Communication: X. v. the Russian Federation. Message No. 542/2013. The decision was adopted by the Committee against Torture on May 8, 2015.
In 2013, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
Subject of the message: extradition of the applicant to Uzbekistan.
Substantive issues: the risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the country of origin.
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee notes that the Uzbek authorities sent an extradition request 10 years after the verdict against the applicant became final and binding, and during this period the applicant lived freely in Uzbekistan, received a certificate of no criminal record, passport and exit visa and made a number of unhindered trips to the Russian Federation. He notes... that, according to the available facts, the extradition request was sent immediately after the applicant filed a complaint with the Committee regarding the extradition of his brother to Uzbekistan, which, in light of the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant and mass violations of human rights in that country, gives sufficient grounds to believe that after his extradition, the applicant is in danger of predictable, real and personal the risk of torture. The Committee considers that, in these circumstances, the State party's public authorities and courts were obliged to properly verify all the complainant's allegations and assess, on the basis of national and international standards, the potential risk of torture against the complainant. Based on the materials available in the case, it cannot be concluded that the State authorities, including the courts, did the proper work to respond to the applicant's concerns about the expired extradition request and to assess his personal circumstances in the context of the general human rights situation in Uzbekistan. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the State party's public authorities have not fulfilled their obligation to properly consider the complainant's claim that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Uzbekistan (paragraph 11.8 of the decision).
The Committee's conclusions: in view of the circumstances of the present case, the decision to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan is a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention (paragraph 11.8 of the decision).