5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Artemovskiy, Sverdlovsk Region. 6.  In July 2009 the applicant moved from Uzbekistan to Russia. 7.  On 22 February 2010 the Investigating Division of the Department of the Interior of the Kashkadarya Region of the Uzbekistan Republic charged the applicant in absentia with participation in an extremist religious organisation and ordered his arrest. The applicant’s name was put on the wanted persons list. 8.  On 29 October 2010 the Russian authorities arrested the applicant and informed the Uzbekistani ambassador in Russia thereof. The Uzbekistani authorities confirmed their request for the applicant’s extradition. 9.  On 30 October 2010 the Town Prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention pending extradition. In particular, the prosecutor stated as follows:
“The offence [the applicant is charged with] as provided for in Article 244-2 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Uzbekistan Republic, is a serious one, ... it entails a custodial sentence. In the Russian Federation a similar offence would be classified as per Article 282.1 § 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as participation in an extremist group and might entail, inter alia, a custodial sentence of up to two years.
[The applicant] is a national of a foreign state, he has not applied for [Russian nationality]. There are no criminal proceedings pending against him in Russia. His name is on the international wanted persons’ list. He is sought by a member state of the Convention On Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 22 January 1993 in connection with an offence entailing a custodial sentence exceeding one year.
Pursuant to Article 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, [the applicant] can be extradited to the law enforcement bodies of the Uzbekistan Republic for the purpose of criminal prosecution.
In order to ensure the [applicant’s] extradition to the authorities of the Uzbekistan Republic, it is necessary to remand him in custody pursuant to the decision of the Karshi Court of the Kashkadarya Region of the Uzbekistan Republic.” 10.  On 8 December 2010 the Town Prosecutor issued another order remanding the applicant in custody with a view to extradition reiterating verbatim the reasoning of his previous order of 30 October 2010. 11.  On 10 December 2010 the Town Prosecutor asked the court to extend the applicant’s detention pending extradition until 30 April 2011 and on 17 December 2010 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg authorised the applicant’s detention until 29 April 2011. In particular, the court reasoned as follows:
“Having regard to the nature of the offence [the applicant] is charged with and the danger it presents to the public order, the court considers ... the prosecutor’s arguments to be well-founded given that [the applicant] is charged with a serious offence entailing a custodial sentence from five to fifteen years as per the Criminal Code of the Uzbekistan Republic, that his name was put on the wanted persons’ list, [and] that he is a national of a foreign state. In view of the said circumstances the court considers that, if released, [the applicant] might continue his criminal activities or abscond ...
The circumstances underlying [the authorities’ decision] to remand the applicant in custody have not ceased to exist. The court does not discern any circumstances, including the applicant’s condition, that would render him unfit for detention.” 12.  On 20 December 2010 the applicant’s counsel lodged an appeal against the decision of 17 December 2010 alleging that there were no grounds for the applicant’s extradition and that he should be released. The appeal hearing was first scheduled for 21 January 2011. 13.  On 21 January 2011 the Regional Court found that (1) the applicant had not been apprised of his right to take part in the appeal hearing; (2) other parties to the proceedings had not been informed of the appeal lodged; and (3) the decision had not been translated into Uzbek. The Regional Court adjourned the hearing and remitted the case-file to the District Court in order to rectify the noted procedural irregularities. The new appeal hearing was scheduled for 2 March 2011. 14.  On 18 February 2011 the Deputy General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation granted the Uzbekistani request and ordered the applicant’s extradition to Uzbekistan. The applicant appealed. 15.  On 2 March 2011 the Regional Court considered it necessary to obtain additional materials necessary for consideration of the appeal, adjourned the hearing and scheduled a new one for 4 March 2011. 16.  On 4 March 2011 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the detention order of 17 December 2010 on appeal. 17.  On 7 April 2011 the Regional Court upheld the prosecutor’s decision of 18 February 2011. The applicant appealed. 18.  On 30 April 2011 the applicant was released due to the expiry of the maximum period of his lawful detention. 19.  On 20 June 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the decision of 7 April 2011 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 20.  On 2 August 2011 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 18 February 2011. In particular, the court noted as follows:
“... the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Uzbekinstan Republic guarantees that the criminal prosecution in respect of [the applicant] will be carried out in strict compliance with law.
However, it follows from the documents prepared by the UN and various NGO’s and submitted by the defence as well as from the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights that in the Uzbekistan Republic defendants and convicted persons are often subjected to ill-treatment; torture and violence are not uncommon.
In a number of judgments the European Court of Human Rights found that the mere fact of a person’s remand in custody in that country subjected him to a risk of ill-treatment.
Having regard to the above, the court concludes that the decision of the Deputy General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation of 18 February 2011 to extradite [the applicant] to the Uzbekistani law-enforcement authorities ... is not lawful and shall be quashed.” 21.  On 29 September 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decision of 2 August 2011 on appeal. 22.  On 30 December 2010 the applicant lodged an application for political asylum in Russia. On 14 February 2011 he was interviewed by the regional migration service. 23.  On 15 March 2011 the regional migration department dismissed his request, noting that the applicant “takes advantage of the asylum proceedings in order to escape criminal liability in connection with the crime he has committed ... in Uzbekistan.” The applicant appealed. 24.  On 25 May 2011 the Federal Migration Service upheld the decision of 15 March 2011. The applicant appealed to the court. 25.  On 13 October 2011 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow found the decision of 25 May 2011 lawful. On 6 February 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 13 October 2011 on appeal. 26.  On 20 February 2011 the applicant submitted a request for temporary asylum. According to the applicant, the proceedings are still pending. 27.  The Constitution guarantees the right to liberty (Article 22):
“1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and personal integrity. 2.  Arrest, placement in custody and detention are permitted only on the basis of a judicial decision. Prior to a judicial decision, an individual may not be detained for longer than forty-eight hours.” 28.  Article 16 of the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 (CETS no. 024), to which Russia is a party, provides as follows:
“1.  In case of urgency the competent authorities of the requesting Party may request the provisional arrest of the person sought. The competent authorities of the requested Party shall decide the matter in accordance with its law.
... 4.  Provisional arrest may be terminated if, within eighteen days of arrest, the requested Party has not received the request for extradition and the documents mentioned in Article 12. It shall not, in any event, exceed forty days from the date of that arrest. The possibility of provisional release at any time is not excluded, but the requested Party shall take any measures which it considers necessary to prevent the escape of the person sought.” 29.  The CIS Convention on legal aid and legal relations in civil, family and criminal matters (the 1993 Minsk Convention), to which both Russia and Uzbekistan are parties, provides that a request for extradition must be accompanied by a detention order (Article 58 § 2). 30.  A person whose extradition is sought may be arrested before receipt of a request for his or her extradition. In such cases a special request for arrest, containing a reference to the detention order and indicating that a request for extradition will follow, must be sent. A person may also be arrested in the absence of such a request if there are reasons to suspect that he or she has committed, in the territory of the other Contracting Party, an offence entailing extradition. The other Contracting Party must be immediately informed of the arrest (Article 61). 31.  A person arrested under Article 61 must be released if no request for extradition is received within forty days of the arrest (Article 62 § 1). 32.  Chapter 13 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“Preventive measures”) governs the use of preventive measures (меры пресечения), which include, in particular, placement in custody. Custody may be ordered by a court on an application by an investigator or a prosecutor if a person is charged with an offence carrying a sentence of at least two years’ imprisonment, provided that a less restrictive preventive measure cannot be used (Article 108 §§ 1 and 3). The period of detention pending investigation may not exceed two months (Article 109 § 1). A judge may extend that period to six months (Article 109 § 2). Further extensions to twelve months, or in exceptional circumstances eighteen months, may be granted only if the person is charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences (Article 109 § 3). No extension beyond eighteen months is permissible and the detainee must be released immediately (Article 109 § 4). 33.  Chapter 16 (“Complaints about acts and decisions by courts and officials involved in criminal proceedings”) provides for the judicial review of decisions and acts or failures to act by an investigator or a prosecutor that are capable of adversely affecting the constitutional rights or freedoms of parties to criminal proceedings (Article 125 § 1). The court must examine the complaint within five days of its receipt. 34.  Chapter 54 (“Extradition of a person for criminal prosecution or execution of sentence”) regulates extradition procedures. On receipt of a request for extradition not accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court, a prosecutor must decide on the preventive measure to be applied to the person whose extradition is sought. The measure must be applied in accordance with the established procedure (Article 466 § 1). A person who has been granted asylum in Russia because of possible political persecution in the State seeking his extradition may not be extradited to that State (Article 464 § 1 (2)). 35.  An extradition decision made by the Prosecutor General may be challenged before a court. Issues of guilt or innocence are not within the scope of judicial review, which is limited to an assessment of whether the extradition order was made in accordance with the procedure set out in the relevant international and domestic law (Article 463 §§ 1 and 6). 36.  In Directive Decision No. 22, adopted by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 29 October 2009 (“Directive Decision of 29 October 2009”), it was stated that, pursuant to Article 466 § 1 of the CCrP, only a court could order placement in custody of a person in respect of whom an extradition request was pending and the authorities of the country requesting extradition had not submitted a court decision to place him or her in custody. The judicial authorisation of placement in custody in that situation was to be carried out in accordance with Article 108 of the CCrP and following a prosecutor’s petition to place that person in custody. In deciding to remand a person in custody a court was to examine if there existed factual and legal grounds for applying the preventive measure. If the extradition request was accompanied by a detention order of a foreign court, a prosecutor might remand the person in custody without a Russian court’s authorisation (Article 466 § 2 of the CCrP) for a period not exceeding two months, and the prosecutor’s decision could be challenged in the courts under Article 125 of the CCrP. In extending a person’s detention with a view to extradition a court was to apply Article 109 of the CCrP.