Communicated on 24 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 41135/14 Ismon Sharofovich AZIMOV against Russia lodged on 3 June 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant , Mr Ismon Sharofovich Azimov , is a Tajikistani national , who w as born in 1979 and whose current whereabouts are unknown . He is represented before the Court by Ms D. Trenina , a lawyer practising in Moscow .

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

1. Background information

The applicant has been living and working in Russia since 2002. He however made regular visits to Tajikistan where his family lived.

On 26 March 2009 the Tajikistani authorities opened a crimi nal case against the applicant on charges of anti-government armed conspiracy. Specifically, the applicant was accused of being a member of several opposition movements responsible for armed riots – first, the “ Bay ’ at ” group and then the “Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan” (“the IMU”).

On 3 November 2010 the applicant was arrested in the town of Dolgoprudniy in the Moscow Region, in connection with the international search warrant against him.

On 23 June 2011 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia ordered the applicant ’ s extradition to Tajikistan.

On 23 March 2011 the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”) rejected the applicant ’ s application for refugee status. On 30 November 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the refusal in the final instance.

On 2 November 2011 the Dolgoprudniy Town Court of the Moscow Region found the applicant guilty of unlawful residence in Russia, an administrative offence under Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and ordered his administrative removal from Russia.

On 9 November 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the extradition order in the final instance.

On 6 December 2011 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the administrative removal order in the final instance.

On 4 May 2012 the applicant was transferred to the Lukhovitsy Detention Centre for Aliens in the Moscow Region . [1]

In its judgment of 18 April 2013 the Court found that the applicant ’ s forced return to Tajikistan (in the form of extradition, expulsion or otherwise) would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention . The Court also found violations of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention (see Azimov v. Russia , no. 67474/11 , 18 April 2013 ).

On 9 September 2013 the judgment became final.

2. The applicant ’ s abduction

According to the applicant, in the beginning of 2012 his relatives in Tajikistan received threats from Tajikistani authorities. They were told, in particular, that the applicant would be kidnapped from Russia.

On 31 May 2013 the applicant applied for temporary asylum, referring to the Court ’ s judgment of 18 April 2013 .

On the same day he applied to the Moscow Regional Department of the FMS for permission to reside in the Serebryaniki Temporary Accomodation Centre for Immigrants in the Tver region. He stated that he was afraid of being abducted by the Tajikistani authorities and asked for protection. In particular, he asked that he be accompanied by guards during the transfer from the Lukhovitsy Detention Centre for Aliens to the Serebryaniki Temporary Accomodation Centre for Immigrants .

On 18 September 2013 the applicant was granted temporary asylum for a year.

On 19 September 2013 the applicant was transferred from the Lukhovitsy Detention Centre for Aliens to the Serebryaniki Temporary Accomodation Centre for Immigrants . He was guarded by the FMS officers during the transfer.

At about 8 p. m. on 3 December 2013 five persons dressed in uniform entered the Serebryaniki Centre after having told the concierge that they were from the police. They went directly to the applicant ’ s room, beat him up, dragged him out and forced him into a minivan with registration number plate X823HO69. The employees of the Serebryaniki Centre immediately called the police and the applicant ’ s representative

On the same day the applicant ’ s representative informed the border control authorities and the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights about the applicant ’ s abduction and asked to prevent his unlawful transfer through the Russian border.

The applicant ’ s current whereabouts are unknown.

3. The investigation into the applicant ’ s abduction

On 31 December 2013 the Vyshnevolotskiy Investigations Committee of the Tver Region opened criminal proceedings into the applicant ’ s abduction.

On 27 March 2014 the Tver Regional Investigations committee extended the investigation until 31 May 2014. The investigator noted that he had questioned the employees of the Serebryaniki Centre , had ordered a forensic fingerprint analysis, obtained information from communication providers about telephone connections in the vicinity of the Serebryaniki Centre at the moment of the abduction, sent a request for assistance to the Tajikistani authorities and several requests for information to various Russian authorities, in particular in order to establish the owner of the car with registration number plate X823HO69 . The replies to the request for assistance and some of the requests for information had not been yet received and the forensic fingerprint analysis had not been yet completed. It was therefore necessary to extend the investigation.

On 19 May 2014 the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings.

On 26 May 2014 th e Tver Regional Investigations committee extended the investigation until 30 June 2014 . It had been established that registration number plate X823HO69 had not been attributed to any car and, according to official documents, had been destroyed. The investigator sent several request for information, in particular to find out whether the kidnappers ’ car had been filmed by any street cameras or radar speed cameras before or after the abduction with the aim of establishing the car ’ s itinerary. The replies to those requests had not been received yet. No reply had been received from the Tajikistani authorities. It was therefore necessary to extend the investigation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant ’ s representative complain s under Article s 3 and 13 of the Convention about the applicant ’ s abduction and presumed forcible transfer to Tajikistan despite the Court ’ s finding that his return to Tajikistan would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, such transfer would not have been possible without the passive or active involvement of Russian state agents . Moreover, t he Russian authorities did not compl y with their positive obligation to protect the applicant against the real and immediate risk of forcible transfer to Tajikistan. Lastly, the authorities failed to con duct an effective investigation into the applicant ’ s abduction. In particular, the criminal proceedings were opened with a substantial delay. The authorities did not request information from the nearby airports about the flights to Tajikistan carried out shortly after the abduction, their passengers and crews, did not question the airport staff and did not collect video recordings from airport cameras.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. T he Government are requested to provide information about the applicant ’ s whereabouts. Did he leave Russia ? If yes, was he secretly transferred to Tajikistan on or after 3 December 2013 ? Did he comply with border, customs and other formalities in the Russian Federation ? T he Government are requested to produce an extract from the border control register. If the applicant is currently in Tajikistan , the Government are requested to inform the Court whether he is in detention and what the state of the criminal proceedings against him is and to produce confirming documents from the Tajikistani authorities.

2 . If the applicant left Russia against his own will, were the authorities responsible for a breach of Article 3 on account of the passive or active involvement of its agents in the applicant ’ s forcible transfer to Uzbekistan?

3. What measures did the authorities take to protect the applicant against his conceivable removal from Russia before his disappearance?

4 . If the applicant left Russia against his own will, did the authorities fail to comply with their positive obligation to take preventive operational measures following the applicant ’ s disappearance to protect him from the imminent threat of transfer to Tajikistan and the ensuing risk of torture and ill-treatment in that country in violation of Article 3? In particular, did the competent authorities do all that could be reasonably expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk of the applicant ’ s transfer to Tajikistan of which they had been info rmed by the applicant ’ s lawyer ?

5 . Was the applicant ’ s disappearance followed by a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to identification and punishment of those responsible? The authorities are requested to provide th e results of such investigation and an entire copy of the related criminal file .

6. The Government are further invited to continue to submit to the Court any updates on the progress of the investigation into the applicant ’ s disappearance, as soon as this information becomes available to them.

7. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention ?

8. Do the Government consider that the recurrence of similar incidents of disappearance in Russia, followed by unlawful transfers from Russia to States not parties to the Convention, in particular Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and the lack of effective response by the Russian competent authorities amount to an administrative practice incompatible with the Convention (see, for the example, judgments concerning secret transfers of the applicants from Russia to Tajikistan in the cases of Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, 25 April 2013, and Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013)?

[1] For the detailed description of the applicant’s background, of the criminal proceedings against him in Tajikistan and of the refugee status, extradition and administrative removal proceedings in Russia, see Azimov v. Russia ( no. 67474/11, §§ 7-67, 18 April 2013 ) .