The case of F.A. v. the Russian Federation. Views of the Human Rights Committee of July 27, 2018. Communication No. 2189/2012.
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 a violation of article 9 of the Covenant, since he was constantly detained between his arrest on 5 November 2011 and extradition on 1 October 2012, despite the fact that the Republic of Uzbekistan did not send an extradition request within one month after his detention, as provided for in the paragraph 1 of Article 62 of the Minsk Convention (paragraph 3.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's legal position: According to paragraph 12 of general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation, States parties are obliged 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 risk of irreparable harm, such as as provided for in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee also pointed out that such a danger must be personal (See the case of "X. v. Denmark" (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), p. 9.2.) and that there is a high threshold for presenting serious grounds for determining whether there is a real risk of irreparable harm. In assessing the existing danger, all relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account, including the general human rights situation in the author's country of origin. The Committee further refers to its jurisprudence, according to which weight should be given to the assessment carried out by the State party (See the cases "Lin v. Australia" (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), paragraph 9.3, and "E.P. and F.P. Denmark" (CCPR/C/115/D/2344/2014), paragraph 8.4.), and notes that, as a general rule, it is for the courts of the States parties to the Covenant to assess the facts and evidence or ensure the application of domestic law in a particular case, except if there may be It has been proven that such an assessment or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to an obvious error or denial of justice (paragraph 9.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee refers to its general comment No. 35 on the right to liberty and security of person, in which it recalls that article 9 of the Covenant requires that the procedure for the exercise of lawful deprivation of liberty also be established in accordance with the law, and States parties should ensure compliance with such procedures prescribed by law (paragraph 23) (paragraph 9.6 Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it has taken note of the author's claim that his extradition from the Russian Federation to the Republic of Uzbekistan would pose a risk of torture for him, which is contrary to article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 9.2 of the Views).
The Committee noted that the author's allegations that he would be subjected to torture if extradited to the Republic of Uzbekistan were examined by the Federal Migration Service of the State party during the refugee status determination procedure and by the courts of the State party during the consideration of the decision on his extradition, which found that in both cases he did not substantiate his claim of There is a real, predictable and personal risk for him to be subjected to torture if returned to the Republic of Uzbekistan. The Committee also stressed that the author's fear of being subjected to torture was related to the alleged threats against his brother for criticizing the Uzbek authorities in 2009 and 2011 and to the general human rights situation in the country of origin, and not to his specific case. The Committee noted that the author did not dispute the fact that prior to his detention in Moscow in 2011 in connection with an extradition request, he freely visited the Republic of Uzbekistan several times and returned back to the Russian Federation without any problems with the Uzbek authorities, for example, when crossing the Uzbek border. The Committee also pointed out that, according to available information, the author and his brother had been prosecuted on charges of fraud in the Republic of Uzbekistan, while nothing indicated a political background to these charges. The Committee also found that there was no evidence that the decisions of the State party's authorities were manifestly unfounded in relation to the author's allegations. In the light of the above, the Committee was unable to conclude that the information provided to it indicated that the author's extradition to the Republic of Uzbekistan would expose him to a real risk of inhuman treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 9.4 of the Views).
The Committee further took note of the author's claim, contained in his subsequent submission on 19 August 2012, that his detention pending extradition after 7 December 2011 constituted a violation of article 9 of the Covenant. The Committee took into account the author's claim that he had been continuously detained for more than 10 months prior to his extradition. The Committee also drew attention to his claim that the Republic of Uzbekistan had not submitted an extradition request within the required time frame in accordance with applicable law and that his detention therefore constituted a violation of the law. The Committee... Noted that the State party to the Covenant had not responded to these specific allegations (paragraph 9.5 of the Views).
The Committee stressed that the author was detained on 5 November 2011 in the Russian Federation on the basis of a warrant issued against him by the Republic of Uzbekistan, and that on 7 November 2011 the Presnensky District Prosecutor's Office in Moscow issued a decision to detain him pending extradition. The extradition of the author was requested by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Uzbekistan on December 9, 2011. Paragraph 1 of Article 62 of the Minsk Convention, which regulates extradition between the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, provides that a person taken into custody pending extradition must be released if the request for his extradition is not received within one month from the date of detention. The Committee noted that Uzbekistan had not ratified... [P]The protocol to the Minsk Convention, according to which this period was extended to 40 days from the date of detention (paragraph 9.7 of the Considerations).
The Committee... He pointed out that in his appeal against the second extension of the period of detention, the author claimed that the authorities had not presented any grounds that would justify his [deprivation of liberty], such as the exceptional complexity of the criminal charges against him or any specific measures in connection with extradition...; that article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not contain a reference to any circumstances justifying the continued detention of a person after receiving an extradition request against him and the decision to extradite him by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation; that the extradition request was received from the Republic of Uzbekistan more than a month after the detention of the author in violation of the requirements of the Minsk Convention and the author's constitutional rights; and that the author should therefore have been released. The Committee noted that, in confirming the District court's decision to extend the period of detention for a second time, ... the court briefly outlined the grounds for the extension, without providing additional justification. The Committee found that neither the national courts nor the State party had considered the specific arguments against the extension of the period of detention put forward by the author's lawyer. In the absence of any explanation from the State party, the Committee considered that the author's allegations should have been given due consideration (paragraph 9.9 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented indicated a violation of the author's rights under article 9 of the Covenant (paragraph 10 of the Views).