The case of Farid Rahim-oglu Yusub v. the Russian Federation. The views of the UN Human Rights Committee dated December 11, 2023. Communication No. 2947/2017.
In 2017, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
The author claimed that in case of his extradition to the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan) He would be in danger of being subjected to torture, given his personal circumstances and the general human rights situation in that State. The Committee concluded that the author's extradition to Azerbaijan did not expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. However, the Committee stated that the extradition of the author until the Committee had considered his communication was contrary to the Committee's request for interim measures of protection in the present case, which constituted a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.
Legal positions of the Committee: The Committee refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004), in which it cites the obligation of States parties 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 provided for in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 12). The Committee pointed out that this danger must be of a personal nature and that there must be serious grounds for establishing that there is 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 refers... based on its jurisprudence, according to which significant importance should be attached to the assessment carried out by the State party, and, as a rule, it is the authorities of the States parties to the Covenant that should consider or evaluate the facts and evidence to determine the existence of such a danger, unless it is established that such an assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to an obvious error or denial of justice (paragraph 12.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it has taken note of the author's claim that his extradition to Azerbaijan would violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, the author stated that, if returned, he would be at risk of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment (paragraph 12.2 of the Views).
The Committee drew attention to the fact that the author's case was examined by the State party's courts, which rejected his complaints as unfounded. He noted that the author's complaint was based on his claim that as a result of a family conflict and his confrontation with a high-ranking official in Azerbaijan in connection with an attempt to protect his sister and her daughters from domestic violence, he was considered an opponent of the Government in the requesting country and, if extradited, would face a real and personal risk of being exposed prohibited treatment. The Committee also took note of the author's account submitted in support of his complaint to the Moscow City Court, in particular that he was subjected to arbitrary detention and ill-treatment by police officers in Baku in October 2008 and was hospitalized due to injuries sustained as a result of this ill-treatment. After receiving medical care, he left Azerbaijan and arrived in Egypt in October 2009, where he applied for refugee status, which was granted to him in 2013 (paragraph 12.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee noted that in order to verify the authenticity of the author's story and assess the risks to which he claimed to be exposed in the event of his extradition, the Moscow City Court sent a request to the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation. The latter, in turn, through officially established channels, appealed to the relevant Azerbaijani authorities with a request to provide additional information on this issue. Based on the information provided by the author and the information obtained as a result of the audit, the Moscow City Court concluded that the relevant allegations of the author were unfounded and that there were no obstacles to his extradition. In particular, in its decision of 19 September 2016, the court found that reliable evidence had not been provided to confirm the persecution of the author in Azerbaijan for political or other reasons, and the author's claims that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in the past in his country of origin were unfounded (paragraph 12.5 of the Considerations).
Based on the materials at its disposal, the Committee considered that the State party had taken measures that could be expected to verify the credibility of the author's story and the alleged risks. He noted the lack of clarity and inconsistency in the author's presentation. The Committee pointed out that no evidence had been provided that the assessment of facts and evidence by the State party's courts in the author's case was manifestly arbitrary or constituted a clear error or denial of justice (paragraph 12.6 of the Views).
The Committee stated that in the present case, the State party relied on guarantees provided by the requesting country that the author would not be treated contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee noted that the guarantees provided should at least include a monitoring mechanism and be supported by practical measures to ensure their effective implementation by both the sending and receiving States. The Committee found that the assurances received from Azerbaijan were not accompanied by such a mechanism or such arrangements (paragraph 12.7 of the Views).
However, based on the information gathered and the risk assessment carried out by the State party's authorities, as well as on the materials provided, the Committee was unable to conclude that the author's extradition to Azerbaijan would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 12.8 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The author's extradition to Azerbaijan does not expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. However, the extradition of the author until the Committee has considered his communication is contrary to the Committee's request for interim measures of protection in the present case, which constitutes a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol (paragraph 13 of the Views).