5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently residing in the town of Ryazan. 6.  In 1999 the applicant, who was residing in Uzbekistan at the material time, started studying Islam and visiting a mosque in Tashkent. On an unspecified date in 1999 a neighbour informed on the applicant, alleging that he was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir (hereinafter also “HT”), a transnational Islamic organisation banned in Russia, Germany and some Central Asian States. 7.  In the applicant’s submission, he was not a member of HT. 8.  After the neighbour’s denunciation, the applicant was arrested by the local police. While in custody, he was deprived of food and water and severely beaten, his spine was injured and he had to seek medical treatment after his release. Although he was able to pay a sum of money to avoid criminal prosecution, on 20 November 1999 the Tashkent City Court found him guilty of the administrative offence of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir and placed him under preventive police surveillance (“профилактический учет”). 9.  In the applicant’s submission, between 1999 and 2008, within the framework of the police surveillance, the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities repeatedly detained him for various periods of time, beating and torturing him on those occasions to obtain information about other members of HT. The applicant was not provided with food and water and was not permitted to have outside walks while in police custody. On each occasion he was released only because he paid the authorities off. 10.  Having realised that his persecution would continue, in autumn 2008 the applicant left Uzbekistan for Belarus. In May 2009, because of the economic crisis, he moved to Moscow and in August 2009 he settled in Ryazan where he started his own business trading in fruit and vegetables 11.  Upon his arrival in Russia the applicant applied for a residence permit and a work permit via a private company which specialised in assisting foreign nationals in dealing with migration formalities and which obtained the above-mentioned documents for him. 12.  On 7 September 2009 the Uzbek authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having participated in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir and having unlawfully left the territory of Uzbekistan. In the relevant decision HT was referred to as a “banned religious extremist, separatist and fundamentalist organisation”. 13.  On 26 October 2009 the applicant was charged in absentia with having participated in Hizb ut-Tahrir (Article 244-2 of the Uzbek Criminal Code (UCC), under which the offence of establishing, leading or participating in religious extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other prohibited organisations is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to fifteen years) and illegal departure from the country (Article 223 of the UCC). 14.  On 27 October 2009 the Yunusabadskiy District Department of the Interior (“the Yunusabadskiy ROVD”) put the applicant’s name on a wanted list. On 28 October 2009 the Yunusabadskiy District Court of Tashkent ordered the applicant’s placement in custody. The decision noted, among other things, that on 20 November 2009 the applicant had been already found guilty of an administrative offence of participation in HT and that he had been placed under preventive police surveillance. However, in 2005 he had continued his unlawful activities and had unlawfully left Uzbekistan. 15.  On 4 January 2010 the applicant was arrested in Ryazan in connection with his eventual extradition to Uzbekistan. 16.  On 6 January 2010 the Ryazan prosecutor of the Moscow transport prosecutor’s office remanded the applicant in custody with a view to securing his extradition. 17.  In a decision of 14 January 2010 the Ryazan prosecutor of the Moscow transport prosecutor’s office found that the prosecution for the offences imputed to the applicant by the Uzbek authorities had become time-barred under Russian law and refused his extradition to Uzbekistan. By the same decision he ordered the applicant’s release. 18.  By a letter of 22 January 2010 the head of the Ryazan Department of the Federal Security Service (“the Ryazan FSB”) informed the Ryazan Department of the Federal Migration Service (“the Ryazan FMS”) that the applicant was wanted by the Uzbek authorities on suspicion of membership of HT. The letter stressed that in 2004 the Russian Supreme Court had banned HT as a terrorist organisation. The Ryazan FMS was invited to consider annulling the applicant’s work and residence permits. 19.  On 25 January 2010 officers of the Moskovskiy District Department of the Interior of Ryazan arrested the applicant on suspicion of having committed minor disorderly acts. 20.  By a letter of 25 January 2010 the Ryazan FMS informed the applicant that it had revoked his work permit because he represented a “threat to the security of the Russian Federation [and] its nationals”. The letter stated that the applicant was to leave the Russian territory within three days of receipt of the letter. 21.  By a decision of 26 January 2010 the Justice of the Peace of the 59th Court Circuit of the Moskovskiy District of Ryazan found the applicant guilty of having committed minor disorderly acts and sentenced him to seven days’ administrative detention. 22.  On 1 February 2010 the Ryazan FMS issued an administrative offence report (“протокол об административном правонарушении”), stating that the applicant had submitted false information when applying for residence and work permits. 23.  By a decision of 1 February 2010 the Sovetskiy District Court established that the applicant had submitted false documents when applying to the Ryazan FMS for residence and work permits. The court imposed an administrative fine on the applicant and ordered his expulsion from Russia. 24.  On 5 February 2010 the applicant appealed to the Ryazan Regional Court against the decision of 1 February 2010 ordering his expulsion. He submitted, among other things, that he had left Uzbekistan in 2008 because of his persecution by the Uzbek authorities, which had accused him of membership of a proscribed religious organisation. Between 1999 and 2008 he had been repeatedly ill-treated by Uzbek law-enforcement officers who had injured his spine and had deprived him of food and water while he had been in their custody. As a result of the beatings, the applicant had developed kidney problems and suffered from recurring pain in his head and back. Because of his spine condition he had had to be administered anaesthetic injections while in custody in Russia. The applicant stressed that, if expelled to Uzbekistan, he would be arrested immediately and subjected to ill-treatment again. 25.  On 5 February 2010 the President of the First Section granted the applicant’s request and indicated to the Russian Government under Rule 39 that the applicant should not be expelled to Uzbekistan until further notice. 26.  On 8 February 2010 the applicant’s lawyer, K., lodged with the Ryazan Regional Court a further appeal against the expulsion order. She referred to the unsuccessful extradition proceedings against her client and stated that his expulsion was in reality a disguised extradition. She cited the cases of Mr Muminov and Mr Kamaliyev, whom the Russian authorities had first refused to extradite and had then expelled to Uzbekistan, thereby enabling the Uzbek authorities to try and convict them of the offences for which their extradition had been refused. Relying on reports of various NGOs and an information note of the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, K. stated that use of torture against detainees was widespread in the Uzbek penitentiary system. She averred that the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities had already tortured the applicant by beating him and refusing him food and water and that his spine had been injured as a result of those beatings. 27.  According to a written statement by K. dated 11 February 2010, she visited the applicant in facility TETs-2 on 9 February 2010. The applicant had difficulty moving unaided because of his spine injury. He suffered from acute pain in his back and was receiving anaesthetic injections for it. 28.  By a decision of 17 February 2010 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the expulsion order. It noted that the applicant’s submissions that his expulsion would endanger his life and health were unsubstantiated because he had failed to furnish “indisputable evidence” (“бесспорные доказательства”) to that effect. The court did not provide any further details on that point. 29.  On 7 February 2010 the applicant applied to the Ryazan FMS for refugee status. In his application he submitted, in particular, that in 1999 he had started studying the Koran and visiting a mosque in Tashkent. After a neighbour had informed on him, alleging that he was a member of HT, the local police had arrested him. While in their hands, the applicant had been deprived of food and water and severely beaten, his spine had been injured and he had had to seek medical treatment after his release. Although he had been able to pay a sum of money to avoid criminal prosecution in 1999, he had been nonetheless found guilty of the administrative offence of membership of HT and placed under preventive police surveillance. 30.  The applicant further stated that between 1999 and 2008 he had been repeatedly arrested by the law-enforcement authorities, held in detention for several days, beaten up and requested to inform on other presumed members of HT. On each occasion he had been released only because he had paid the officers off. Convinced that his persecution would continue, in autumn 2008 the applicant had left Uzbekistan for Belarus. In May 2009, because of the economic crisis, he had moved to Moscow and in August 2009 he had settled in Ryazan where he had started his own business trading in fruit and vegetables. 31.  Referring to the widespread practice of the use of torture against detainees and persons suspected of membership of proscribed religious organisations, the applicant submitted that, if returned to Uzbekistan, he would also be subjected to torture. In that connection he relied, among other things, on recent reports of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in respect of Uzbekistan; the United Nations (UN) Secretary General’s report “Situation of human rights in Uzbekistan” (A/61/526); the concluding remarks of the UN Committee against Torture, issued in November 2007 in respect of Uzbekistan; the information note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation; and the judgment of the Strasbourg Court in the case of Ismoilov and Others v. Russia. Lastly, he pointed to his own experience of torture at the hands of law-enforcement authorities in Uzbekistan and stated that he ran a real risk of being subjected to it again, if returned to his home country. 32.  On 5 May 2010 the Ryazan FMS dismissed the applicant’s asylum request. In its decision the migration authority stated that the applicant had unlawfully left Uzbekistan and had failed to apply for asylum in due time after his arrival in Russia. Despite his alleged persecution in Uzbekistan in 1998-2009 he had continued living there, without applying to the Uzbek authorities for protection. Moreover, the applicant’s allegations did not match any of the forms of persecution on religious grounds set out in the “Guidelines on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Geneva Convention”. According to a document issued on an unspecified date by the Russian Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”) and entitled “On some aspects of ensuring freedom of religion in Uzbekistan”, since 1992 that country had joined a number of international agreements on human rights and the State policy in respect of religion was to support the activities of various religious organisations. Moreover, since 1996 Uzbekistan has been a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture. The migration authority concluded that the applicant had requested asylum solely on the ground that he feared criminal prosecution in his home country in connection with his participation in HT. The decision contained no reference to the applicant’s arguments concerning the use of torture against detainees in Uzbekistan and the bulk of the information from international governmental and non-governmental organisations to which he referred, or to his submission about his own alleged experience of ill‑treatment at the hands of the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities. 33.  On 28 May 2010 the applicant appealed against the decision of 5 May 2010 to the FMS. He claimed that the Ryazan FMS had based its decision on irrelevant grounds, such as his allegedly unlawful departure from Uzbekistan. He stressed that it had also disregarded credible information from independent sources concerning the widespread use of torture by the Uzbek authorities against detainees and their persecution of persons accused of participation in prohibited religious organisations, such as HT, as well as the relevant findings made by the Strasbourg Court in its recent judgments concerning similar situations. The applicant also averred that the Ryazan FMS had based its conclusions on the information contained in one single and undated document, issued by the FMS, which was most probably outdated. The applicant further stressed that his expulsion had been initiated by the FSB after an unsuccessful attempt to extradite him. That authority had explicitly instructed the Ryazan FMS, in a number of letters, that the applicant, as a member of HT, a prohibited organisation, should be expelled from Russia and that they considered that granting him asylum would be “inappropriate” (нецелесообразный). 34.  By a decision of 8 June 2010 the Sovetskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s release. 35.  On 20 July 2010 the FMS dismissed the applicant’s complaint and upheld the Ryazan FMS decision of 5 May 2010, reiterating almost verbatim the text of the decision by the latter authority. 36.  On 19 August 2010 the applicant complained to the Basmanny District Court of Moscow about the FMS decision of 20 July 2010, reiterating the arguments raised in his complaint about the Ryazan FMS decision of 28 May 2010. He particularly emphasised that there was a real risk of him being subjected to ill-treatment, that the Uzbek authorities had already tortured him and that as a result of the torture he was suffering from vertebral compression fractures. He enclosed a medical certificate dated 16 June 2010 and stating that a tomography of his spine revealed “after‑effects of compression fractures of the 1, 2 and 5 vertebrae”. 37.  By a letter of 3 September 2010 the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) informed the applicant’s lawyer that it had carefully examined her client’s application for international protection. The examination had ascertained that the applicant was outside his country of nationality due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted by the authorities of his country for reasons of imputed political opinions and that, owing to that fear, he was unable to return to Uzbekistan and was eligible for international protection under the UNHCR mandate. 38.  On 10 November 2010 the Basmanny District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the migration authorities’ refusal to grant him asylum. The court noted that the applicant had failed to apply for asylum in due time after his arrival in Russia and had informed the authorities of his fears of religious persecution in Uzbekistan only after his arrest in administrative proceedings. It further pointed out that the applicant had failed to adduce convincing reasons confirming his fear of unlawful religious persecution, without providing any further details. The decision was silent on the applicant’s arguments concerning the risk of him being subjected to torture in the event of his return to his home country, as well as his reference to information on the widespread use of torture by law‑enforcement authorities, as contained in the reports enclosed with his complaint. 39.  The applicant appealed against the decision, reiterating the arguments raised in his previous complaints and stressing that the trial court had failed to examine his submissions concerning the risk of ill-treatment. 40.  On 22 March 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 10 November 2010. The court reasoned that the migration authorities had conducted a thorough check of the applicant’s allegations and had correctly dismissed them. The applicant’s submission that the previous decisions had disregarded his arguments concerning the individualised risk of persecution was not valid because he had applied for asylum only after having been arrested in administrative proceedings. The court noted that the applicant had failed to adduce facts which would confirm his fear of religious persecution, without providing any further details. 41.  On 1 April 2011 the applicant filed with the Ryazan FMS a request for temporary asylum, claiming that he would run a real risk of ill-treatment if expelled to Uzbekistan. The outcome of the proceedings is unclear.