5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Moscow. 6.  On 21 September 2004 the Belarus authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of extortion. On 11 November 2004 the applicant was found guilty of extortion and sentenced to four years’ detention in an open detention facility. 7.  In 2005 the applicant escaped from the detention facility and arrived in Moscow. 8.  On 1 April 2005 the Belarusian authorities issued an arrest warrant against the applicant in connection with his escape, which is a criminal offence in Belarus. 9.  On 11 February 2009 the Prosecutor’s Office for the Gomel Region (in Belarus) opened criminal proceedings against the applicant for escape from the detention facility and for being an accomplice to an attempted murder by a group of people in 1998. This second accusation concerned Article 139 § 1 of the Belarusian Criminal Code in conjunction with its Article 14 (see paragraphs 62-63 below). On the same date, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered his detention and issued an arrest warrant. 10.  On 23 November 2009 the applicant was arrested in Moscow and remanded in police custody. On the same day, the Belarusian authorities confirmed that the applicant was being prosecuted in Belarus and asked the Russian authorities to arrest him pending the submission of a formal extradition request. 11.  A Russian prosecutor applied to the Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow seeking authorisation of the applicant’s detention with a view to extradition. On 25 November 2009 the District Court granted this request and ordered the applicant’s detention, referring to Articles 108 and 466 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) and to Article 61 of the Minsk Convention (see paragraphs 31, 37 and 53 below). No limit on the duration of the applicant’s detention was specified in the detention order. The applicant did not appeal. 12.  On 24 December 2009 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office received an extradition request in respect of the applicant from the Belarusian authorities. It contained the following information:
“The investigation has established that [the applicant], acting with pre-meditation and in concert with Sh. and I., assisted I. in attempting to murder P. ... The victim remained alive ...
If extradited, [the applicant] would not be prosecuted or punished for any criminal offence other than those indicated in the extradition request... He will not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment... The extradition request is not aimed at persecuting him for political reasons or on racial, religious or national grounds. The acts for which extradition is sought are not punishable by the death penalty ...” 13.  On 18 January 2010 the District Court examined a request from a prosecutor and extended the term of the applicant’s detention until 23 May 2010, with reference to the statutory six-month period contained in Article 109 of the CCrP, as well as to Article 466 of the CCrP and Article 61 of the Minsk Convention. The District Court relied on the following considerations:
(i) the applicant was being prosecuted in Belarus for a particularly serious offence for which the statutory limitation period had not expired;
(ii)a detention order had been issued by Belarusian authorities; and
(iii) the applicant’s detention was necessary in relation to an “extradition check procedure” pending in relation to the extradition request from the Belarusian authorities. 14.  The detention order of 18 January 2010 was upheld on appeal on 24 February 2010. 15.  On 12 April 2010 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office issued an extradition order on the charges under Article 139 § 1 of the Belarusian Criminal Code, in the following terms:
“[The applicant] has been charged under Articles 139 § 1 and 415 of the Belarusian Criminal Code, in conjunction with its Article 14 ... He has been accused of assisting, in concert with others, Mr I. in committing attempted murder ...”
Extradition on the charges under Article 415 of that Code was refused. The extradition order does not contain an assessment of the risk of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 16.  After the expiry of the previous detention order on 23 May 2010, on 24 May 2010 the District Court examined a request from a prosecutor and extended the applicant’s detention until 23 November 2010. The court considered that the prosecutor’s delay in applying for the extension did not impede the court’s examination of the request and could not justify its dismissal. 17.  On 23 June 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order of 24 May 2010. 18.  In the meantime, the applicant sought judicial review of the extradition order of 12 April 2010 before the Moscow City Court. Several hearings were scheduled and adjourned because the applicant sought to obtain additional evidence, lodged refugee and temporary asylum applications and subsequently brought judicial review proceedings concerning those applications (see paragraphs 25-27 below), or because one of his lawyers could not attend a court hearing. The City Court considered that the outcome of the above applications and proceedings were relevant to the judicial review of the extradition order and that the review proceedings before it therefore required adjournment. 19.  The applicant argued that he should not be extradited to Belarus because he feared being subjected to ill-treatment and capital punishment there and because he was a follower of the Hare Krishna movement. 20.  On 6 September 2010 the City Court confirmed the extradition order. The court held as follows:
“... [The applicant’s] application to the migration authority for temporary asylum does not affect the examination of the extradition order on judicial review. Such application, lodged after his arrest, should not affect the court’s conclusions concerning the extradition order ...
As follows from the information provided by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there is no information concerning any persecution in respect of [the applicant] in Belarus for political, religious or other reasons.
As follows from the Belarusian Criminal Code, the offence with which he has been charged in Belarus is not punishable by the death penalty. The Belarusian Prosecutor General’s Office provided assurances that [the applicant] would not be prosecuted for any other offenses committed prior to extradition and would not be subjected to any proscribed form of ill-treatment or punishment ...” 21.  On 20 October 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment of 6 September 2010. The appeal court held as follows:
“[The applicant’s] arguments concerning persecution on political or religious grounds were properly examined and dismissed by the first-instance court ... Its judgment should not be set aside because the extradition order was issued before any final court decision on the refugee application ...” 22.  The twelve-month period of the applicant’s detention was set to expire on 23 November 2010. Thus, having examined a prosecutor’s request, on 19 November 2010 the City Court extended the applicant’s detention to 23 May 2011, the date on which the maximum statutory detention period of eighteen months would be reached (see paragraph 31 below). The court noted that the applicant had lodged an application before the Court; that the Court had indicated, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to the Russian authorities not to enforce the extradition order until further notice; and that such indication remained in force. The court held as follows:
“The Supreme Court’s ruling of 29 October 2009 requires that detention of a person with a view to extradition should be determined under the procedure prescribed in Article 109 of the CCrP ... It provides that detention beyond twelve months and until eighteen months may be ordered, in exceptional circumstances, in relation to an investigator’s applications and in relation to particularly serious offences... The present case discloses exceptional circumstances, taking into account the gravity of the charges ...”
Apparently, the applicant did not appeal. 23.  On 16 May 2011 the applicant was released from detention on an undertaking not to leave his town of residence. 24.  As stated in a letter of 1 July 2010 signed by the representative of the Moscow Chapter of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, the applicant was married to a Russian national and they were raising a child in compliance with the “Vedic standards”. The marriage ceremony had been religious and had followed the Vedic rules. As indicated in another similar letter, the applicant had joined the Hare Krishna movement in the 1990s and had been actively involved in the movement as a follower and a preacher. 25.  The applicant applied for refugee status, stating that between 1992 and 2005 he had distributed printed material in Belarus about the Hare Krishna movement and had practised and taught yoga. From 1997 onwards he had started to “have problems” with the Belarusian authorities because of his religion and related activities. He had been arrested on several occasions. In 2004 he had wanted to open an educational institution in Minsk, which would have taught the teachings of Bhaktivedanta Swami. In 2004 he and his wife had been poisoned and his wife had been admitted to hospital. Thereafter, they had had to move to another town in Belarus. Soon thereafter, a criminal case had been opened against the applicant and he had been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. He feared ill-treatment and the imposition of the death penalty on account of the criminal charges against him, if returned to Belarus. 26.  By a final decision of 17 August 2010 the City Court rejected the applicant’s refugee application. The court considered that his allegations concerning criminal prosecution in the country of origin did not disclose any risk of ill-treatment; he had not provided any evidence concerning any previous persecution or a risk of persecution on religious grounds; between 2005 and his arrest in 2009 he had not sought protection in Russia on any such grounds; his application had thus been no more than a challenge to the extradition proceedings pending in respect of him. 27.  In September 2010 the applicant applied for temporary asylum on similar grounds. His application was rejected by the migration authority on 4 October 2010. This refusal was confirmed by the Federal Migration Authority on 17 January 2011, stating that:
“The Belarusian Criminal Code provides for capital punishment as an exceptional penalty. Such sentences are carried out. Conditions of detention are in line with generally acceptable standards (see the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, no. 2031/1 of 10 March 2010). The Belarusian Prosecutor General’s Office indicates that the charges against the applicant do not entail the death penalty as a possible sentence. The MFA has no information about torture, ill-treatment, unlawful arrest, discrimination, persecution for racial, religious or social reasons in Belarus ... The applicant has not provided convincing facts in support of his fear of being a victim of religious persecution in Belarus. The criminal prosecution in respect of him has no connection to his claimed religious beliefs. He would be able to lodge an appeal against the trial judgment ...”
The applicant did not seek judicial review of the above refusals.