Published on 13 September 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 13927/21 Shavkat Abdumannabovich DALABAYEV against Russia lodged on 10 March 2021 communicated on

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is an Uzbek national. In 2015 he was charged in Uzbekistan with participation in a religious extremist organisation ‘Jihadists’. Subsequently, he was further charged with participation in a terrorist organisation ‘Islamic Movement of Turkestan’.

His extradition to Uzbekistan was authorised by Prosecutor General of Russia on 25 October 2016 and was subsequently upheld by Tver Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Russia on 3 April 2018 and 29 May 2018 respectively, and thus became final and enforceable.

On 13 January 2021, the Second Cassation Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation complaint against the domestic courts’ decisions confirming the migration authorities’ refusal to grant him temporary asylum.

On 15 March 2021 the Court decided to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed from Russia for the duration of the proceedings before it. The Court further decided to give priority to the application (Rules 41 of the Rules of Court).

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he would face a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in the event of his removal to Uzbekistan.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In the light of the general situation in Uzbekistan and the applicant’s personal circumstances, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in event of his extradition to his country of origin (see Mamazhonov v. Russia , no. 17239/13, §§ 139-41, 23 October 2014; Kholmurodov v. Russia , no. 58923/14, §§ 46-50, 1 March 2016; and Yusupov v. Russia , no. 30227/18, §§ 48-51, 1 December 2020)?

2. Before deciding on the applicant’s extradition, did the Russian authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of his claim about the risks of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in his country of origin (see Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 214, 28 June 2011, and F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 119, 23 March 2016)?