Communicated on 10 March 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 49975/15 S.R. against Russia lodged on 11 October 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr S. R . , is a Kyrgyz national who was born in 1967 and lives in Elektrogorsk , Moscow Region. He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Yermolayeva , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnic origin. Until January 2011 he lived in the village of Suzak , Jalal-Abad Region.

In June 2010 mass disorders and inter-ethnic clashes occurred in the south of Kyrgyzstan (Osh and Jalal-Abad Regions).

In January 2011 the applicant moved to Russia, where he worked until April 2014 in the town of Elektrogorsk .

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant in Kyrgyzstan

On 24 July 2012 the Kyrgyz authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes relating to the June 2010 events, including murder of law-enforcement officers, and ordered his arrest.

On 18 August 2012 the applicant ’ s name was put on the international wanted list.

2. The applicant ’ s arrest and remand in custody in Russia

On 15 April 2014 the applicant was arrested in Belgorod.

On 17 April 2004 he was remanded in custody pending extradition.

On 15 May, 8 October and 26 December 2014 the Sverdlovskiy District Court, Belgorod, extended the applicant ’ s detention until 15 October 2014 and 15 January and 15 April 2015 respectively.

On 8 April and 7 August 2015 the Belgorod Regional Court further extended the applicant ’ s detention, until 15 August and 15 October 2015 respectively.

On 12 October 2015 the Court indicated to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited or otherwise involuntarily removed from Russia to Kyrgyzstan or another country for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.

On 15 October 2015 the applicant was released.

3. Extradition proceedings

On 21 April 2014 the Russian authorities informed the Kyrgyz authorities about the applicant ’ s arrest.

On 13 May 2014 Prosecutor General ’ s Office of Kyrgyzstan lodged an extradition request with the Prosecutor General ’ s Office of Russia, asking for the applicant to be extradited to Kyrgyzstan for prosecution and trial. The Kyrgyz authorities provided assurances that in the event of extradition the applicant would have the benefit of legal assistance, he would not be extradited to a third State, he would be prosecuted only for the offence for which he was being extradited, he would not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, he would be prosecuted for an ordinary criminal offence devoid of any political character or discrimination on any ground, he would be able to freely leave Kyrgyzstan after he had stood trial and served any sentence, and Russian diplomats would be able to have contact with him.

On 25 June 2015 the Kyrgyz authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant ’ s extradition.

On 8 July 2015 the Russian Prosecutor General ’ s Office granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant ’ s extradition.

The applicant appealed, arguing that as a member of the ethnic Uzbek community which was being persecuted and discriminated against, especially in the context of the investigation of the June-2010-related violence, he ran a serious and real risk of being subjected to torture in the event of his extradition to Kyrgyzstan. He relied on related reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

On 31 August 2015 the Belgorod Regional Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal. The Regional Court referred to the guarantees provided by the Kyrgyz authorities that the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment and that Russian diplomats would be able to have contact with him. It further held that the applicant had failed to provide convincing arguments justifying his fear of being persecuted in the country of his nationality.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Russia, arguing that the diplomatic assurances provided by the Kyrgyz authorities had been insufficient to eliminate the risk of exposing him to ill-treatment if he were returned to Kyrgyzstan.

On 14 October 2015 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 31 August 2015 on appeal.

4. Refugee status proceedings

On an unspecified date after his arrest the applicant applied to the Russian Federal Migration Service (FMS) for refugee status.

On 3 July 2014 the FMS of Belgorod Region refused the application.

On 23 September 2014 the FMS of Russia upheld the refusal to grant refugee status of 3 July 2014. The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision.

On 16 January 2015 the Basmanniy District Court, Moscow, rejected the applicant ’ s appeal against the FMS ’ s decisions. The applicant appealed against the above decision to the Moscow City Court.

On 8 June 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 16 January 2015 on appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

For a summary of relevant international and domestic law and practice see Abdulkhakov v. Russia (no. 14743/11, §§ 71-77, 2 October 2012).

C. Relevant international published material concerning Kyrgyzstan

For relevant reports and items of information, see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia , (no. 49747/11, §§ 30-46 , 16 October 2012), and Mamadaliyev v. Russia (no. 5614/13, §§ 37-42, 24 July 2014).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that if extradited to Kyrgyzstan he would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment because he belongs to the Uzbek ethnic minority.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Before deciding on his extradition, did the authorities consider the applicant ’ s claim that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman treatment if returned to Kyrgyzstan? Would the applicant face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if the extradition order was enforced ( see Khamrakulov v. Russia , no. 68894/13 , 16 April 2015) ?