Communication: K.B. v. the Russian Federation. Message No. 2193/2012. The Views were adopted by the Human Rights Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) March 10, 2016
In 2012, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
Subject of the message: extradition to Kyrgyzstan and excessive use of force during detention.
Substantive issue: risk of torture and ill-treatment; excessive use of force.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee refers to paragraph 12 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it draws attention to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise expel a person from their territory. territories where 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. The Committee...indicates that such a risk must 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 (See communications N 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Considerations adopted on March 26, 2014, paragraph 9.2; N 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Considerations, Adopted on November 1, 2011, paragraph 5.18.). When conducting such an assessment, 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...Recalls its decisions that significant weight should be given to the assessment carried out by the State party (See communications N 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, paragraph 9.3; N 2344/2014, H.P. and F.P. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 2 November 2015, paragraph 8.4.), and that, as a rule, it is for the authorities of States parties to the Covenant to review and assess the facts and evidence in order to establish the existence of such a risk, unless it is considered that such an assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to an obvious error or denial of justice (paragraph 10.3 of the Views) (See communication No. 2344/2014, H.P. and F.P. v. Denmark, Views adopted on November 2, 2015, paragraph 8.4.).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the author's allegations that he would be tortured if extradited to Kyrgyzstan were examined by the Federal Migration Service of the State party during the asylum proceedings and by the Russian courts during the extradition proceedings, which considered unfounded his claims that he would face torture in Kyrgyzstan a real, predictable and personal risk of being tortured. The Committee...Notes that most of the evidence presented by the author does not relate to his specific case, but to the general human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan. In this regard, the Committee notes that the author claims that in March 2010 he was tortured in Kyrgyzstan 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, i.e. almost two years after the alleged ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan in March 2010. The Committee notes, 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 of 26 March 2012, the author arrived in Moscow on 24 March 2010. In addition, the Committee notes 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...[A] The second did not provide either the authorities of the State party or the Committee with any information about the ill-treatment suffered in March 2010, i.e. there is no information about the method of torture, the context or the alleged perpetrators (such as their name and number). The Committee notes that the author's brother's complaint to the President of Chechnya dated 17 April 2012 does not contain such information. He also notes that in his asylum application dated 21 December 2011, the author stated that he left Kyrgyzstan in March 2010 due to ethnic tensions ...; he did not claim to have been tortured. In addition, the Committee notes 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. In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the information available to it shows that the author's extradition to Kyrgyzstan would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 10.4 of the Views) (See communication No. 2192/2012, N.S. v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted on March 27, 2015, paragraph 10.4.).
The Committee's conclusions: The extradition of the author before the consideration of his communication by the Committee contradicts the Committee's request for interim measures of protection in the present case, revealing a violation by the Russian Federation of its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol (paragraph 11 of the Views).
The State party has an obligation to avoid violations of article 1 of the Optional Protocol in the future and to comply with the Committee's requests for interim measures (paragraph 12 of the Views).