6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Novosibirsk. 7.  The applicant is an ethnic Uzbek, who lived in Osh, Kyrgyzstan, prior to his arrival in Russia. 8.  Since 2001 the applicant has regularly travelled to Russia and South Korea for work-related purposes. In 2003 the applicant’s brother‑in‑law and his Uzbek friends began living in the applicant’s flat. It appears that criminal proceedings were initiated in Kyrgyzstan against the applicant’s brother-in-law, who was suspected of being a member of an armed gang. In the meanwhile, the applicant left Kyrgyzstan for South Korea, passing through Uzbekistan. He returned to Kyrgyzstan in 2005 and was questioned as a witness in the criminal proceedings brought against his brother-in-law. In 2006 the latter was killed and the armed gang dismantled. 9.  In November 2009 the applicant arrived in Novosibirsk, Russia, and applied to the department of the Federal Migration Service (“FMS”) in the Novosibirsk Region (“the regional FMS”) for Russian citizenship. Shortly thereafter he returned to Kyrgyzstan for family matters. In March 2010 the applicant was allegedly informed by the FMS that he had received Russian citizenship; however later this information had not been confirmed (see below). On 27 June 2010 the applicant returned to Novosibirsk. 10.  On 8 December 2006 the investigation department of the National Security Service of Uzbekistan (“the investigation department”) brought criminal proceedings against the applicant under Articles 159-1 (attempting to overthrow the constitutional order), 242-1 (setting up a criminal gang) and 244-2(1) (being a member of a religious extremist, separatist or other banned organisation) of the Uzbek Criminal Code (“the UCC”). The applicant was, in particular, suspected of setting up an extremist organisation, Kyrgyz Community (kirgiz zhamoati), in Novosibirsk, providing its members with accommodation and money, catering for them and facilitating their encounters with members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan with a view to overthrowing the constitutional order in Uzbekistan. 11.  On 19 January 2007 the investigation department issued two indictments in respect of the applicant. The documents differed in several aspects, such as accomplices’ names, the name of the criminal gang in which the applicant had been involved and the degree of his personal involvement. One of the documents indicted the applicant under Article 159-3 of the UCC while the other one indicted him under Article 159-3 (a) and (b) of the UCC. Furthermore, one of the documents was neither signed by the head of the investigation department nor sealed by the Prosecutor’s Office for the Novosibirsk Region. 12.  On 19 January 2007 the investigation department indicted the applicant on the above-mentioned charges in absentia, ordered his detention and put his name on a wanted list. 13.  On 28 June 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police in Novosibirsk as a person wanted by the Uzbek authorities (see below). 14.  On 23 July 2010 the Uzbekistan Prosecutor General’s Office requested that its Russian counterpart extradite the applicant on criminal charges under Articles 159-3 (a) and (b), 242-1 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 assured their Russian counterparts that: the applicant would not be extradited to a third country without the consent of the Russian Federation; no further criminal proceedings would be initiated against him; he would not be tried or punished for an offence which had not been the subject of the extradition request; and he would be able to leave Uzbekistan once the court proceedings had concluded and the punishment had been served. 15.  It appears that, prior to that date, the Kyrgyz authorities had rejected a similar extradition request by the Uzbekistan Prosecutor General’s Office. 16.  On 30 September 2010 a Deputy Prosecutor General granted the extradition request. He referred to the charges brought against the applicant, according to which in 2003 he had set up Kyrgyz Community, a criminal gang, in Novosibirsk with the aim of overthrowing the existing Uzbek regime by creating an alternative Islamic State, disseminated radical Islamic ideology and subversive materials, and provided accommodation and financial assistance to gang members. The prosecutor decided to extradite the applicant on the basis of the charges of setting up a criminal group and being involved in it (Article 210-1 of the Russian Criminal Code (“the RCC”)) and attempting to overthrow the existing regime and constitutional order (Article 278 of the RCC). He refused his extradition under Article 244‑2 (1) because Kyrgyz Community was not banned in Russia. The prosecutor further noted that the statute of limitations for those offences had not expired, either in Russia or in Uzbekistan. The prosecutor pointed out that, in line with the Minsk Convention and the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, differences in the classification of the offences and their elements under Russian and Uzbek criminal law were not a sufficient basis to refuse extradition. Lastly, the prosecutor referred to information provided by the FMS to the effect that the applicant was a Kyrgyz national who had not applied for Russian citizenship. The prosecutor concluded that there were no obstacles to his extradition to Uzbekistan. 17.  On 8 October 2010 the applicant was apprised of the above decision and appealed against it, citing fear of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan on political charges. The applicant and his lawyer underlined the poor human‑rights situation in Uzbekistan, referring to a number of international reports, media publications and case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. They also alleged that the charges against the applicant were made-up, pointing out the inconsistencies in the indictments (see above). 18.  On 29 November 2010 the Novosibirsk Regional Court (“the regional court”) heard the applicant’s case. The applicant’s lawyer underlined that the applicant had never been prosecuted in Russia for the crimes allegedly committed on its territory. 19.  On 8 December 2010 the regional court found the extradition decision lawful and rejected the applicant’s appeal. The court established that the applicant had been aware of the charges brought against him and had therefore gone into hiding in Kyrgyzstan and applied for Russian citizenship. The Kyrgyz authorities had refused to extradite him to Uzbekistan on the same charges. According to the FMS, the applicant was a Kyrgyz citizen who had not acquired Russian citizenship. The court rejected the applicant’s request for refugee status as irrelevant because it had been introduced after his arrest in Russia (see below). Lastly, the court relied on the guarantees issued by the Uzbek Prosecutor General’s Office that the applicant would be treated in strict compliance with internal procedural norms and would not be persecuted on political grounds. As to the inconsistencies in the indictments, the court pointed out that they only concerned matters of style and the description of the events and were thus of a technical nature, which could not prevent the court from reaching a conclusion as to the applicant’s indictment. Consequently, the court rejected the applicant’s and his lawyer’s allegation of ill-treatment in the event of extradition as unsubstantiated. The court did not address the issue raised by the applicant’s lawyer at the hearing on 29 November 2010. 20.  On 14 December 2010 the applicant’s lawyer appealed. She stressed that the regional court had failed to analyse the applicant’s ill‑treatment argument, relying solely on the guarantees issued by the Uzbek authorities. She further pointed out that the regional court had not considered the fact that the applicant had never been indicted in Russia for the crimes allegedly committed there. 21.  On 23 December 2010 a district prosecutor’s office in Novosibirsk informed the applicant’s lawyer that the Russian authorities intended to extradite the applicant on 28 December 2010. 22.  On 24 December 2010 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Court to apply Rule 39 in respect of the applicant. On the same date the Court granted the lawyer’s request and advised the Government accordingly. 23.  On 31 December 2010 the Government informed the Court that the applicant would not be extradited until further notice. 24.  On 1 February 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”) quashed the decision of 8 December 2010, finding in particular that the inconsistencies relied upon by the applicant were fundamental to the classification of his actions. The court also drew attention to the potential differences in qualification of the criminal acts imputed to the applicant in Uzbekistan and those punishable under Russian law. The court remitted the case to the regional court for fresh consideration and extended the applicant’s detention pending extradition until 1 March 2011. 25.  On 31 January 2011 the Uzbek Prosecutor General’s Office sent a letter to the Deputy Prosecutor General. It explained that the charges against the applicant had been brought under Articles 159-3 (a) and (b) of the UCC and contained further assurances to the effect that the Russian Federation’s Consular staff in Uzbekistan would be able to visit the applicant in detention. 26.  On 23 March 2011 the regional court reversed the Deputy Prosecutor General’s decision of 30 September 2010 to extradite the applicant and ordered his release. The court noted the difference between the two indictments and concluded that this and other procedural deficiencies did not allow the authorities to understand the exact nature of charges against the applicant, as well as the dates of opening and the case file numbers of the criminal proceedings against him. The court noted differences between the formulations of criminal acts under the UCC and the corresponding Russian criminal law. Finally, the court referred to the European Court’s previous judgments finding violations of Article 3 in cases of extradition to Uzbekistan and the insufficiency of diplomatic assurances in such situations. 27.  On 18 May 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 23 March 2011 on appeal. It, too, stressed the differences between the qualification of criminal acts under Russian and Uzbek criminal law and concluded that the charges as presented in the indictments could not form a valid basis for extraditing the applicant. 28.  On 15 August 2011 the Deputy Prosecutor General informed his Uzbek counterpart about the above court decisions, as well as about the decision of the regional FMS to grant the applicant temporary asylum in Russia (see below). In view of these developments, as well as the continued application of the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the applicant’s extradition to Uzbekistan was no longer possible under Russian law. 29.  On 28 June 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police in Novosibirsk as a person wanted by the Uzbek authorities. He was placed in detention facility IZ-54/1, where he was held until his release on 23 March 2011 (see below). 30.  On 30 June 2010 the Central District Court of Novosibirsk (“the district court”) ordered the applicant’s detention with a view to extradition to Uzbekistan. 31.  On 9 August 2010 the district court extended the applicant’s detention pending extradition until 28 December 2010. 32.  The applicant did not appeal against the decisions of 30 June and 9 August 2010. 33.  On 27 December 2010 the district court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 March 2011. 34.  On 29 December 2010 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a statement of appeal against the above decision. 35.  On 14 January 2011 the district court acknowledged receipt of the statement of appeal and informed the applicant’s lawyer that it would be forwarded to the regional court for consideration on 21 January 2011. 36.  On 26 January 2011 the regional court upheld the decision of 29 December 2010 on appeal. The court rejected the lawyer’s arguments that the nature of the charges brought against the applicant in Uzbekistan had not been defined and that he had not been prosecuted for the crimes allegedly committed in Russia. The court found that the decision of 27 December 2010 had contained sufficient and weighty reasons for the extension of the detention order to nine months. 37.  On 23 March 2011 in the course of proceedings related to the applicant’s extradition the regional court ordered the applicant’s immediate release. This decision became final on 18 May 2011 (see paragraphs 26 and 27 above). 38.  On 29 June 2010 the regional FMS rejected the applicant’s application for Russian citizenship on the grounds that he was being prosecuted by the competent authorities of another State. 39.  On 27 October 2010 the applicant sought refugee status before the regional FMS. He submitted that the Uzbek authorities had been prosecuting him on “made-up” charges linked to his alleged political and religious sympathies and that he could not seek effective protection in Kyrgyzstan. On 21 March 2011 the regional FMS rejected the applicant’s claim. 40.  On 24 March 2011 the applicant lodged a request to be granted temporary asylum. On 21 June 2011 the regional FMS concluded that the applicant’s rights under Articles 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights might be infringed if he was to return to Kyrgyzstan or Uzbekistan. 41.  On 28 July 2011 the General Prosecutor’s Office asked the FMS for the Russian Federation to assess the lawfulness of the decision of the regional FMS. On 5 August 2011 the FMS for the Russian Federation confirmed the decision to grant the applicant temporary asylum.