The case of K.B. v. the Russian Federation. Views of the Human Rights Committee of 10 March 2016. Communication No. 2193/2012.
In 2012, the author of the communication was assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
As seen from the text of the Considerations, the author claimed that if returned to the Kyrgyz Republic, he would be arrested and tortured in order to force him to confess to committing crimes (paragraph 3.1 of the Considerations).
The Committee's legal position: according to paragraph 12 [H] of general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation, States parties to the Covenant have an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise expel a person from their territory when there are serious grounds to believe that there is a real danger causing irreparable harm, such as provided for in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee... indicates that such a risk should be of a personal nature, 10 and there is a high threshold in order to have substantial grounds to establish the existence of a real risk of irreparable harm. Such an assessment should take into account all relevant facts and circumstances, including the general human rights situation in the author's country of origin. The Committee... Recalls its decisions that considerable weight should be given to the assessment carried out by the State party and that, as a rule, it is for the authorities of the States parties to the Covenant to examine and evaluate the facts and evidence in order to establish the existence of such a risk, unless it is considered that such an assessment was manifestly arbitrary or equivalent an obvious mistake or denial of justice (paragraph 10.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the author's allegations that he would be subjected to torture if extradited to the Kyrgyz Republic were examined by the Federal Migration Service of the State party in the asylum proceedings and by the courts of the Russian Federation in the extradition proceedings, which found his allegations that he will face a real, predictable and personal risk of being subjected to torture in the Kyrgyz Republic. The Committee... He noted that most of the evidence presented by the author did not relate to his specific case, but to the general human rights situation in the Kyrgyz Republic. In this regard, as noted by the Committee, the author claimed that in March 2010 he was subjected to torture in the Kyrgyz Republic and as a result received medical treatment in Grozny. The author provided the Committee with a copy of an extract from his medical record regarding his treatment in Grozny, which was issued on 31 December 2011, that is, almost two years after the alleged ill-treatment in the Kyrgyz Republic in March 2010. The Committee noted, however, that, according to this statement, the author was treated at an outpatient medical facility in Grozny from 20 to 31 March 2010, whereas, according to the decision of the Moscow Office of the Federal Migration Service dated 26 March 2012, the author arrived in Moscow on 24 March 2010. In addition, the Committee noted that, according to copies of the author's various appeals submitted to the State party's authorities, the author did not submit this extract to the authorities... The author did not provide either the State party's authorities or the Committee with any information about the ill-treatment suffered in March 2010, that is, there was no information about the method of torture, the context or the alleged perpetrators (such as their name and number). The Committee stressed that the author's brother's complaint to the President of Chechnya dated April 17, 2012 did not contain such information either. The Committee also noted that in his asylum application dated 21 December 2011, the author stated that he had left the Kyrgyz Republic in March 2010 due to ethnic tensions ...; he did not claim to have been tortured. In addition, the Committee took into account the absence of any evidence that would confirm that the decisions of the State party's offices were manifestly arbitrary in relation to the author's allegations (paragraph 10.4 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The available information did not demonstrate that the author's extradition to the Kyrgyz Republic would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant.