5.  The applicants were born in 1972 and 1976 respectively and live in Moscow. 6.  The applicants are married and have three minor children. They are practising Muslims. 7.  According to the applicants, in 2003 the first applicant started expressing an interest in the ideology of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a transnational Islamic organisation which is banned in Russia, Germany and some Central Asian republics. In 2004 the first applicant became a member of that organisation. According to the second applicant, she was influenced by Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideas until 2006 and then “voluntarily rejected” them. 8.  In 2003 the Tajikistani authorities arrested the first applicant after finding leaflets published by Hizb ut-Tahrir in an outhouse belonging to him. According to the first applicant, the leaflets were planted there. During his detention, the authorities allegedly beat him in an attempt to extract a confession from him concerning his involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir’s activities. According to the first applicant, his left heel bone was broken as a result of those beatings. 9.  Upon his release from detention, the first applicant went into hiding in Tajikistan and then, in 2005, he arrived and settled in Russia. The second applicant arrived in Russia with the children in 2006 and joined the first applicant. 10.  On 4 January 2005 the Ministry of Security of the Republic of Tajikistan charged the first applicant with involvement in a criminal organisation (Article 187 § 2 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code), inciting racial, ethnic or religious hatred or hostility (Article 189 § 3 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code) and publicly calling for the overthrow of the political order or breach of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Tajikistan (Article 307 § 2 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code). The relevant decision stated, in particular, that the first applicant, being an active member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, had on numerous occasions disseminated extremist leaflets and literature for that organisation. 11.  On the same date the Ministry of Security of the Republic of Tajikistan ordered the first applicant’s arrest and put his name on a wanted list. 12.  On 21 February 2006 the prosecutor’s office for the Sogdiyskiy Region of Tajikistan (“the Sogdiyskiy prosecutor’s office”) instituted criminal proceedings against the second applicant on suspicion of her membership and active involvement in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir. 13.  On the same date she was charged under Article 307-3 § 8 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code with involvement in a banned extremist organisation, and her name was put on a wanted list. 14.  On 23 February 2006 the Sogdiyskiy prosecutor’s office ordered the second applicant’s arrest. 15.  On 18 April 2006 the second applicant was again placed on a wanted list. 16.  On 21 April 2009 the first applicant applied to the Federal Migration Service for Russian nationality, having presented himself as Timur Muratovich Abdullayev, a national of Kyrgyzstan, and having submitted a passport and a birth certificate in the name of the latter. On 20 July 2009 his application was granted. 17.  As later it became known to the migration authorities that the first applicant had used forged documents, they applied to the courts seeking to have this fact legally established. 18.  On 5 April 2011 the Samarskiy District Court of Samara granted the application. The court noted, in particular, that when questioned as a witness in a criminal case, the first applicant had submitted that his name was Farrukh Fazlidinovich Sidikov. In 2007, having paid a certain sum of money, he had obtained, through an acquaintance of his, the passport and birth certificate of a Kyrgyz national, Mr Abdullayev. He had used those documents to apply for Russian nationality, which he had eventually acquired under the identity of Mr Abdullayev. The court further noted that the first applicant had informed the court in writing that he had no objections to the case being examined in his absence. He had also conceded that he had submitted forged documents with his application for Russian nationality, explaining that he had left his country using a false name as he was afraid of persecution for religious reasons. The court went on to find that the documents submitted by the first applicant had never been issued by the Kyrgyzstani authorities. The court thus established that when applying for Russian nationality the first applicant had provided false information and submitted forged documents. 19.  On 11 May 2011 the Federal Migration Service, having regard to the above court findings, declared the decision to grant Russian nationality to Mr Timur Muratovich Abdullayev void ab initio. 20.  On 7 December 2010, in the course of an investigation carried out in Russia into the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir members in Moscow, officers of the Moscow Department of the Federal Security Service (“the Moscow Department of the FSB”) searched the flat where the applicants were living. 21.  On the same date the applicants were taken to the premises of the Moscow Department of the FSB and interviewed as witnesses in the aforementioned case. The first applicant stated, in particular, that he had taken an oath as a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir in 2004 in Tajikistan and that he had reproduced and disseminated literature published by that organisation. 22.  Later that day the first applicant was taken to the Meshchanskiy District Office of the Interior, where his arrest was ordered by virtue of the relevant provisions of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, as it was established that his name was on a wanted list in connection with various criminal charges brought against him in Tajikistan. 23.  On 9 December 2010 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, having regard to a request made by the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office and to the criminal proceedings instituted against the first applicant in Tajikistan and his placement on the wanted list, and with reference to Article 61 of the 1993 Minsk Convention and Article 108 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 94 and 116 below), authorised his detention until 16 January 2011 pending an extradition check in his respect. The first applicant did not appeal against that decision. 24.  By a decision of 11 January 2011 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow extended the first applicant’s detention until 7 June 2011. It stated that there were no grounds to alter the preventive measure, as the extradition check in respect of the first applicant had not been completed, and therefore without extending the first applicant’s detention it would not be possible to ensure his extradition to the Republic of Tajikistan. The court also noted that the first applicant was charged with serious criminal offences in Tajikistan which were also punishable under Russian criminal law, that he had no permanent or temporary place of residence or registration in Russia, that he had never been granted the status of refugee or forced migrant in Russia, and that there were sufficient reasons to believe that he might abscond if at liberty. 25.  On 9 February 2011 the Moscow City Court dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision. 26.  On 3 June 2011 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow further extended the first applicant’s detention until 7 December 2011, stating that the extradition check in his respect had not yet been completed, that the grounds for the preventive measure remained unchanged and that, if released, he might try to abscond. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 6 July 2011. The first applicant’s lawyer was present at the hearing. 27.  On 7 December 2011 the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office ordered the first applicant’s release. The order stated that the first applicant had remained in detention for twelve months and that Article 109 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provided that no extension of detention in excess of that period was permissible in respect of persons detained on suspicion of having committed offences such as those which the first applicant was charged with. The first applicant was released on the same day under a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence in Moscow and to appear at the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office every week. 28.  On 9 December 2010 the Ministry of the Interior of Tajikistan asked the Meshchanskiy District Office of the Interior to remand the first applicant in custody while the extradition request in his respect was pending with the Tajikistani Prosecutor General’s Office. 29.  On 29 December 2010 the Tajikistani Prosecutor General’s Office asked the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to extradite the first applicant with a view to bringing him to justice in Tajikistan in connection with charges under Articles 187 § 2 (involvement in a criminal organisation), 189 § 3 (inciting racial, ethnic or religious hatred or hostility) and 307 § 2 (publicly calling for the overthrow of the political order or breach of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Tajikistan) of the Tajikistani Criminal Code. 30.  The extradition request stated, in particular:
“We guarantee that in accordance with the norms of international law [the first applicant] will be provided in the Republic of Tajikistan with all means of defence, including the assistance of counsel, he will not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ([see] the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the relevant Conventions of the United National and the Council of Europe and the Protocols thereto).
The offences [the first applicant] is charged with are not subject to capital punishment under the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan.
The Prosecutor General of the Republic of Tajikistan guarantees that the extradition request [in respect of the first applicant] does not pursue the goals of his persecution [on the grounds of] race, religion, ethnic origin or political views.
On the basis of Article 66 [of the CIS Convention on legal aid and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases], [we] undertake to prosecute [the first applicant] only for the offences in respect of which he is extradited to the Republic of Tajikistan. [The first applicant] will not be extradited to another State without the consent of the Russian [Federation] and after the criminal proceedings and serving of his sentence he will be free to leave the territory of the Republic of Tajikistan.” 31.  On 2 February 2011 the first applicant’s lawyer asked the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to refuse the Tajikistani authorities’ request for his extradition, stating that he ran a serious risk of being subjected to torture if extradited. 32.  In a letter of 3 March 2011 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office replied to the first applicant’s lawyer stating that the Tajikistani authorities had provided assurances that the first applicant would not be persecuted on political, racial, ethnic or religious grounds, that he would not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, that he would only be prosecuted for the offences of which he was accused and that he would be able to leave Tajikistan after he had served his sentence. The letter also stated that the first applicant’s arguments would be taken into account when the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office examined the extradition request in respect of the first applicant. 33.  On 20 May 2011 the Prosecutor’s Office for the Samara Region informed the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office that by a decision of 5 April 2011 the Samarskiy District Court of Samara had established that when applying for Russian nationality the first applicant had provided false information and submitted forged documents in the name of Timur Abdullayev, a national of Kyrgyzstan, which had eventually served as a basis for granting him Russian nationality. Accordingly, the decision of the Federal Migration Service to grant him Russian nationality was void ab initio and his passport issued on 29 December 2009 was invalid and subject to seizure. The institution of criminal proceedings against the first applicant in this regard was refused on account of the expiry of the statutory limitation period. 34.  On 23 May 2011 the Russian Federal Migration Service also informed the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office that by a decision of 5 April 2011 the Samarskiy District Court of Samara had established that the first applicant had provided false information and submitted forged documents so as to acquire Russian nationality. Accordingly, the decision of 20 July 2009 to grant him Russian nationality had been annulled on 11 May 2011. 35.  On 31 May 2011 the administration of remand prison IZ-77/4 of Moscow, where the first applicant was being held, informed the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office that the first applicant had not lodged any requests to be granted refugee status through it. 36.  On 15 June 2011 the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service informed the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office that the first applicant had neither registered his residence in Moscow nor applied for Russian nationality. 37.  On an unspecified date after 14 June 2011 the Moscow Region Department of the Federal Migration Service also informed the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office that the first applicant had never registered his residence in the Moscow Region, nor had he ever acquired Russian nationality. 38.  On 30 June 2011 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office granted the Tajikistani Prosecutor General’s Office’s request in part and ordered the first applicant’s extradition in so far as he was charged with involvement in a criminal group or organisation under Article 187 § 2 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code. The extradition order stated that all the other offences imputed to the first applicant in Tajikistan were not criminal offences in Russia, and therefore that part of the extradition request could not be granted. The order also stated that the first applicant was a national of the Republic of Tajikistan, did not have Russian citizenship, and that there were no obstacles to his extradition. 39.  The first applicant and his lawyer appealed against the extradition order. They pointed out that there was a serious risk that the first applicant would be ill-treated if extradited, as he had already been tortured when in detention in 2003 and because of his being charged with involvement in a proscribed religious organisation. In this connection they referred to, inter alia, the Court’s judgments in the cases of Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, §§ 130-34, 21 October 2010, and Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, § 100, 12 May 2010, which cases concerned the possible extradition from Russia to Tajikistan of the applicants due to their presumed involvment in Hizb ut-Tahrir, and where the Court had found that extradition would be in breach of Article 3. The first applicant and his lawyer also referred to a number of reports of international organisations which outlined a number of areas of concern regarding the use of torture in Tajikistan. 40.  In a decision of 14 September 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the extradition order. The court observed that since 4 January 2005 criminal proceedings had been pending against the first applicant in Tajikistan on a number of charges, that his detention had been ordered and that his name had been put on a wanted list as his whereabouts were unknown to the Tajikistani authorities. It also noted that the first applicant had been detained in Moscow on 7 December 2010 as a person wanted by the Tajikistani authorities. The court also observed that the first applicant was a Tajikistani national and did not have Russian citizenship or refugee status in Russia. 41.  The court went on to note that, according to the extradition order of 30 June 2011, the first applicant was to be extradited to the Republic of Tajikistan in connection with his involvement in a criminal organisation founded with the aim of committing serious and particularly serious criminal offences, which corresponded to an offence punishable under Article 210 of the Russian Criminal Code. It referred to the first applicant’s statements made during his interview as a witness on 7 December 2010. In particular, it noted that “[the first applicant] did not deny his membership in [Hizb ut-Tahrir] and had confirmed his loyalty to its aims by taking an oath and regularly paying membership fees”. The court stated that such actions were proscribed under Tajikistani criminal law and were punishable by fifteen to twenty years’ imprisonment. The court also held that the first applicant had been aware that he had been engaged in a proscribed activity and that, if found out, he would be subjected to criminal prosecution, and therefore considered that he had left Tajikistan in order to avoid prosecution. In the light of the foregoing, the court concluded that the first applicant “had evaded criminal liability for a criminal offence which he had committed in the territory of the Republic of Tajikistan”, and that “he was not a refugee persecuted on political or religious grounds”. 42.  The court went on to hold that the first applicant had not applied for refugee status in Russia, nor had he tried to obtain Russian citizenship with reference to persecution in the Republic of Tajikistan or the risk of torture for his views. Instead, he had acquired Russian citizenship on the basis of false information and documents, using a false identity. The decision to grant Russian citizenship to the first applicant had been annulled some time later on those grounds. In addition, from the first applicant’s statements made during his interview on 7 December 2010, it was clear that he had been convicted of rape in Tajikistan, and that upon his release in 2004 after he had served a sentence of imprisonment, the Tajikistani law-enforcement authorities had stated that he was a person of interest and that they were seeking to verify whether he had been involved in any other criminal offences. The court also noted that the first applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment in Tajikistan had not been corroborated by any evidence. In the court’s opinion, the foregoing could not serve as a basis for finding that the first applicant belonged to a group of people who were being persecuted on the grounds of their political and religious convictions and who ran a risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment. 43.  The court further pointed out that the Tajikistani authorities had provided the necessary assurances, in accordance with international law, which had been taken into account by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office when it had taken a decision on the first applicant’s extradition. The court added that it had no reason to call these assurances into doubt. 44.  The court also stated that the first applicant’s argument to the effect that he had not committed the criminal offences imputed to him in Tajikistan could not be taken into account, as, under the relevant provisions of Russian criminal procedural law, during a review of the legality and validity of a decision of the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to extradite a person to a foreign State, the courts were not empowered to review the issue of whether that person had committed the offences for which extradition was sought. 45.  The court therefore held that, in the absence of any grounds to believe that the first applicant ran a risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and in view of the assurances provided by the Tajikistani authorities, the extradition order of 30 June 2011 was lawful and valid, and that the appeals of the first applicant and his lawyer against that order should be dismissed. 46.  The first applicant and his lawyer appealed against the decision of 14 September 2011. They insisted that the first applicant ran a risk of being tortured if extradited, given that he was suspected of involvement in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The first applicant’s lawyer also contended that the wording of the aforementioned decision had violated his right to be presumed innocent, as the court had noted, with reference to the first applicant’s statements made during his interview as a witness on 7 December 2010 and at the hearing, that he had not denied his membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir. 47.  On 6 December 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia (“the Supreme Court”) upheld the decision of 14 September 2011 on appeal. In so far as the Moscow City Court’s decision had upheld the decision to extradite the first applicant, the Supreme Court stated that it was well-reasoned and correctly decided. As regards the argument concerning the breach by the Moscow City Court of the presumption of innocence in respect of the first applicant, the Supreme Court stated as follows:
“There is no evidence that the [first-instance] court considered the issue of [the first applicant’s] guilt. On the contrary, in its decision the court pointed out that [the first applicant’s] argument that he had not committed the offence imputed [to him] could not be taken into account, as in accordance with [the relevant provisions of Russian criminal procedural law], during a review of the legality and validity of a decision of the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to extradite a person to a foreign State, the courts are not [empowered to review the issue of whether] that person is guilty [of the offence in question] ...
The fact that the [first-instance] court reflected in its decision [the first applicant’s] explanations given at the hearing as regards his extradition in connection with his membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir cannot be regarded as consideration of the issue of his guilt.” 48.  According to the second applicant, on 18 May 2011 investigator G. from the Moscow Department of the FSB telephoned her and informed her that she would have to appear for questioning as a witness the next day. The second applicant replied that she would appear with her lawyer upon receipt of a summons. 49.  On 19 May 2011 at 9 a.m. officers from the Moscow Department of the FSB met the second applicant at the entrance door to the block of flats where she lived. According to her, the officers did not introduce themselves and she was only able to guess that they were FSB officers because they showed her a summons to appear before investigator G. for an interview. A copy of the summons submitted to the Court bears a hand-written note stating that the second applicant “refused to sign the summons without having given any explanations as to the reasons or motives” for that refusal. 50.  According to the second applicant, the officers then forced her into a car and took her to the premises of the Moscow Department of the FSB, where she was held from 9.30 a.m. until 7.30 p.m. In her submission, no official record of her arrest was drawn up, no investigative actions were taken in respect of her and she was not allowed to contact her lawyer. 51.  According to a transcript of a witness interview dated 19 May 2011, the second applicant was questioned as a witness on that date from 10.40 a.m. until 2.35 p.m. The transcript bears a hand-written note to the effect that the second applicant refused to sign it. 52.  Later on 19 May 2011 the second applicant was taken to a police station operated by the Meshchanskiy District Office of the Interior, where an officer from that station drew up, in the presence of the second applicant’s lawyer, a record stating that the second applicant had been arrested at that police station at 7.30 p.m. on that date in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure as a person wanted by the Tajikistani authorities on suspicion of her having committed an offence punishable under Article 307 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code. The second applicant wrote down on that record that she did not agree with her arrest, that she had in fact been detained since 9.00 a.m. when she had been apprehended by the FSB officers and that she had been refused the opportunity to contact her lawyer. 53.  On 20 May 2011 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office. She described the events of 19 May 2011 and requested that a review of the actions of the FSB officers taken in her respect be carried out. 54.  By letter of 3 June 2011 the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office replied to the second applicant, stating that her complaint had been examined and that an inquiry into the actions of the FSB officers complained of had not established any breaches of law or procedure, and there were therefore no grounds for the prosecutor’s office to take any measures in that connection. The letter also invited the second applicant to challenge the response before a higher prosecutor. 55.  On 7 June 2011 the first applicant provided the applicants’ counsel with a written statement to the effect that during his questioning as a witness on 19 May 2011 State officials had shown him documents confirming the second applicant’s placement on a wanted list. They had allegedly told him that in the event of his refusal to sign certain statements his wife would be arrested. 56.  On 10 June 2011 the second applicant’s lawyer lodged a court complaint against the FSB officers’ actions under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. She complained that between 9 a.m. and 7.30 p.m. on 19 May 2011 the second applicant had been held in unacknowledged detention and that her right to legal assistance had been breached during the questioning session. 57.  On 20 June 2011 FSB officer Z. submitted a report to his superior concerning the events of 19 May 2011. The report was also submitted to the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow. According to the report, on 7 and 13 December 2010 the second applicant had been questioned as a witness in a criminal case against a number of Tajikistani nationals. On 18 May 2011 officer Z. received an order to establish the whereabouts of the second applicant as she was absent from her registered place of residence and, if found, to hand her the summons for questioning on 19 May 2011 in connection with the same criminal case. On the latter date at approximately 9 a.m. officer Z. together with officer L. arrived at the second applicant’s then current residence. They called her on the telephone, but as nobody answered they remained in the car waiting for her at the entrance to the block of flats. At approximately 9.12 a.m. the second applicant left the block of flats. The two officers then approached her, introduced themselves and presented their certificates attesting to their status as FSB officers. At the same time they explained that they were required to serve the summons for questioning on her and presented her with the summons. The second applicant refused to either take it or sign the document to that effect, stating that at a legal advice centre she had been advised not to sign any documents in the absence of her lawyer. Officer Z. then read out the summons, informing her that she had been summoned for questioning on 19 May 2011 at 9 a.m. and reminded the second applicant that she had previously been questioned in relation to this case and had the investigator’s telephone number. Therefore, she could call him and verify the summons. He also reminded her that it was her duty to appear for questioning and that she could otherwise be subjected to coercive measures. She replied that she was not trying to avoid questioning, but she was not going to make it in time for 9 a.m. Officer Z. then suggested that she call the investigator and arrange another time. She agreed to do that; however, she again refused to accept the summons, explaining that she would appear on a different date and answer all questions put to her. In the second applicant’s presence officer Z. then noted on the summons her refusal to accept it and the time of the refusal. After that he and officer L. got back into the car. However, the second applicant then approached them and said that she would not call the investigator to arrange another time if they could give her a lift to the questioning session. They agreed to do so. Officer Z. was driving, officer L. was in the front passenger seat while the second applicant was in the back seat by herself. Her freedom was not restricted in any way, and during the journey she was talking on a mobile phone and sending text messages. She did not show any anxiety concerning the questioning and did not make any requests, such as to contact her lawyer or her family. After they arrived at the FSB’s premises, the second applicant reported to the investigator, who invited her for questioning. Later on that date they received additional information to the effect that the second applicant had been placed on an international wanted list. After the second applicant’s questioning, some time after 2.45 p.m., officer Z. informed the investigator and the second applicant of that new information. The second applicant stated that she was aware of the fact. Officer Z. then contacted the Meshchanskiy District Office of the Interior, where he handed over procedural documents received from the Tajikistani authorities. The second applicant was escorted to the Office of the Interior in order for it to proceed with her detention. In the evening of 19 May 2011 officer Z. met with E., who presented herself as the second applicant’s lawyer and said that she had submitted complaints concerning the FSB officers’ actions before the Prosecutor’s Office and the Meshchanskiy District Court. 58.  On 20 June 2011 FSB officer L. also submitted a report to his superior concerning the events of 19 May 2011. The content of the report is similar to that of officer Z. 59.  By a decision of 1 July 2011 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow discontinued the proceedings as regards the complaint that the second applicant had been arrested and forcibly taken to the Moscow Department of the FSB’s premises. The court noted in this respect that under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure it was only possible to challenge before a court the actions of officers who had carried out operational and search activities if those officers had acted on the instructions of an investigator or investigating body. In the present case, according to the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, investigator G. had never instructed the FSB officers to arrest the second applicant and take her to the Moscow Department of the FSB’s premises, and therefore the lawfulness of their actions could not be reviewed under Article 125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. The court dismissed the complaint concerning the alleged breach of the right to legal assistance during questioning, having found that the second applicant had not requested the assistance of a lawyer. 60.  On 1 August 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 1 July 2011 on appeal. It stated, in particular, that the court of first instance had been justified in discontinuing the proceedings, having established that the FSB officers had served the summons on the second applicant and then, upon her request, “had given her a lift in their car” to the Moscow Department of the FSB’s premises. 61.  On 20 May 2011, upon the request of the Meshchanskiy Inter‑District Prosecutor’s Office, the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the second applicant’s detention for a period of two months, that is until 19 July 2011. At the hearing the second applicant argued that the extension of her detention would be unlawful and unjustified, because: she had good character references; she had not been subject to criminal prosecution in Russia; she had a permanent place of residence which she had registered and three minor children; and because in her view she could not lawfully be extradited to Tajikistan. The court stated that her detention was necessary in order to ensure her extradition to Tajikistan, where she was charged with having committed a criminal offence under Article 307 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code. 62.  The second applicant and her lawyer each lodged an appeal against the decision of the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow. 63.  On 8 June 2011 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal lodged by the second applicant’s lawyer and rejected it, holding that the decision of the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow was well-reasoned and correctly decided. It does not appear that the Moscow City Court examined the second applicant’s appeal. 64.  On 13 July 2011 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, with reference to Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further extended the second applicant’s detention until 19 November 2011. The court, referring to the second applicant’s being placed on an international wanted list and the fact that the extradition check in her respect had not been completed, found that there were sufficient grounds to believe that she might “abscond or impede the proceedings in her criminal case and the establishment of the truth”. 65.  The second applicant and her lawyer each lodged an appeal against the decision of the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow. The second applicant’s counsel submitted a four-page statement of appeal on 15 July 2011. It was received by the court on the same date. She argued that in the decision of 13 July 2011 the court had failed to indicate the progress of the extradition proceedings, that the grounds for the extension of detention had not been sufficiently specific, that the court had not attached due weight to the second applicant’s being the mother of three minor children, and that overall the decision was unlawful and unjustified. The second applicant also submitted an appeal statement on 15 July 2011 via the administration of the remand prison she was being held in. According to the Government, it was received by the court “shortly” before the hearing on appeal. According to the second applicant, it was received by the court on 26 July 2011. In her statement of appeal, which was one-and-a-half pages long, the second applicant pointed out that deprivation of liberty should be applied as a preventive measure only exceptionally, and that she had to take care of her three minor children. 66.  On 1 August 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 13 July 2001 as lawful and valid. The court examined the appeal lodged by the second applicant’s lawyer but not that lodged by the applicant. The second applicant’s lawyer was present at the hearing but did not draw the court’s attention to the fact that the second applicant had also brought an appeal. The Moscow City Court, in particular, agreed with the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow that the extension of detention as a preventive measure was justified by the second applicant’s being placed on a wanted list and by the pending extradition check in her respect. The Moscow City Court also noted that the second applicant’s children had been placed in the care of social services. 67.  On 23 May 2011 the Moscow Region Department of the Federal Migration Service informed the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office that the second applicant had never registered her residence in the Moscow Region, nor had she ever acquired Russian nationality. 68.  On 24 May 2011 the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service informed the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office that the second applicant had been registered in the migration register (миграционный учет) as a foreign national living in Moscow from 16 April to 12 July 2011 and that she had not applied for Russian nationality. 69.  It appears that the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office received a request for the second applicant’s extradition from the Tajikistani Prosecutor General’s Office on 6 July 2011. 70.  On 18 October 2011 the second applicant’s lawyer asked the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to refuse the Tajikistani authorities’ request for her extradition, stating that she ran a serious risk of being subjected to torture if extradited. 71.  By letter of 16 November 2011 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office stated that it had refused the Tajikistani’s authorities request to extradite the second applicant owing to the expiry of the statutory limitation period in respect of the offence she was charged with. 72.  On 16 November 2011, pursuant to an order of the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office of the same date, the second applicant was released. 73.  On 15 December 2011 the first applicant applied to the Moscow Department of the Russian Federal Migration Service for temporary asylum. 74.  On 15 March 2012 the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service refused the first applicant’s application for asylum. The decision referred to the following: (i) Tajikistan was a party to numerous international instruments concerning the protection of human rights; (ii) it had adopted a number of legislative measures in compliance with such instruments; (iii) by a decision of the Supreme Court of Russia of 14 February 2003 Hizb ut-Tahrir had been declared a terrorist organisation and its activity was prohibited in Russia; (iv) in the course of the proceedings neither the first applicant nor his representative, although it had been open to them, had provided any evidence to corroborate the assertion that the first applicant had been or would be subjected in Tajikistan to inhuman treatment; (v) the first applicant had conceded that he was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir; (vi) although he had been in Russia since 2004 the first applicant had never applied for either asylum or a temporary residence permit, but had used forged documents in order to acquire Russian nationality; (vii) the Tajikistani authorities had provided the Russian authorities with assurances that the first applicant would not be persecuted on the grounds of his political views, race, religion or ethnic origin, he would not be subjected to inhuman treatment, he would be provided with legal assistance, he would only be prosecuted for the offences in respect of which the extradition request was granted and he would be free to leave Tajikistan upon the termination of the proceedings. The Moscow Department of the Russian Federal Migration Service thus concluded that there were no humanitarian reasons that would justify granting the first applicant temporary asylum. 75.  On 24 April 2012 the first applicant appealed against the refusal. He referred to the high risk of ill-treatment if extradited to Tajikistan since he was charged with involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir. In this connection he referred to relevant international reports and the Court’s judgments. 76.  On 18 May 2012 the Russian Federal Migration Service quashed the decision of the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service of 15 March 2012. It stated that the latter had carried out an appropriate analysis of the relevant issues and had reached reasonable conclusions. However, in view of the fact that, following the first applicant’s request, the Court had indicated a measure under Rule 39 so as to prevent his extradition to Tajikistan, it was necessary to re-examine the possibility of providing him with temporary asylum so as to settle his legal status in Russia and provide additional guarantees that he would not be extradited to Tajikistan until the Court had delivered a final decision in his case. 77.  On 17 August 2012 the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service granted the first applicant temporary asylum until 17 August 2013. 78.  On 24 May 2011 the second applicant asked the Moscow Department of the Russian Federal Migration Service to grant her refugee status. 79.  By a decision of 29 July 2011 the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service refused the second applicant’s request, stating that she had not met the criteria established by applicable law. 80.  The second applicant challenged that decision before the Russian Federal Migration Service. In a decision of 29 November 2011 that authority dismissed her complaint and upheld the decision of 29 July 2011. 81.  On 29 December 2011 the second applicant challenged the decision of 29 November 2011 before the courts. 82.  On 22 February 2012 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow upheld the decision of the Federal Migration Service. 83.  On 18 June 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of the Basmanniy District Court on appeal. 84.  Meanwhile, on 21 November 2012 the second applicant asked the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service to grant her temporary asylum in Russia. 85.  On 17 February 2012 the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service refused the second applicant’s request on account of a lack of humanitarian reasons that would justify granting her asylum. The decision noted that the second applicant and her representatives had failed to corroborate the alleged risk of ill-treatment in Tajikistan and concluded that the sole purpose of the application had been to legalise the second applicant’s residence in Russia. 86.  The second applicant challenged the refusal before the Russian Federal Migration Service. 87.  On 21 August 2012 the Russian Federal Migration Service dismissed her complaint and upheld the decision of 17 February 2012. The Russian Federal Migration Service noted that, although the applicants had been living in Russia since 2005, they only applied for refugee status in 2011 after they had been placed in custody. It further noted that the second applicant had submitted in writing, certified by a notary, that she had consented to her brother taking her children to Tajikistan so as to prevent them from being placed in in the care of social services in either Russia or Tajikistan and thereby preventing the Tajikistani authorities from putting pressure on her. The Russian Federal Migration Service observed that this statement was self-contradictory: the second applicant had thus voluntarily arranged for her children to be sent to the very State which she was allegedly afraid of being pressured by, whereas in Russia her children had been outside the jurisdiction of the Tajikistani authorities. They considered that it further proved that the second applicant’s allegations of there being a risk of ill-treatment in Tajikistan were unsubstantiated and agreed with the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service that the sole purpose of the application had been to legalise the second applicant’s residence in Russia. 88.  On 22 September 2012 the second applicant brought a complaint against the decision of 21 August 2012 before the Federal Migration Service’s Nationality Department. It appears that the complaint is pending.