Communicated on 12 January 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 35332/17 S.S. against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicants are nationals of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Their initials, dates of birth, nationalities, the dates on which their applications were introduced, application numbers, the particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the Appendix.

2. 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.

3. The Russian authorities arrested and detained the applicants under the above-mentioned search warrants. Subsequently they took final decisions to remove (that is to say to extradite or expel) the applicants to their respective countries of origin, despite consistent claims that in the event of their removal they would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

4. On various dates the applicants ’ requests under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court were granted. It was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicants should not be removed from Russia for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. It was further 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).

COMPLAINTS

5. The applicants in the cases nos. 59609/17, 71772/17, 74677/17, 76379/17 complain that they would be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if removed to their countries of origin.

6. The applicant in the case no. 35332/17 complains that he was exposed to the above risk under Article 3 of the Convention by his extradition to Tajikistan. He complains that his extradition was in breach of an interim measure indicated by the Court and thus in violation of Article 34 of the Convention. He further complains under Article 3 of the Convention about conditions of his detention in IZ 77/4 of Moscow and temporary detention facility of the Moscow City Court on 27 January and 6 February 2017.

7. The applicant in the case 71772/17 complains that his removal to Tajikistan would be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention given his health condition. He also complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was held in a metal cage during the hearing on 15 August 2017 in the Belgorod Regional Court.

8. The applicants in the cases nos. 59609/17 and 76379/17 complain under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 about unlawfulness of their detention pending expulsion and absence of an effective procedure by which they could have challenged their continued detention.

9. The applicants in the cases nos. 35332/17, 59609/17, 76379/17 complain under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the length of the appeal review for the orders extending their detention did not comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 of the Convention.

10. The applicant in the case no. 74677/17 complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention between 29 and 30 August 2017 was unlawful given absence of relevant arrest records.

ComMON QUESTIONS

1. Would the applicants in the cases nos. 59609/17, 71772/17, 74677/17, 76379/17 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 respective countries of origin? Was the applicant in the case no. 35332/17 exposed to the above risk by his extradition to Tajikistan?

2. In the domestic proceedings, did the relevant national authorities adequately assess the applicants ’ above claims under Article 3 of the Convention?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

S.S. v. Russia, no. 35332/17

3. Was the applicant ’ s extradition 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. Were the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in IZ 77/4 of Moscow and the temporary detention facility of the Moscow City Court on 27 January and 6 February 2017 compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?

K.O. v. Russia , no. 71772/17

5. Would the applicant ’ s removal be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention given his health condition?

6. Was holding the applicant in a metal cage during the hearing on 15 August 2017 in the Belgorod Regional Court in violation of Article 3 of the Convention?

A.S. v. Russia, no. 74677/17

7. Was the applicant ’ s detention between 29 and 30 August 2017 unlawful under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention given the absence of relevant arrest records?

B.U. v. Russia, no. 59609/17, and I.N. v. Russia, no. 76379/17

8. Was the applicants ’ detention pending administrative expulsion in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Did they have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could have challenged their continued detention as prescribed by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In reply to these questions the parties are invited to consider the Court ’ s findings in the judgment Azimov v. Russia (no. 67474/11, §§ 150-55 and §§ 160-74, 18 April 2013).

The parties are requested to provide specific references to provisions of the Russian legislation and relevant judicial practice on : ( 1) the time- limits for detention pending administrative expulsion ; ( 2) the duty of the domestic courts to set specific time- limits for such detention and to periodically review validity of the continued detention ; ( 3) availability to the applicants of any procedure allowing them to seek judicial review of their continued detention .

S.S. v. Russia, no. 35332/17; B.U. v. Russia, no. 59609/17; and I.N. v. Russia, no. 76379/17

9. Did the length of the appeal review of detention orders comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as far as it concerned the detention orders of 23 May 2016 and 13 October 2016 in the case no. 35332/17, the detention order of 12 January 2 017 in the case no. 59609/17, and the detention order of 1 June 2017 in the case no. 76379/17?

APPENDIX

No.

Name,

date of birth,

nationality

application no.,

lodged on,

represented by

Dates of detention and release

Removal proceedings (type, progress, outcome)

Refugee and/or temporary asylum proceedings

Other relevant information

S.S. v. Russia

25 April 1988

Tajikistan

App. no. 35332/17

20 June 2017

Roza MAGOMEDOVA

Detention pending extradition

14 April 2016 – arrested and subsequently detained

23 May 2016 – prolongation of detention by the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow

27 June 2017 – order upheld by the Moscow City Court

13 October 2016 – prolongation of detention by the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow

12 December 2016 – order upheld by the Moscow City Court

10 April 2017– release due to expiry of the maximum statutory period of detention

Detention pending expulsion

10 April 2017 – arrest and subsequent detention

26 May 2017 – detention ended due to transfer to Tajikistan

Extradition proceedings

12 February 2016 – detention order in absentia and international search warrant issued by Tajik authorities

4 May 2016 – extradition request on charges of extremism

26 December 2016 – extradition request granted by the Russian Prosecutor General ’ s Office

23 May 2017 – extradition order upheld by the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Expulsion proceedings

12 April 2017 – expulsion ordered by the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow

Refugee status proceedings

25 December 2016 – refusal to grant refugee status by the migration authorities

Temporary asylum proceedings

25 December 2016 – refusal of temporary asylum by the migration authorities

24 May 2017 – interim measure preventing the applicant ’ s removal

26 May 2017 – the applicant was extradited to Tajikistan

Between 15 April 2016 and 12 April 2017 the applicant was detained in IZ-77/4, cell no. 815. He alleges that at all times the cell of 30 sq.m . had at least 13 detained persons with only 8 sleeping places available. He also refers to unsanitary conditions, poor ventilation and infestation by pests.

He further alleges poor conditions of detention in the temporary detention facility of the Moscow City Court on 27 January and 6 February 2017.

B.U. v. Russia

6 June 1986

Tajikistan

App. no. 59609/17

17 August 2017

Daria TRENINA

Eleonora DAVIDYAN

Kirill ZHARINOV

Detention pending extradition

12 July 2016 – arrested and subsequently detained

12 January 2017 – prolongation of detention by the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow

14 January 2017 – the applicant appealed

17 January 2017 – appeal received by the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow

2 June 2017 – the appeal resubmitted the appeal due to absence of a decision on the previous one

14 June 2017 – order upheld by the Moscow City Court

11 July April 2017 – release due to quashing of the extradition authorisation by the Moscow City Court

Detention pending expulsion

11 July 2017 – arrest and subsequent detention

The applicant is still in detention

Extradition proceedings

1 March 2016 – international search warrant issued by Tajik authorities

2 March 2016 – detention order in absentia by Tajik authorities

27 July 2016 – extradition request on charges of extremism

5 June 2017 – extradition request granted by the Russian Prosecutor General ’ s Office

11 July 2017 – extradition order quashed by the Moscow City Court

14 September 2017 – judgment upheld by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Expulsion proceedings

13 July 2017 – expulsion ordered by the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow

22 August 2017 – expulsion upheld by the final judgment of the Moscow City Court

Refugee status proceedings

11 May 2017 – final refusal to grant refugee status by the migration authorities

21 August 2017 – interim measure preventing the applicant ’ s removal

K.O. v. Russia

4 December 1990

Tajikistan

App. no. 71772/17

4 October 2017

Roza MAGOMEDOVA

Detention pending extradition

12 November 2016 – arrested and subsequently detained

27 October 2017 – released due to impossibility to enforce extradition decision prior to expiry of the time-limit for detention

Detention pending expulsion

5 November 2017 – arrest and subsequent detention

The applicant is still in detention

Extradition proceedings

5 May 2016 – international search warrant issued by Tajik authorities

20 May 2016 – detention order in absentia by Tajik authorities

Unspecified date – extradition request on charges of extremism

11 July 2017 – extradition request granted by the Russian Prosecutor General ’ s Office

22 November 2017 – extradition order upheld by the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Expulsion proceedings

5 November 2017 – expulsion ordered by the Suzemskiy District Court of Bryansk Region

Refugee status proceedings

16 June 2017 – final refusal to grant refugee status by the migration authorities

2 November 2017 – interim measure preventing the applicant ’ s removal

In November 2016, while in detention, the applicant was diagnosed with infiltrative pulmonary tuberculosis of the left lung without release of mycobacteria and chronic diffused bronchitis.

By May 2017 the tuberculosis progressed to the next stage associated with release of mycobacteria.

The applicant alleges that during the hearing on 15 August 2017 in the Belgorod Regional Court he was held in a metal cage.

A.S. v. Russia

3 March 1992

Tajikistan

App. no. 74677/17

23 October 2017

Daria TRENINA

Eleonora DAVIDYAN

Kirill ZHARINOV

Detention pending extradition

27 August 2017 – arrested

29 August 2017 – released due to failure of Tajik authorities to submit a detention order

Detention pending expulsion

29 August 2017 at 12 p.m. – arrest allegedly in absence of any relevant records

30 August 2017 at 9 p.m. – released after the court hearing

Extradition proceedings

4 May 2017 – international search warrant issued by Tajik authorities

Expulsion proceedings

30 August 2017 – expulsion ordered by the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow

26 October 2017 – expulsion upheld by the final judgment of the Moscow City Court

Refugee status proceedings

21 August 2017 – the applicant allegedly attempted to lodge an asylum request, but was threatened with arrest by migration authority officers and left

23 October 2017 – interim measure preventing the applicant ’ s removal

I.N. v. Russia

25 June 1994

Uzbekistan

App. no. 76379/17

2 November 2017

Daria TRENINA

Eleonora DAVIDYAN

Kirill ZHARINOV

Detention pending extradition

8 December 2016 – arrested and subsequently detained

1 June 2017 – prolongation of detention by the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow

27 June 2017 – order upheld by the Moscow City Court

1 November 2017– release due to refusal of extradition request

Detention pending expulsion

1 November 2017 – arrest and subsequent detention

The applicant is still in detention

Extradition proceedings

30 August 2016 – international search warrant issued by Uzbek authorities

1 September 2016 – detention order in absentia by Uzbek authorities

30 December 2016 – extradition request on charges of extremism

26 October 2017– extradition request refused by the Russian Prosecutor General ’ s Office due to applicant ’ s actions not being recognized as a crime under Russian law

Expulsion proceedings

2 November 2017 – expulsion ordered by the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow

30 November 2017 – expulsion upheld by the final judgment of the Moscow City Court

Refugee status proceedings

19 April 2017 – asylum request

12 May 2017 – interview with migration authority officers, who allegedly misled the applicant into withdrawal of the asylum request and lodging a request for temporary asylum; the applicant ’ s representative was absent

9 June 2017 – consideration of the asylum request terminated by the migration authorities due to withdrawal of the request

Temporary asylum proceedings

7 June 2017 – refusal of temporary asylum by the migration authorities

2 November 2017 – interim measure preventing the applicant ’ s removal