , 7 July 1989, §§ 90-91, Series A no. 161).

53. In determining whether it has been shown that the applicant runs a real risk, if extradited, of suffering treatment proscribed by Article 3, the Court will assess the issue in the light of all the material placed before it, or, if necessary, material obtained proprio motu (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden , 20 March 1991, § 75, Series A no. 201). In cases such as the present, the Court must examine the foreseeable consequences of the applicant being extradited to the requesting country, bearing in mind the general situation there and his personal circumstances (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom , 30 October 1991, § 108 in fine , Series A no. 215). To that end, as regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court has often attached importance to the information originating from various reliable and objective sources such as, for instance, agencies of the United Nations, reputable domestic or international human-rights protection associations, or other Contracting or non-Contracting States (see, for example, Chahal v. the United Kingdom , 15 November 1996, §§ 99-100, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ V; Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, §§ 143-146, ECHR 2008; and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia , no. 2947/06, §§ 120-23, 24 April 2008). The Court has also taken into account reports by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe (see, for example, Bajsultanov v. Austria , no. 54131/10, §§ 38-42, 12 June 2012; and I v. Sweden , no. 61204/09, §§ 27-31, 5 September 2013).

54. It is in principle for the applicant to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if the measure complained of were to be implemented, he or she would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. Where such evidence is adduced, it is for the Government to dispel any doubts raised by it (see, among other authorities, Nnyanzi v. the United Kingdom , no. 21878/06, § 53, 8 April 2008).

(b) Application of those principles to the present case

56. The Court notes that the applicant ’ s case has already been subject to its examination in its decision of 14 September 2010 on the admissibility of the applicant ’ s application no. 51946/08 (see Ibragimov , cited above). It must therefore first examine whether in the present application there is any relevant new information within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention to justify its examination.

57. It observes that, in the present application, various elements have been submitted which are new in relation to application no. 51946/08 . However, it is of the view that it may be questioned whether such elements could not have been submitted already in the context of application no. 51946/08 and whether, accordingly, their submission now should justify a new examination of the applicant ’ s case.

58. Nevertheless, the Court considers that it is not necessary to give the question under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention a definitive answer, because the application is in any event inadmissible on the grounds specified below.

59. The applicant in the present case is a Russian national of Chechen ethnic origin, who is detained in Slovakia with a view to his extradition to the Russian Federation for the purposes of criminal prosecution. Referring to his origin and being a former active combatant, he argues that he would be exposed to the risk of torture in the event of his extradition and that the bilateral diplomatic assurances provided by the Government of the requesting State are not an adequate safeguard against that.

60. As regards the scope of the application, the Court notes the applicant ’ s reference, in his observations on the admissibility and merits of the present application, to the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Ananyev and Others (cited above) concerning the general conditions of detention in the Russian Federation and the absence of an effective remedy in that respect (see paragraph 48 above). However, this argument does not appear to have been advanced at the domestic level. The Court would therefore be prevented from dealing with it by the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

61. With that in mind, as to the general situation in the requesting State, the Court notes that the country reports for Russia still reflect a situation of danger and arbitrary abuse with regard to certain categories of people, such as (former) rebels and their relatives. However, the general situation is not such as to conclude that any extradition of Chechens to Russia would violate Article 3 of the Convention (see, recently, Zarmayev v. Belgium , no. 35/10, § 9 7, 27 February 2014 and, mutatis mutandis , Tershiyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 10226/13 , §§ 53 and 55, 31 July 2014 ).

62. Accordingly, an assessment of the particular circumstances of each case is necessary. As to those of the applicant, the Court notes first of all that the applicant does not appear to have challenged the final decision of the Supreme Court of 26 March 2008 concerning his original request for asylum before the Constitutional Court. The risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of his extradition had thus principally received complete examination by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court in the context of the proceedings on his extradition and that the compatibility of that examination with the Convention requirements was specifically the subject matter of the Court ’ s assessment in its decision of 14 September 2010 on the admissibility of the applicant ’ s application no. 51946/08.

63. The Court notes that, as regards the proceedings on the applicant ’ s extradition and their outcome, in the present application no new relevant elements have been introduced in relation to those known to the Court already at the time of its decision of 14 September 2010. Its assessment of those proceedings therefore does not stand open to review.

64. In so far as following the Court ’ s decision of 14 September 2010 a new asylum request was filed on the applicant ’ s behalf, the Court observes that the proceedings on that request are still pending and that, accordingly, any complaint in relation to their outcome would be premature.

65. Nevertheless, the Court does not consider itself to be prevented from examining the application by the admissibility requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention on the following grounds.

In relation to a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention such as that in the present case, Article 13 of the Convention requires the availability of a remedy with suspensive effect (see the recapitulation of the relevant case ‑ law in A.C. and Others v. Spain , no. 6528/11, §§ 87-89, 22 April 2014, with further references).

As the respondent Government have admitted, the applicant ’ s renewed asylum request is short of that parameter (see paragraph 47 above). The other interim remedies identified by them principally appear to be of relevance at the stage of judicial examination, while the asylum proceedings in the present case are at their administrative stage. In any event, it is to be noted in that regard that the Convention guarantees ratione materiae neither the right to asylum, nor the right not to be extradited, as such.

66. For the time being, the applicant ’ s extradition is prevented by the Court ’ s interim measure. However, since 2006 the applicant has been deprived of his liberty in connection with his pending extradition. There does not appear to be any concrete end of his detention in sight, the applicant himself considers this limbo situation intolerable, and he urges the Court to proceed with the examination of his case (see paragraph 48 above).

67. Moreover, it is to be noted that the applicant ’ s renewed asylum request is presently pending at a preliminary stage where the request as such is not being examined on the merits but rather only as to whether it contains any relevant new information in relation to that known to the authorities when dealing with his previous request.

68. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, it is justified to examine whether the information before it gives rise to a real risk that, if extradited, the applicant be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the requesting country.

69. In its decision of 14 September 2010 the Court ascribed significant importance to the guarantees provided by the OPGRF. In doing so, the Court considered it important that they were issued under the authority of the Prosecutor General, who, within the Russian system, supervises the activities of all prosecutors in the Russian Federation, including the argumentation of the case for prosecution before the courts. It also took into account that the assurances protecting the applicant from treatment contrary to Article 3 if extradited were given by authorities of a member State of the Council of Europe and a Contracting Party to the Convention, and that a possible failure to respect such assurances would seriously undermine that State ’ s credibility. The guarantees in question were specific and subject to diplomatic monitoring by the respondent Government.

70. The Court observes that, subsequent to its decision of 14 September 2010, the OPGRF has confirmed the validity of all such guarantees vis-à-vis the respondent Government (see paragraph 32 above), as well as vis-à-vis the Court (see paragraph 50 above).

71. Moreover, in so far as the guarantees offered prior to the Court ’ s decision of 14 September 2010 concerned Mr Chentiev, the respective authorities of the respondent Government have acted upon them by visiting him Mr Chentiev and establishing that these guarantees are in fact being respected (see paragraph 41 above).

72. In these circumstances, the Court finds little room for doubting that the assurances of OPGRF would equally be respected (for recapitulation of the relevant principles see Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom , no. 8139/09, §§ 183-189, ECHR 2012 (extracts), with further references).

74. In particular, as regards the witness Mukayev, whose statements had given rise to the applicant ’ s prosecution and whose own application before the Court is still pending (see paragraphs 36 and 37 above), the Court considers, as it did in its decision of 14 September 2010, that his alleged ill ‑ treatment does not constitute proof that the applicant would be subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.

Similar considerations apply to the allegations of ill-treatment of Messrs Gasayev, Shakhayev and Zubairayev, and to the granting of asylum to Mr Gesayev in France, of which no details have been made available to the Court (see paragraphs 36 and 37 above).

As to the other material submitted by the applicant (see paragraph 38 above), the Court is of the opinion that its relevance is diminished by the fact that it dates to and refers to events having taken place in 2011 and earlier, while the risk of ill-treatment in the present application, in which the applicant has not yet been removed from the respondent State, is to be assessed with reference to the circumstances obtaining a the present time (see the Court ’ s case-law cited in paragraph 55 above).

75. In sum, in so far as the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention has been substantiated, the Court has found no reasons for reaching a different conclusion from that in application no. 51946/08. It therefore concludes that it has not been established in the applicant ’ s case that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment in the event of his extradition to Russia (see, for example, Gasayev , cited above; Bajsultanov , cited above, §§ 64-72; Zarmayev , cited above, § 94-115; Chankayev , cited above, §§ 68-82; Tershiyev , cited above, §§ 51-63; and, a contrario , M.G. , cited above, §§ 83-96).

76. The complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is therefore manifestly ill-founded. For similar reasons, it may not be considered “arguable” for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). The complaint under that provision is therefore likewise manifestly ill-founded.

77. It follows that the relevant part of the application is must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

B. Article 6 of the Convention

78. The applicant complained that the criminal charges against him in Russia were invented and based on statements obtained under torture and that he would not benefit from the guarantees of a fair hearing in the event of his extradition to Russia. In that respect, he relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

1. Arguments before the Court

79. The respondent Government pointed out that the assurances provided by the requesting State extended also to the fairness of the proceedings for the purposes of which the applicant was to be extradited and that the validity of his argument that those proceedings were based on evidence obtained by ill-treatment would be examined in those proceedings.

In addition, they emphasised the seriousness of the allegation that evidence for the purposes of the applicant ’ s proceedings had been obtained by torture and considered it illogical for them to take a stance in that regard without full knowledge of the relevant facts which was in the domain of the authorities of the requesting State.

Lastly, they submitted that it was for the applicant to show that in the event of his extradition we would be flagrantly denied justice, which in their view he had failed to do.

80. In addition to his arguments in relation to the complaint under Article 3, alone and in conjunction with Article 13, the applicant disagreed with the Government ’ s response, reiterated his complaint, and stressed that his entire prosecution in the Russian Federation was made up.

81. In their third-party submission, in addition to the arguments summarised above, the Government of the Russian Federation submitted that the applicant ’ s allegation that evidence against him from Mr Mukayev had been obtained by torture should and would be properly examined in the applicant ’ s proceedings.

2 . The Court ’ s assessment

82. The Court has earlier admitted that an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article 6 by an extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive suffered or risked suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting country (see, for example, Soering v. the United Kingdom , 7 July 1989, § 121, Series A no. 161; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 90-91, ECHR 2005 ‑ I; or Othman (Abu Qatada) , cited above, § 258).

83. The applicant in the present case has been charged with criminal offences in the Russian Federation and the proceedings against him are still pending there (see paragraph 8 above).

84. However, in view of all the material before it, including the specific and renewed assurances provided by the requesting State vis-à-vis the respondent Government as well as the Court itself, the Court has found no reasons for reaching a different conclusion in respect of the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention from that reached in its decision of 14 September 2010.

Accordingly, it considers that in so far as the application had been substantiated, there is no indication that the applicant risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in his proceedings in Russia in case of his extradition there.

It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. The application of the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in the present case thus comes to an end.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 23 July 2015 .

Marialena Tsirli Josep Casadevall Deputy Registrar President