5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in St Petersburg. 6.  On several occasions (in 1988, 1992, 1994 and 1999) the applicant was convicted in Uzbekistan of disorderly conduct and attempted escape. In the applicant’s submission, in 1988, 1992, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2003 and 2004, while in the hands of Uzbek officials, he was subjected to ill‑treatment. 7.  On 7 June 2004, in Uzbekistan, the applicant inflicted numerous cuts on himself and was placed in a hospital. He was discharged from the hospital on 16 June 2004. 8.  In February 2008 the applicant arrived in Russia to look for work. He was registered as a migrant in St Petersburg. 9.  On 28 March 2008 the Kumkurgan District Court of Uzbekistan ordered the applicant’s placement in custody under suspicion of having committed aggravated theft of cattle. 10.  On 10 April 2008 an Uzbek investigator placed the applicant’s name on a wanted list. 11.  On 27 April 2009 the applicant was arrested by Russian police at his place of residence in St Petersburg. 12.  On 25 May 2009 the Uzbek Prosecutor General’s Office requested the applicant’s extradition. On 4 June 2009 the request was received by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office. 13.  On 28 September 2009 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office decided to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan. 14.  On 12 October 2009 the applicant’s counsel lodged an appeal against the extradition order, arguing the following: proceedings concerning the applicant’s request for temporary asylum were still pending (see paragraphs 18‑21 below); the applicant’s extradition would entail a breach of Article 3 of the Convention because the Court had already found violations in the cases of Ismoilov and Others v. Russia and Muminov v. Russia involving extradition to Uzbekistan; according to independent international observers ill-treatment was widespread in the Uzbek prison system and fair trial guarantees were not respected. No reference was made to the applicant’s alleged previous experience while in detention in Uzbekistan. 15.  On 10 November 2009 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the extradition order. It reasoned, in particular, that the applicant’s references to possible ill-treatment in Uzbekistan had been unsubstantiated and that the applicant had not argued that he might be persecuted on racial, religious, social or political grounds. 16.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 10 November 2009, arguing that his submission that he would face ill-treatment in Uzbekistan had not been examined by the court. Again no reference was made to the applicant’s alleged previous experience while in detention in Uzbekistan. 17.  On 24 December 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decision of 10 November 2009. It reasoned as follows: the applicant had absconded from the Uzbek authorities; the decision to arrest the applicant had been taken by a competent Uzbek court; the applicant was not a Russian national; the Uzbek Prosecutor General’s Office had guaranteed that the applicant would not be extradited to a third State or punished for another crime, and that he would be free to leave Uzbekistan when he had served his sentence; there were no reasons to reject the extradition request; the applicant’s allegations that torture of detainees was a widespread practice in Uzbekistan had not been substantiated; the applicant had not proved that he might be persecuted on the grounds of race, religion, membership of a social group, political convictions or anything else. 18.  In July and September 2009 the applicant applied for asylum to the Federal Migration Service of St Petersburg Region (“the FMS”). In his application, dated 23 September 2009, he claimed that all detainees in Uzbekistan were kept in poor conditions. On 15 October 2009 he was interviewed by FMS officials. 19.  On 21 October 2009 the FMS dismissed the applicant’s request; he was notified of the decision on 23 October 2009. 20.  The applicant then applied for temporary asylum. On 24 December 2009 the FMS dismissed his request. 21.  On 10 February 2010 the applicant appealed against the FMS decision, arguing for the first time before the Russian authorities that he had been ill-treated in Uzbek prisons while serving his previous sentences. 22.  Following the applicant’s arrest on 27 April 2009 (see paragraph 11 above), on 28 April 2009 the prosecutor’s office of the Krasnogvardeyskiy District of St Petersburg (“the district prosecutor’s office”), relying on Article 61 of the Minsk Convention, ordered the applicant’s placement in custody pending extradition on the basis of the decision of 28 March 2008 by the Kumkurgan District Court of Uzbekistan (see paragraph 9 above). 23.  On 16 June 2009 the district prosecutor’s office, referring to Article 466 § 2 of the CCP, issued a new decision authorising the applicant’s placement in custody pending extradition on the basis of the Uzbek court decision of 28 March 2008. 24.  On 28 June 2009 the applicant complained to a court, referring to Decision no. 333-O-P of 1 March 2007 of the Constitutional Court and the Court’s case-law, that he had been unlawfully detained for more than two months and that the term of his detention had not been extended. 25.  On 24 August 2009 the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the district court”) examined the complaint about unlawfulness of detention. It reasoned that, pursuant to Article 466 § 2 of the CCP, a prosecutor could place a person in custody where a foreign court’s arrest warrant and a request for extradition existed. However, in the applicant’s case, the district prosecutor’s office had applied the preventive measure before the extradition request had been sent and thus had breached Article 466 § 2 of the CCP. At the same time, the second district prosecutor’s office’s decision to remand the applicant in custody had been taken after the extradition request had been received. The district court concluded that the district prosecutor’s office’s decision of 28 April 2009 was unlawful. Nonetheless, it refused to release the applicant, arguing that the decision of 16 June 2009 was compatible with domestic law and thus served as a legitimate ground for the applicant’s detention. It also noted that “[t]he provisions of the CCP do not establish terms for deciding on extradition issues and procedure for extension of the term of detention of persons in respect of which an extradition request has been received from a foreign State”. 26.  Both the applicant and the district prosecutor’s office appealed against the decision of 24 August 2009. 27.  On 19 October 2009 the St Petersburg City Court quashed the decision of 24 August 2009 for procedural defects and remitted the case for a fresh examination at the first level of jurisdiction. It also stated that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should remain unvaried, without citing any legal grounds for his detention or specifying its term. 28.  On 10 November 2009 the St Petersburg City Court, while upholding the extradition order, extended the applicant’s detention for three months, that is until 9 February 2010. 29.  On 8 December 2009 the district court discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaint that his detention was unlawful, for the reason that the St Petersburg City Court had extended the term of detention until 9 February 2010. 30.  On 24 December 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia, while dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the extradition request, touched upon the issue of lawfulness of the applicant’s detention in one sentence: “There are no reasons to doubt the lawfulness of Mr Elmuratov’s custodial detention pending his extradition”. 31.  On 29 January 2010 the district prosecutor’s office requested a court to extend the term of the applicant’s detention for two months. 32.  On 8 February 2010 the district court granted the prosecutor’s request in part. It reasoned that the applicant had been charged with very serious crimes, such as theft of cattle, and that Rule 39 of the Rules of Court had been applied in his case and concluded that there were no grounds for varying the preventive measure. The term of the applicant’s detention was extended until 9 April 2010. 33.  On 27 February 2010 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 8 December 2009, for the reason that the Supreme Court of Russia had ruled on 24 December 2009 that his detention pending extradition was lawful. 34.  On 18 March 2010 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 8 February 2010. 35.  On 6 April 2010 the district court extended the term of the applicant’s detention until 27 April 2010, for the reason that he had been charged with serious crimes, did not have a permanent place of residence and thus could abscond or continue his criminal activities. 36.  On 27 April 2010 the district prosecutor’s office ordered the applicant’s release from custody, for the reason that the maximum period of his detention had expired.