5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Saratov. 6.  In the 1990s the applicant lived in Uzbekistan and was involved in the activities of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (“HT”), a pan-Islamic organisation banned in Russia. In May 2000 he moved to Russia, leaving behind his wife and two children, born in 1995 and 1997, in Andizhan. 7.  On 14 June 2001 the applicant was arrested in Russia on drug-related charges (Article 228-4 of the Russian Criminal Code (“the RCC”)). His Uzbek passport was confiscated upon arrest. On 15 June 2002 the Perovo District Court of Moscow sentenced him to imprisonment. After his release on 27 August 2004, the applicant arrived in Saratov, where he started a relationship with a Belarusian national. It appears that she was residing in Russia unlawfully at the material time. They have two minor children born in 2006 and 2008. 8.  On 29 March 2006 the Andizhan Office of the National Security Service of Uzbekistan charged the applicant, in absentia, with attempting to overthrow the existing regime under Article 159-3 (a and b) of the Uzbek Criminal Code (“the UCC”). 9.  On the same day the Andizhan regional prosecutor ordered the applicant’s placement in custody and put his name on a search list. 10.  On 4 June 2007 the applicant was additionally charged with setting up a criminal group (Article 242-1 of the UCC), producing and disseminating documents containing a threat to national security and public order (Article 244(1)-3 (a and c) of the UCC), and setting up, managing and participating in extremist, separatist, fundamentalist and other banned organisations (Article 244(2)-1 of the UCC). 11.  On an unspecified date his name was put on the international wanted list. 12.  On 26 February 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police in Saratov as a person wanted by the Uzbek authorities. On 8 March 2010 the Uzbek Prosecutor General’s Office submitted a formal request asking its Russian counterpart to extradite the applicant on criminal charges under Articles 159-3 (a and b), 242-1, 244(1)-3 (a and c) and 244(2)-1 of the UCC. Relying on Article 66 of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (“the Minsk Convention”), the Uzbek authorities provided assurances that the applicant would not be extradited to a third country without the consent of the Russian Federation, that he would not be prosecuted, tried or punished for an offence which was not the subject of the extradition request and that he would be able to freely leave Uzbekistan, once the court proceedings had terminated and the sentence served. On 11 March 2010 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office received the extradition request. 13.  Thereafter, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office carried out a preliminary check of the extradition request (“an extradition check”) (see paragraph 65 below). It can be seen from the information collected between March and June 2010 by the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”), the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that the applicant was an Uzbek national who had not applied for Russian citizenship or temporary asylum or registered his residence in Russia. The said authorities saw no obstacle to his extradition to Uzbekistan. Moreover, on 22 June 2010 the FSB submitted that the applicant was “certainly a functionary” of HT and recommended that he be extradited. 14.  On 9 August 2010 the deputy Prosecutor General granted the extradition request and issued an extradition order in respect of the applicant. He referred to the charges brought against the applicant, according to which he had been a founding manager and financial supporter of HT, had created a number of sub-groups of the said organisation in Uzbekistan and actively participated in the dissemination of its subversive materials, characterised as extremist, separatist and fundamentalist. The prosecutor decided to extradite the applicant on charges of setting up a criminal group and participating therein (Article 210-1 and 2 of the RCC) and attempting to overthrow the existing regime and constitutional order (Article 278 of the RCC). He noted that the statute of limitations for those offences had not expired either in Russia or in Uzbekistan. The prosecutor further pointed out that, in line with the Minsk Convention and the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”), differences in the legal classification of the offences and their elements under Russian and Uzbek criminal law were not sufficient grounds for refusing extradition. Lastly, the prosecutor referred to the information provided by the FMS that the applicant was an Uzbek national who had not applied for Russian citizenship. The prosecutor concluded that there were no obstacles to his extradition to Uzbekistan. 15.  On 18 August 2010 the extradition order was served on the applicant. 16.  On 19 August 2010 the applicant sought judicial review of the extradition order, referring, inter alia, to a fear of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, in particular, on account of his connections with HT. The applicant’s appeal was supported with his lawyer’s claims of 23 August and 16 September 2010 that torture remained a widespread practice in Uzbekistan, according to reports of numerous international organisations and recent media publications. 17.  On 16 September 2010 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the extradition order, relying on the assurances issued by the Uzbek Prosecutor General’s Office that the applicant would be treated in strict compliance with internal procedural norms. It also referred to the dismissal of the applicant’s request for refugee status by the FMS on 14 September 2010 (see paragraph 37 below). 18.  On 21 and 23 September 2010 the applicant and his lawyer appealed. On 17 November 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia set aside the judgment of 16 September 2010 and ordered a new judicial review by the first-instance court. 19.  On 28 December 2010 the Regional Court re-examined the case and annulled the extradition order of 9 August 2010, mainly because of inconsistencies and mistakes made in the comparative assessment of the relevant criminal offences under Uzbek and Russian law. In addition, the court made the following findings:
“... The allegation of a risk of ill-treatment should be dismissed because the case file contains written assurances made by the deputy Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan who affirmed that prosecution of the applicant would be in strict conformity with the Uzbek Code of Criminal Procedure ... The court has no reason to distrust these guarantees ...
Article 464 of the Russian CCrP prohibits the extradition of a person who has been granted asylum in Russia on account of persecution in the requesting State because of his race, religion, citizenship, ethnic or social origin or political beliefs.
Prior to the date of the extradition order, [the applicant] had applied for refugee status and had subsequently sought judicial review of the refusal of such status in Russia. Such review proceedings have not been completed. Taking into account paragraph 1 and 4 of section 10 of the Refugees Act, a person cannot be extradited before a court decision has been taken on judicial review of a refusal of refugee status. Thus, the extradition order was premature, in breach of the Refugees Act ...”
The applicant was released in the courtroom. 20.  The regional prosecutor’s office appealed. On 4 March 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 28 December 2010. 21.  In view of the above findings, the extradition case against the applicant was not pursued and his removal from Russia to Uzbekistan on that account became impossible. 22.  From 26 February to 28 December 2010 the applicant was detained with a view to extradition. 23.  On 26 February 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police in Saratov as a person wanted by the Uzbek authorities. He was placed in remand centre no. 64/1. According to the Government, the applicant made no allegation of a risk of ill-treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan. 24.  On the same day, referring to Article 466 of the CCrP the deputy district prosecutor lodged an application asking the Kirovskiy District Court of Saratov to authorise the applicant’s detention. Relying on Article 108 of the CCrP, the district court granted this request and ordered the applicant’s detention until 6 April 2010 with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan. The court observed that the applicant had been charged with offences punishable under Articles 278, 210-1, 280-1, 282(1)-1 and 282(2)-1 of the RCC; that the statute of limitations for the said offences had not expired either in Russia or in Uzbekistan; that the applicant, an Uzbek national, had not registered his residence in Russia and had absconded there; and that, given the state of the applicant’s health, he was fit for detention. The applicant and his lawyer did not appeal against the detention order of 26 February 2010. It became final on 1 March 2010. 25.  After receipt of the Uzbek extradition request and before the expiry of the time-limit set in the detention order of 26 February 2010, the deputy district prosecutor lodged an application asking the district court to extend the applicant’s detention. On 1 April 2010 the district court extended the applicant’s detention until 25 August 2010. The court dismissed the applicant’s argument that his detention would put his underage children in a difficult financial situation and that he had lodged an application for refugee status. The court concluded as follows:
“Under Article 110 of the CCrP a preventive measure may be varied if it is no longer necessary or if the grounds justifying it (see Articles 97 and 99 of the Code) have changed. The available material does not disclose that any such grounds have changed in the present case ...” 26.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed on 2 and 5 April 2010. On 14 April 2010 the Saratov Regional Court dismissed the appeals. 27.  On 23 August 2010 the district court examined a new extension request from the prosecutor and extended the applicant’s detention until 25 November 2010. The court held as follows:
“[The applicant] sought judicial review of the extradition decision against him ... Articles 109 and 110 of the CCrP provide that a preventive measure may be varied if it is no longer necessary or if the grounds justifying it (see Articles 97 and 99 of the Code) have changed.
Extension of detention beyond six months may be allowed only in respect of persons charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences and only on account of the exceptional complexity of the case ... The available material discloses that the extradition order could not be enforced, where the previous detention order was in force, because the applicant had applied for judicial review of the extradition order. These are objective circumstances disclosing the particular complexity of the case. Thus, the extension term mentioned in the request is reasonable ...” 28.  On 24 and 26 August 2010 the applicant and his lawyer appealed, seeking house arrest instead of detention in a remand centre. On 31 August 2010 the Regional Court upheld the detention order of 23 August 2010. 29.  On 17 November 2010 the Supreme Court ordered the applicant’s detention until 17 December 2010, pending the re-examination of the extradition case by the Regional Court. 30.  On 22 November 2010 the District Court examined an extension request by the district prosecutor and issued a new detention order extending the applicant’s detention to 25 February 2011 pending judicial review of the extradition order. The court noted that Article 109 of the CCrP allowed the extension of detention up to twelve months in relation to serious and particularly serious charges and on account of the particular complexity of the case. The court was satisfied that the above conditions had been complied with in respect of the applicant. On 2 December 2010 the Regional Court upheld the detention order of 22 November 2010. 31.  On 28 December 2010 the applicant was released from detention. 32.  On 17 or 24 March 2010 the applicant lodged a request for refugee status with the FMS Office of the Saratov Region (“the regional FMS”). 33.  On 29 March 2010 he submitted an additional request, whereby he expressed a fear of being subjected to persecution and torture owing to his previous membership of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. He referred to a number of international reports in support of his allegations. 34.  On 6 April 2010, in an interview with a regional FMS officer conducted in the presence of his lawyer, the applicant submitted that he had left Uzbekistan for work-related reasons. 35.  On 1 July 2010 the regional FMS rejected the applicant’s request for refugee status. The authority noted that the applicant had left Uzbekistan in 2000 for economic reasons whereas criminal proceedings against him had not been brought until 2006 in his country of origin. He had been prosecuted for having set up a criminal group, which was not a political crime under the UCC. Furthermore, the applicant had not lodged his application for refugee status until 2010. The FMS established that he faced no risk of persecution on account of his origin, religion, nationality or belonging to a particular social group. It concluded that the applicant did not wish to return to Uzbekistan so as to avoid prosecution for the crime with which he had been charged. 36.  On 5 July 2010 the applicant was informed of the above-mentioned decision and lodged a hierarchical appeal on 28 July 2010. 37.  On 14 September 2010 the FMS Central Office dismissed his appeal. The FMS referred to the decision of the Russian Supreme Court of 14 February 2003 to declare HT a terrorist organisation and ban its activity in Russia. The FMS emphasised the applicant’s involvement in HT in 1999-2000 as a manager and financial supporter. It pointed out that in 2006 at the latest the applicant had learnt from his brother that the Uzbekistan authorities had begun prosecuting HT members. However, it was not until 2010 that the applicant had submitted his request for refugee status. Hence, the FMS concluded that the applicant’s fear of persecution was unsubstantiated. 38.  On 16 October 2010 the applicant appealed against the refusal to grant him refugee status to the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow. He reiterated his fear of being subjected to torture in the event of extradition to Uzbekistan and stated that the risk of ill-treatment had not been assessed by the FMS. 39.  On 24 December 2010 the District Court upheld the decision of 14 September 2010 on judicial review. Noting that the applicant had confirmed his involvement in HT’s activities between 1997 and 2000, the court also observed that after his arrest in February 2010 the applicant had made no official statement to Uzbek or Russian authorities distancing himself from HT teachings or his previous participation in its activities. The court held as follows:
“After his arrival in Russia the applicant did not apply for refugee status. He first alleged a risk of persecution in Uzbekistan and raised his wish to remain in Russia as a refugee after having been arrested following the request from the Uzbek authorities.
Neither following his arrival in Russia in 2000 nor during criminal proceedings in 2002 did he distance himself from HT teachings or state his refusal to participate in its activities. He did not apply for refugee status when he learnt in 2005-2006 from his younger brother that his fellow HT supporters were being looked for and tortured by the Uzbek authorities ...
Had the applicant’s fears of persecution in Uzbekistan been truly justified, he would have immediately sought asylum in the country of his destination.
The UN Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status indicates that persecution must be distinguished from punishment for a common law offence. Persons fleeing from prosecution or punishment for such an offence are not normally refugees. It should be borne in mind that a refugee is a victim – or potential victim – of injustice, not a fugitive from justice (paragraph 56) ...
The applicant has not adduced convincing arguments concerning religious or political persecution ...” 40.  On 28 December 2010 the applicant applied for temporary asylum. It was refused on 25 March 2011. 41.  On 18 May 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 24 December 2010, refusing the applicant refugee status. Endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court, the appeal court added the following:
“The Uzbek Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirms its attachment to their obligations in relation to protecting human rights. The Uzbek legislation provides that every citizen has freedom of religion. Article 18 of the Uzbek Constitution protects equality of citizens before the law irrespective of gender, race, national language, religion, faith or social origin ...
The court dismisses as unconvincing the arguments relating to the individualised status of the applicant on account of criminal prosecution in Uzbekistan. Neither during his residence in Belarus nor immediately after his arrival in Russia did the applicant seek asylum. He first expressed his fears of persecution in Uzbekistan after his arrest because his name had been added to the international wanted list ...
Taking into account the UN Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (paragraph 66), in order to be considered a refugee, a person must show well-founded fear of persecution. Discrimination may turn into persecution when it becomes impossible to carry out work in specific areas, to receive education or if other freedoms protected in democratic societies are limited ... The applicant has not substantiated any facts concerning unlawful persecution ...” 42.  By a letter of 5 July 2011, the Moscow Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Representation informed the applicant’s lawyer that the UNHCR had determined that the applicant met the criteria set out in its Statute in connection with Article 1 A of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. It had been ascertained that the applicant was outside his country of nationality owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted by the authorities of his country for reasons of his religion and imputed political opinion and, owing to such fear, was unable to return to Uzbekistan, where he might be exposed to torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Therefore, the UNHCR considered that the applicant was eligible for international protection under its mandate.