Communicated on 3 September 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 84022/17 N.O. against Russia and 2 others – see appended list

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are the nationals of Uzbekistan or Tajikistan. The particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the annexed table.

On various dates they were charged with religious and politically motivated crimes, their pre-trial detention was ordered in absentia , and international search warrants were issued by the authorities of their countries of origin.

The Russian authorities arrested and detained the applicants. Subsequently they took final decisions to remove the applicants to their countries of origin, despite the claims that in the event of their removal they would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

On various dates the applicants ’ requests under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court were granted by the Court. It was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicants should not be removed to their countries of origin for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.

It was decided that the applicants ’ identities would not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4), and that the applications should be granted priority treatment (Rule 41) and confidentiality (Rule 33).

On 25 January 2018 the applicant in the case 84022/17 was expelled to Uzbekistan, despite the interim measure indicated on 19 January 2018. The other two applicants remain in Russia.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant in the case no. 84022/17 complains that the Russian authorities exposed him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention by expelling him to Uzbekistan. The applicants in the cases nos. 8103/18 and 13280/18 complain that they would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to their countries of origin.

The applicants in all three cases further complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention.

The applicant in the case no. 84022/17 complains in substance about his expulsion in breach of an interim measure indicated by the Court, which resulted in a hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of application enshrined in Article 34 of the Convention.

Lastly, the applicant in the case no. 8103/18 complains under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention about the unlawfulness of detention and lack of a procedure providing for the judicial review of that detention.

QUESTIONS

1. In the case no. 84022/17 did the Russian authorities expose the applicant to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention by removing him to Uzbekistan?

2. In the cases nos. 8103/18 and 13280/18 would the applicants face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to their countries of origin?

3. In the case no. 84022/17 was the applicant ’ s removal in breach of an interim measure indicated by the Court? Has there been accordingly a hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of application enshrined in Article 34 of the Convention?

4. In the domestic proceedings, did the competent national authorities adequately assess the applicants ’ claims that they would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to their countries of origin?

5. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective administrative or judicial domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Did this remedy in principle and in the applicants ’ cases afford them due consideration of their complaints? Did it provide for an automatic suspensive effect in respect of the applicants ’ transfer to their countries of origin?

6. Was the applicant in the case no. 8103/18 deprived of liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was his detention lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. Did the applicant have access to a procedure allowing for judicial review of his continued detention as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant ’ s initials

Date of birth

Nationality

Represented by

Detention

Removal proceedings

Refugee status / Temporary asylum proceedings

Other relevant information

84022/17

15/12/2017

N.O.

17/08/1989

Uzbekistan

Timofey SHIROKOV

Bakhrom KHAMROYEV

Detention pending extradition

8 November 2017 – arrested and subsequently detained

7 December 2017 – released

Detention pending expulsion

7 December 2017 – arrest and subsequent detention

25 January 2018 – applicant expelled

Extradition proceedings

29 August 2013 – indictment and detention order in absentia, as well as international search warrant issued by Uzbek authorities

Expulsion proceedings

8 December 2017 – expulsion ordered by the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg

23 January 2018 - St Petersburg City Court terminated appeal proceedings (only a copy, but no original of the appeal had reached the court)

Refugee status proceedings

22 Jan u ary 2018 – asylum request

19 January 2018 – interim measure preventing the applicant ’ s removal

25 January 2018 - expelled to Uzbekistan

6 February 2018 - complaint to the Ministry of Internal Affairs requesting inquiry into the events

7 February 2018 - complaint to the Investigative Committee requesting criminal inquiry into the events

8103/18

12/02/2018

S.D.

29/01/1997

Tajikistan

Daria TRENINA

Eleonora Davidyan

Kirill Zharinov

Detention pending extradition

21 August 2017 – arrested and subsequently detained

7 February 2018 - released by a prosecutor

Detention pending expulsion

7 February 2018 – arrest and subsequent detention

The applicant is still in detention

Extradition proceedings

24 June 20176 – charged in absentia and international search warrant issued by Tajik authorities

7 July 2016 - detention order in absentia issued by Tajik authorities

24 May 2017 - extradition request by the Tajik authorities

Expulsion proceedings

8 February 2018 – expulsion ordered by the Dzerzhniskiy District Court of Novosibirsk

19 February 2018 - expulsion upheld on appeal by the Novosibirsk Regional Court

6 March 2018 - execution of expulsion order suspended in view of the Court ’ s interim measure

Refugee status proceedings

11 May 2017 – applied for refugee status

14 November 2017 - final administrative decision to refuse the refugee status

13 February 2018 – interim measure preventing the applicant ’ s removal

13280/18

19/03/2018

S.Z.

25/06/1995

Uzbekistan

Timofey SHIROKOV

Bakhrom KHAMROYEV

Detention pending extradition

11 November 2015 – arrested and subsequently detained

16 March 2017 - released due to annulment of extradition authorisation

Detention pending expulsion

11 February 2018 – arrest and subsequent detention

The applicant is still in detention

Extradition proceedings

unspecified date – charged with extremist crimes by the Uzbek authorities, international search warrant and detention order in absentia issued

4 December 2015 - extradition request by the Uzbek authorities

8 August 2016 - extradition authorised by the Deputy Prosecutor General

16 March 2017 - extradition authorisation annulled by the Moscow Regional Court

18 May 2017 - lower court ’ s decision upheld by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

24 January 2018 - lower court ’ s decisions annulled on supervision and sent for reconsideration by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

2 April 2018 - extradition authorisation upheld by the Moscow Regional Court

12 April 2018 - appeal lodged and pending

Expulsion proceedings

13 February 2018 - administrative removal ordered by the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow

20 March 2018 - lower court ’ s decision upheld by the Moscow City Court

Temporary asylum proceedings

4 September 2017 - administrative decision to refuse temporary asylum

19 March 2018 - interim measure preventing the applicant ’ s removal