7.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is currently serving a term of imprisonment in Uzbekistan. 8.  In 1999-2000 the applicant started studying Islam and attending a mosque in the town of Urgut, Uzbekistan. 9.  On an unspecified date in 2000 a local police officer summoned the applicant to the police station and questioned him extensively on his reasons for attending the mosque. The police officer entered the applicant’s name in a special book. After the conversation, the applicant stopped going to the mosque as he was afraid. 10.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant arrived in Russia to look for work. He settled in St Petersburg, where his wife and minor daughter joined him in 2006. According to the applicant, in St Petersburg he lived in a community of Uzbek migrants, taking up temporary jobs such as street cleaner, and so his command of Russian remained poor. 11.  On 7 May 2010 an investigator of the Urgut branch of the National Security Service (“the Urgut NSS”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with his presumed participation in Hizb ut‑Tahrir (“HT”), a religious organisation recognised as extremist and banned in Uzbekistan (Article 159 § 1 of the Uzbek Criminal Code (“the UCC”)). The applicant was suspected of having participated, in the period between 2001 and 2005, in the above-mentioned organisation by creating secret cells for it at the place of his residence and organising the meetings of its members with a view to creating an “Islamic Caliphate”. 12.  On 21 May 2010 the Samarkand department of the National Security Service (“the Samarkand NSS”) charged the applicant, in connection with his presumed membership of HT, with public appeals to overthrow the constitutional order of Uzbekistan committed as part of an organised group (Article 159 § 3 (a) of the UCC), preparation and dissemination of extremist materials constituting a threat to national security and public order (Article 244 § 3 of the UCC) and participation in an extremist organisation (Article 244 § 1 of the UCC). The decision stated, among other things, that, after joining HT, the applicant had recruited new members for the organisation, had organised meetings for them, at which he had called for the seizure of State power, and had stored and disseminated the organisation’s extremist materials. 13.  On 21 May 2010 the Samarkand City Court ordered the applicant’s placement in custody. On the same day the applicant’s name was put on a wanted list. 14.  On 14 July 2010 the applicant was arrested in St Petersburg. His arrest record of the same date stated that he had been arrested in accordance with the Minsk Convention as a person who was on an international wanted list. The arrest record contained the following pre-typed statement, signed by the applicant:
“I have been informed of the receipt of the competent foreign authority’s notification that they are sending an extradition request, a detention [order] or a final judgment convicting [me] (to be filled in if the documents mentioned have been received at the time of the compilation of the record)”. 15.  The arrest record also contained the following statement, signed by the applicant: ”Concerning [his] arrest [the applicant] stated: as to the reasons why [I am] being sought in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan [I] don’t know anything”. 16.  On 15 July 2010 the applicant was interviewed by the acting prosecutor of the Frunzenskiy District of St Petersburg (“the district prosecutor”). Following the interview, the district prosecutor compiled two documents entitled “express interview record of a person arrested under an international warrant” (лист экспресс-опроса задержанного по межгосударственному розыску) and an “explanation” (объяснение). Both documents were signed by the applicant. 17.  The interview record contained pre-typed fields, with information to be filled in, such as the applicant’s name, date and place of birth, data concerning his identity documents, the authority which had arrested him in Russia, and whether he had applied for political asylum or was in possession of information relating to State secrets. The document did not contain any description of the charges in connection with which the applicant was wanted; it only referred to the Articles of the UCC, as follows:
“... 8. Date of initiation of search, Article: 01.06.2010, circular 2010/316, Article 159 § 3 (a), Article 244-I § 3 (a), Article 244-2 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan.
... 16. Statement of the detained, which State he considers himself to be a national of, his account of the reasons for his criminal prosecution: [the applicant] considers himself a citizen of Uzbekistan, he learnt that he is being sought by the Uzbek law‑enforcement authorities at the time of his arrest.” 18.  The “explanation” of 15 July 2010 started with the pre-typed statement: “I have a good command of Russian and do not need the services of an interpreter”, signed by the applicant. It continued with the information that the applicant had arrived in Russia in 2005 to work, had not previously applied for registration or asylum and that he had learnt that he was wanted by the Uzbek authorities at the time of his arrest on 14 July 2010. The explanation did not contain any reference to the charges on which the applicant was wanted. 19.  On 15 July 2010 the district prosecutor ordered the applicant’s placement in custody with reference to Article 61 of the Minsk Convention. The decision stated that the applicant was wanted by the Uzbek authorities “for having committed crimes under Articles 159 § 3 (a), 244-I § 3 (a), and 244-2 of the Uzbekistan Criminal Code”, without providing any further information in that regard. It further noted that on 14 July 2010 the Uzbek authorities had confirmed their intention to request the applicant’s extradition and had forwarded the Samarkand City Court’s detention order in respect of the applicant. No time-limits for the applicant’s detention were set in the decision and the applicant was not provided with a copy of it. 20.  On 16 August 2010 the Russian General Prosecutor’s Office (“the Russian GPO”) received the request by their Uzbek counterpart for the applicant’s extradition (see paragraph 33 below). 21.  On 18 August 2010 the applicant appointed a lawyer, Mrs K., to represent him in the domestic proceedings, and it appears that she had access to him on the same date. 22.  On 24 August 2010 the district prosecutor again ordered the applicant’s detention. He referred to the extradition request received from the Uzbek authorities, and the Uzbek court’s detention order and relied on Article 466 § 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”). The applicant was not provided with a copy of that decision. 23.  On 15 September 2010 the applicant, through his lawyer, complained to the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”) under Article 125 of the CCrP that his detention was unlawful, and requested to be released. He submitted that he had a poor command of Russian, except for some basic communication, that he had not been explained, in a language he understood, the reasons for his arrest and placement in custody and accusations against him, and that he had signed the arrest and interview records, as well as the “explanation”, without understanding their meaning, under stress, and on the instructions of the prosecutor, who had allegedly told him that they would “just talk” and that he then would invite an interpreter for him. The applicant further complained that the detention orders of 15 July and 24 August had been unlawful. As regards the former, it had not set any time-limits for the detention and referred only to Article 61 of the Minsk Convention. The applicant had not been provided with a copy of that detention order or a translation of it into Uzbek. The second decision had ordered the applicant’s detention de novo, without setting any time-limits for it, which contradicted decision no. 101-O of the Constitutional Court. None of the detention orders set out the procedure for challenging them before the courts. 24.  On 15 September 2010 the district prosecutor requested the District Court to extend the applicant’s detention until 15 January 2011. On the same date the applicant’s lawyer requested the District Court to secure, before examining the extension request, the translation into Uzbek of the documents concerning the applicant’s detention and extradition, including the detention orders of 15 July and 24 August 2010 and the documents concerning his criminal prosecution in Uzbekistan and the Uzbek court’s detention order, and to give him time to acquaint himself with those documents. It appears that her request was turned down. 25.  By a decision of 15 September 2010 the District Court granted the prosecutor’s request and extended the applicant’s detention until 15 January 2011. It can be seen from the decision and the hearing record that an interpreter for the applicant participated in the hearing. As regards the applicant’s argument that he had not been made aware of the reasons for his arrest and detention, the District Court noted that in his explanation of 15 July 2010 the applicant had stated that he did not need the services of an interpreter. 26.  On 17 September 2010 the District Court returned to the applicant’s lawyer her complaint of 15 September 2010 on the ground that she had failed to enclose a representation mandate (ордер). She appealed against the decision of 17 September 2010 and on 26 October 2010 the District Court informed her that her appeal would be examined by the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”) and that she would be advised of the hearing date by that court. 27.  On 18 September 2010 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the detention order of 15 September 2010 to the City Court and on 18 October 2010 the District Court received an additional appeal statement from her. In those appeal statements the applicant’s lawyer reiterated that the authorities had failed to inform her client of the reasons for his arrest and the charges against him, as had been stated in her complaint under Article 125 of the CCrP of 15 September 2010. She also stressed that the applicant’s poor command of Russian had been recognised by the District Court, which had considered it necessary to secure an interpreter’s presence at the hearing of 15 September 2010. 28.  On 10 November 2010 the City Court set aside the decision of 15 September 2010. The case was examined with the participation of an interpreter for the applicant. The court found that at the time of his arrest on 14 July 2010 the applicant had not been advised of his right to an interpreter and a lawyer. Moreover, the District Court had recognised at the hearing of 15 September 2010 that the applicant’s command of Russian was poor and had appointed an interpreter for him. By dismissing, without sufficient reasons, the applicant’s request to have access to the case-file materials with the participation of an interpreter, the District Court had breached his right to state his case in court. By the same decision the court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2010. 29.  On 22 November 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 January 2011. The case was examined in the presence of an interpreter. 30.  On 9 December 2010 the applicant retracted his appeal against the decision of 17 September 2010, considering that it was devoid of purpose and could not lead to his release because on 22 November 2010 the District Court had already authorised his detention until 15 January 2011. 31.  On 12 January 2011 the City Court upheld the decision of 22 November 2010 on appeal and on 14 January 2011 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 April 2011. 32.  On 14 April 2011 the St Petersburg City Court ordered the applicant’s release from custody owing to the fact that it had set aside the decision to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan (see below). 33.  On 16 August 2010 the Russian GPO received their Uzbek counterpart’s request for the applicant’s extradition. The document also stated, among other things, that without Russia’s consent the applicant would not be extradited to a third-party State, or be prosecuted or punished for offences committed before extradition and not mentioned in the extradition request, and that he would be free to leave Uzbekistan after serving his sentence. The request further stated that he would be provided with medical assistance, if necessary, and secured the right to a fair trial, and that his criminal prosecution was not discriminatory. Lastly, the document mentioned that the Uzbek legislation prohibited torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and that Uzbekistan had abolished the death penalty. 34.  On 5 September 2010 the applicant’s lawyer, K., informed the prosecuting authorities that she was representing the applicant in the extradition proceedings and requested to be informed if any decisions concerning the applicant’s extradition had been taken. 35.  On 9 September 2010 a deputy Prosecutor General decided to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan. The prosecutor’s decision enumerated the charges against the applicant and stated that his actions were punishable under Russian criminal law. The extradition order was granted in respect of actions aimed at the overthrow of the constitutional order, public appeals inciting extremist activities and participation in an organisation banned by a court decision owing to its extremist activities, which were proscribed by Russian criminal law. Lastly, it noted that no reasons had been established which precluded the applicant’s extradition to Uzbekistan. In the applicant’s submission, he was not informed of that decision. 36.  On 30 September 2010 the applicant’s lawyer renewed her request to the Russian GPO to be informed whether any decisions had been issued in respect of her client in the extradition proceedings. 37.  On 15 October 2010 the Russian GPO informed K. that on 9 September 2010 it had decided to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan and that since the latter had not made use of his right to challenge it in the courts, the order had become final. However, his extradition had been stayed owing to his application for asylum lodged on 1 October 2010 (see below). 38.  On 18 October 2010 the applicant complained about the extradition order before the St Petersburg City Court, submitting that neither he himself nor his lawyer had been furnished with a copy of the extradition order, and requesting that the time-limits for appealing against it be reinstated. With reference to reports by UN bodies, NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, and the judgments of the European Court in the cases of Ismoilov, Muminov, Yuldashev and Karimov v. Russia he argued that he ran a real risk of being exposed to ill-treatment in case of his extradition to Uzbekistan. He also argued that the legal classification of his acts by the Russian GPO under the Russian criminal law had been incorrect and that the limitation period for his criminal prosecution had expired. 39.  On 19 November 2010 the President of the First Section granted the applicant’s request for an interim measure and indicated to the Russian Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that they should not extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan until further notice. The Court’s letter of the same date, addressed to both parties, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“On 19 November 2010 the President of the Section to which the case has been allocated decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to your Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited to Uzbekistan until further notice.
The parties’ attention is drawn to the fact that failure of a Contracting State to comply with a measure indicated under Rule 39 may entail a breach of Article 34 of the Convention. In this connection, reference is made to paragraphs 128 and 129 of the Grand Chamber judgment of 4 February 2005 in the case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (applications nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99) as well as point 5 of the operative part.” 40.  On 26 November 2010 the City Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the extradition order. As regards the risk of ill-treatment, the court considered that the applicant’s reference to reports from various international actors, as well as judgments of the European Court which had not become final, was not indicative of the existence of such a risk for the applicant personally, and that his submissions in that regard were speculative and “not objectively confirmed”. It also noted that in issuing the decision to extradite the applicant the Russian GPO had taken into account their Uzbek counterpart’s assurances that he would not be subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3. 41.  The applicant appealed against the decision, reiterating that, as a person accused of participation in a proscribed religious and extremist organisation and of crimes against State security, he ran an increased risk of ill-treatment and torture in case of his extradition. In this connection, he relied on reports from various international organisations, which specifically pointed out that individuals accused of membership of HT were particularly exposed to a risk of torture. He also referred to the case-law of the European Court mentioned in his previous complaint to the City Court. He further asserted that the assurances provided by the Uzbek authorities were unreliable and insufficient, and averred that the Russian GPO had given an incorrect legal classification of the offences imputed to him by the Uzbek authorities under the Russian criminal law, and that his criminal prosecution had become time-barred under Russian law. 42.  On 28 February 2011 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”) set aside the decision of 26 November 2011 and instructed the first-instance court to verify the applicant’s allegations concerning the legal classification of his acts under the Russian criminal law and the expiry of the limitation periods for his criminal prosecution. 43.  On 14 April 2011 the City Court set aside the extradition order in respect of the applicant, finding that the Russian GPO’s legal classification of his acts under the Russian criminal law was incorrect and that his criminal prosecution had become time-barred. By the same decision it ordered the applicant’s release. 44.  On 8 June 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the Russian GPO against the decision of 14 April 2011, endorsing the reasoning of the City Court. The Supreme Court also noted that in taking its decision it had taken into account the conclusions of the European Court made in a number of similar cases to the effect that ill-treatment of detainees in Uzbekistan constituted a serious problem and that the guarantees of the Uzbek authorities were not sufficient to dispel the risk of such treatment. 45.  On 1 October 2010 the applicant filed an application for asylum with the St Petersburg branch of the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”). 46.  By a telegram of 4 October 2010 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Russian GPO that her client had lodged an asylum application. 47.  On 11 November 2010 an official of the St Petersburg branch of the FMS interviewed the applicant in connection with his asylum application. In the applicant’s submission, he informed the official that he was persecuted in his home country on account of his religious beliefs. 48.  On 17 November 2010 the St Petersburg branch of the FMS notified the applicant that on 16 November 2010 it had discontinued its examination of his asylum application with reference to Article 2 § 1 of the Refugees Act (commission by the asylum seeker of serious non-political crimes in his home country). 49.  On 19 November 2010 the applicant appealed to the FMS against the refusal to examine his application for asylum on the merits. Relying on reports by various international organisations, he submitted that, as a person accused of membership of HT, he belonged to an identifiable group in respect of which credible sources had reported an increased risk of ill‑treatment by the Uzbek authorities. He also referred to the European Court’s findings in the Muminov case and other judgments concerning the extradition or expulsion to Uzbekistan of presumed members of HT. He therefore claimed that he was persecuted by the Uzbek authorities on account of the political and religious opinions imputed to him and stressed that the interviewing officer had limited his questioning to the circumstances of his arrival in Russia and questions as to whether he had a valid registration or a work permit, and had disregarded his submission that he had become a refugee sur place because he had become aware of his criminal prosecution in Uzbekistan only after his arrest and detention in Russia. 50.  By a telegram of 19 November 2010 the applicant’s lawyer notified the Russian GPO that her client had lodged an appeal against the refusal to consider his application for asylum. 51.  On 12 January 2011 the applicant’s lawyer supplemented her client’s complaint to the FMS of 19 November 2010 with further extensive references to reports by the UN Committee against Torture, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and information from the Russian Ministry of the Foreign Affairs. She also extensively cited the judgments of the European Court in the cases of Muminov, Ismailov and Others, Yuldashev, Abdulazhon Isakov and Karimov v. Russia. 52.  On 18 February 2011 the FMS set aside the decision of 16 November 2010 and informed the applicant that his request for asylum would be examined on the merits. 53.  On 17 March 2011 the St Petersburg branch of the FMS dismissed the applicant’s request for refugee status. It reasoned that he had applied for asylum only two and a half months after his arrest with a view to extradition and that he had breached the residence regulations and submitted false information in that regard, which indicated that the charges levelled against him in Uzbekistan were not without foundation. Moreover, he was wanted by the Uzbek authorities on suspicion of participation in HT, which had been banned as an extremist organisation by the Russian Supreme Court. The decision did not mention the applicant’s arguments concerning the risk of ill-treatment. 54.  The applicant had access to a copy of that decision on 8 June 2011, following which he challenged it before the FMS. In his complaint the applicant reiterated his arguments concerning the risk of ill-treatment, with reference to materials stemming from international governmental and non‑governmental organisations and the judgments of the European Court. In particular, he stressed that he was wanted by the Uzbek authorities on account of imputed political and religious beliefs and extremist activities and thus belonged to an identifiable group particularly targeted by the authorities and ran an increased risk of ill-treatment. He also submitted that he had left Uzbekistan in 2005 of his own free will to look for a job and had at that time not been aware of his criminal prosecution, which had been initiated only in 2010. The applicant stressed that he had become aware of the substance of the accusations against him only on 29 September 2010, when some of the documents concerning the charges against him had been translated into Uzbek, and that immediately after that he had applied for refugee status. 55.  In the applicant’s submission, for the duration of the examination of his appeal against the decision of 17 March 2011 the St Petersburg branch of the FMS had issued him with a residence registration [свидетельство о регистрации] attesting to the lawfulness of his stay in Russia. The registration address given in the document was that of the St Petersburg branch of the FMS. That address had been used in the notarially certified authority form the applicant issued for his lawyer, K. 56.  On 15 July 2011 the FMS dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the decision of 17 March 2011. It noted that, according to information from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the human rights situation in Uzbekistan was “ambiguous”. Whilst the country had ratified all major UN instruments, in 2000-2001 the Uzbek authorities had arrested hundreds of followers of HT on suspicion of their participation in several explosions in Tashkent. Moreover, the Uzbek authorities considered that members of HT had actively participated in the Andijan events of 2005. It further cited the Ministry as stating that “with a view to securing internal stability the leadership of Uzbekistan is conducting a strict policy of control over attitudes and mind frames in all segments of Uzbek society, and of suppression of all terrorist and fundamentalist religious threats, backed up by the security forces and the judicial system”. The FMS went on to note that it endorsed the findings of its regional branch as to the absence of any circumstances indicating that the applicant would be unlawfully persecuted in Uzbekistan and pointed out that he had resided unlawfully in Russia after his arrival because his registration and work permits had been forged. The decision was silent on the applicant’s arguments concerning the risk of ill‑treatment in case of his return to his home country. 57.  On 9 August 2011 officials of the St Petersburg branch of the FMS seized the applicant’s residence registration document. On the same date the applicant requested them to issue him with a residence registration for the address at which he actually resided in St Petersburg, submitting that he would challenge the refusals to grant him asylum in the courts and that he would need the impugned document in order to do so. According to the applicant, his request received no reply. On the same date he complained about the refusals of the migration authorities to grant him asylum (decisions of 17 March and 15 July 2011) to the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg, giving his actual address of residence. 58.  On 24 August 2011 the Frunzenskiy District Court refused to entertain the applicant’s complaint on the ground that the address given in his lawyer’s authority form and that indicated by the applicant differed and that the applicant had failed to prove that he was registered at the actual address indicated by him. 59.  On 10 September 2011 the applicant complained about the decisions refusing to grant him asylum to the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the Dzerzhinskiy District Court“). He reiterated the arguments he had raised before the migration authorities, including his submissions concerning the risk of ill-treatment, and averred that both migration authorities in dismissing his asylum application had disregarded his detailed submissions on that matter, supported with references to European Court judgments and materials from international organisations. 60.  On 25 November 2011 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It noted that, according to Article 10 § 3 of the Refugees Act, an asylum seeker was to lodge a complaint about a migration authority’s decision (a) within one month of receiving written notification of such decision, or within a month of having lodged a complaint, should he receive no written reply to it, or (b) within three months of learning of the refusal to grant him asylum. As regards the decision of 17 March 2011, the court found that the applicant had received written notification of it on 21 March 2011 and had obtained a copy of the decision not later than 8 June 2011, whilst he had lodged his complaint with the court on 10 September 2011. Accordingly, he had missed the time-limits for challenging the impugned decision before a court. Moreover, the applicant had made use of his right to challenge the decision of 17 March 2011 before the FMS. As to the decision of the FMS dated 15 July 2011, the Dzerzhinskiy District Court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint in that part on the ground that he had no valid registration in St Petersburg and that he had, accordingly, to lodge his complaint with the court having territorial jurisdiction over the FMS, which was located in Moscow. 61.  On 5 December 2011 the applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision to the St Petersburg City Court. He furnished the Court with a copy of his appeal statement and a certificate of posting showing that it was despatched to the City Court on that date. 62.  At 7 a.m. on 21 December 2011 several individuals who introduced themselves as police officers and officials of the St Petersburg branch of the FMS burst into the flat occupied by the applicant and his family on the pretext of an identity check. The applicant immediately called his lawyer, K., and switched his mobile to conference call mode so as to enable her to participate in the conversation. The applicant and K. informed the intruders that proceedings concerning his application for refugee status were pending before the appellate court and the applicant showed them a stamped copy of his appeal statement. They also informed them that he could not be returned to Uzbekistan because the Court had applied Rule 39 in his case, which was pending before it. The applicant showed the officers a copy of the Court’s letter. The applicant’s lawyer also informed the officers that she was on her way to the flat, but at that moment the connection was cut. Despite these explanations, the applicant was handcuffed, placed in a car and taken to an unknown destination. His relatives were not allowed to follow him. 63.  Upon the applicant’s lawyer’s advice, the applicant’s wife and brother immediately went to search for the applicant at several police stations and the FMS premises in the Frunzenskiy District of St Petersburg, and K. herself contacted the St Petersburg immigration detention centres but their attempts produced no results. K. also informed the head of the foundation “Right to Asylum”, Ms E.Z., and the local office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about the applicant’s disappearance. 64.  At about 3 p.m. on the same day, the applicant’s wife informed K. that the applicant had called her from a third person’s mobile phone and had told her that he was at the premises of the St Petersburg branch of FMS, following which the phone had been taken from him and switched off and she had been unable to reach him. At about 3.10 p.m. K. called the department for refugees and forced migrants of the St Petersburg branch of the FMS, informed them of the applicant’s situation and stressed that she was looking for him. Her interlocutor, who introduced himself as E.Sh., replied that he had no information regarding the applicant, the reasons for his arrest or his whereabouts. 65.  At about 8 p.m. K. and the applicant’s wife complained to the investigation department of the Frunzenskiy District of St Petersburg about the applicant’s disappearance but the latter authority refused to follow up on their complaint. 66.  At about 8.40 p.m. on the same day, K. was informed that a man who was unknown to the applicant’s family had recently contacted the applicant’s relatives and told them that the applicant was at Pulkovo airport and that he would be soon put on a plane to Samarkand, Uzbekistan. The man stated that the applicant had asked him to call his relatives because the applicant “was being guarded by two Interpol officers” who would not allow him to make any phone calls. K. conveyed that information to Ms E.Z. and the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and called the duty unit of the North-Western transport prosecutor’s office, which was responsible for Pulkovo airport, where she spoke to officer A.A. She informed him of the applicant’s situation and requested him to take urgent steps to prevent her client’s unlawful transfer to Uzbekistan. A.A. promised her that he would report the situation to his superiors. 67.  At about 9.30 p.m. K. was informed that the applicant had called his relatives from an unknown mobile number and had swiftly told them that he was on the plane, where he had been requested to sign some papers but had refused, and that before his transfer to the airport he had been held at the premises of the department for refugees and forced migrants of the St Petersburg branch of the FMS. The connection had suddenly been cut. 68.  According to a written statement by Ms E.Z., between 8.40 p.m. and 8.50 p.m. on 21 December 2011 K. informed her that the applicant had been taken to Pulkovo airport to be transferred to Uzbekistan. Ms E.Z. then immediately conveyed that information to Ms T.K., head of the criminal law department of the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and requested the latter to take urgent measures to prevent the applicant’s transfer. At about 9.40 p.m. T.K. informed Ms E.Z. that she had taken all possible steps to notify the competent authorities, including the Russian GPO, with a view to preventing the applicant’s forced transfer; however, she was not sure, given the late hour, whether this would produce any results. Meanwhile, Ms E.Z. informed the Office of the Ombudsman of Russia of the risk of the applicant’s forced transfer to Uzbekistan. At 10 p.m. Ms E.Z. contacted the transport prosecutor’s office responsible for Pulkovo airport. The on-duty officer, Mr A.A., confirmed to Ms E.Z. that the applicant’s lawyer K. had already informed him about the risk of the applicant’s forced transfer to Uzbekistan. In reply to Ms E.Z.’s request that urgent steps be taken to prevent the transfer, he informed her that he had sent an officer to verify whether the applicant had been checked in for the flight, to which Ms E.Z. immediately replied that the applicant must already be on the plane and that his unlawful transfer to Uzbekistan would be in breach of the international obligations of the Russian Federation. However, instead of taking any steps, A.A. started asking her various questions, such as whether the applicant had bought a ticket for the flight, whether a criminal case had been opened into his abduction, and so on. In her statement Ms E.Z. further submitted that immediately after her call A.A. was contacted by the Office of the Ombudsman of Russia, whose officials yet again explained to him the legal consequences of the applicant’s transfer to Uzbekistan. At 10.40 p.m. Ms E.Z. again contacted A.A. to ask him whether the applicant had been taken off the flight, to which A.A. replied in the negative. He further told her that the applicant’s name was not among the persons who had bought tickets for the flight or those who had been checked in for it and that no check had been conducted inside the plane because the airstairs had already been removed from it. A.A. disregarded Ms E.Z.’s remarks that to search for the applicant in the list of checked-in passengers was useless because in several previous cases individuals, such as Mr Abdulkhakov and Mr Dzhurayev, had been unlawfully transferred from Russia without being formally checked in. 69.  On 21 December 2011 the head of the St Petersburg branch of the FMS issued a decision on the applicant’s deportation with reference to Articles 10 § 5 and 13 § 2 of the Refugees Act. The decision stated that on 25 November 2011 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court had dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the migration authorities’ refusals to grant him asylum, that that decision had become final on 6 December 2011, and that there were no legal grounds for the applicant’s stay in Russia. 70.  On 21 December 2011 officers of the FMS conducted a check at the applicant’s place of residence with a view to verifying whether he had left Russia. Having established that he had not, they took him to the premises of the St Petersburg branch of the FMS, where a decision concerning his deportation was served on him in the presence of an interpreter. In the Government’s submission, the applicant did not express the intention to challenge the deportation order against him. 71.  Subsequently the applicant was taken to Pulkovo airport, where he passed through passport control and the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) officers “stamped his passport to prove that he had crossed the State border of the Russian Federation”. The applicant was conveyed to the plane and took flight no. FV-879 from St Petersburg to Samarkand, its departure time being 8 p.m. 72.  The Government presented no documents in support of their submissions, except a copy of the deportation order. 73.  On 22 December 2011 the applicant’s lawyer, K., learnt that after the applicant’s plane had landed in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, he had immediately been brought to the Samarkand Department of the Ministry of the Interior and taken from there to Tashkent by officers of the National Security Service. 74.  Subsequently, K. complained about the applicant’s transfer to Uzbekistan to the Russian GPO and the investigation department of the Frunzenskiy District of St Petersburg. 75.  On 10 February 2012 the Russian GPO replied to K. that by a final decision of 8 June 2011 the Supreme Court had set aside the extradition order in respect of the applicant. On 19 August 2011 the Russian GPO had informed their Uzbek counterpart that they could not extradite the applicant. According to the information available to the Russian GPO, on 21 December 2011 the head of the St Petersburg branch of the FMS had issued a deportation order in respect of the applicant and the latter had been deported on the same date. The St Petersburg prosecutor’s office was examining whether the deportation order had been well-founded. 76.  In K.’s submission, after his transfer to Uzbekistan the applicant was held in detention and in April 2012 the Samarkand City Court convicted him of the offences for which his extradition had been sought and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant was represented by a court‑appointed lawyer, his relatives were not admitted to the court hearings and he refused their help. Moreover, he informed them that their telephones were being tapped and they were being shadowed and told them that he had been “advised” to tell them to discontinue their communication with his lawyer in Russia “in order to avoid any problems”. At a short meeting with him, in the presence of the prison escort officers, the applicant’s wife noticed a bruise and an abrasion on the left side of his face. In her submission, he looked exhausted and told her that he had not been provided with a copy of the judgment convicting him, and that he had been “advised” not to appeal against it because otherwise he would obtain a longer imprisonment term and his relatives would have problems. The Uzbek authorities disregarded the applicant’s relatives’ requests to be provided with a copy of the trial judgment. All the lawyers they contacted in Uzbekistan with a view to securing legal assistance for the applicant refused to take up his case, saying that it was political and that becoming involved in the case could lead to their losing their lawyer’s licences. 77.  Chapter 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”) of 2002 governs the procedure to be followed in the event of extradition. 78.  An extradition decision made by the Prosecutor General may be challenged before a court (Article 463 § 1). In that case the extradition order should not be enforced until a final judgment is delivered (Article 462 § 6). 79.  A court is to review the lawfulness and validity of a decision to extradite within a month of receipt of a request for review. The decision should be taken in open court by a panel of three judges in the presence of a prosecutor, the person whose extradition is sought, and the latter’s legal counsel (Article 463 § 4). 80.  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 applicable international and domestic law (Article 463 § 6). 81.  Article 464 § 1 lists the conditions under which extradition cannot be authorised. Thus, the extradition of the following should be refused: a Russian citizen (Article 464 § 1 (1)) or a person who has been granted asylum in Russia (Article 464 § 1 (2)); a person in respect of whom a conviction has become effective or criminal proceedings have been terminated in Russia in connection with the same act for which he or she is being prosecuted in the requesting State (Article 464 § 1 (3)); a person in respect of whom criminal proceedings cannot be launched or a conviction cannot become effective in view of the expiry of the limitation period or on another valid ground in Russian law (Article 464 § 1 (4)); or a person in respect of whom extradition has been blocked by a Russian court in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and international treaties (Article 464 § 1 (5)). Finally, extradition should be denied if the act that serves as the basis for the extradition request does not constitute a criminal offence under the Russian Criminal Code (Article 464 § 1 (6)). 82.  Where a foreign national whose extradition is being sought is being prosecuted, or is serving a sentence, for another criminal offence in Russia, his extradition may be postponed until the prosecution is terminated, the penalty is lifted on any valid ground, or the sentence is served (Article 465 § 1). 83.  In its ruling no. 11 of 14 June 2012, the Plenary Session of the Russian Supreme Court indicated, with reference to Article 3 of the Convention, that extradition should be refused if there were serious reasons to believe that the person might be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting country. Extradition could also be refused if exceptional circumstances disclosed that it might entail a danger to the person’s life and health on account of, among other things, his or her age or physical condition. Russian authorities dealing with an extradition case should examine whether there were reasons to believe that the person concerned might be sentenced to the death penalty, subjected to ill‑treatment or persecuted because of his or her race, religious beliefs, nationality, ethnic or social origin or political opinions. The courts should assess both the general situation in the requesting country and the personal circumstances of the person whose extradition was sought. They should take into account the testimony of the person concerned and that of any witnesses, any assurances given by the requesting country, and information about the country provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by competent institutions of the United Nations, and by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 84.  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 only permitted on the basis of a judicial decision. Prior to a judicial decision, an individual may not be detained for longer than forty-eight hours.” 85.  Article 46 of the Constitution provides, among other things, that everyone should be guaranteed judicial protection of his or her rights and freedoms, and stipulates that decisions, actions or inaction on the part of State bodies, local self-government authorities, public associations and officials may be challenged before a court. 86.  The CIS Convention on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases (“the Minsk Convention”), to which both Russia and Uzbekistan are parties, provides that in executing a request for legal assistance, the requested party applies its domestic law (Article 8 § 1). 87.  A request for extradition must be accompanied by a detention order (Article 58 § 2). Upon receipt of a request for extradition, measures should be taken immediately to find and arrest the person whose extradition is sought, except in cases where that person cannot be extradited (Article 60). 88.  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 (Article 61 § 1). A person may also be arrested in the absence of such a request if there are reasons to suspect that he has committed, in the territory of the other Contracting Party, an offence for which extradition may be requested. The other Contracting Party must be immediately informed of the arrest (Article 61 § 2). 89.  A person arrested pursuant to Article 61 must be released if no request for extradition is received within forty days of the arrest (Article 62 § 1). 90.  Article 1 § 3 of the CCrP provides that general principles and norms of international law and international treaties to which the Russian Federation is a party are a constituent part of its legislation concerning criminal proceedings. Should an international treaty provide for rules other than those established in the CCrP, the former are to be applied. 91.  The term “court” is defined by the CCrP as “any court of general jurisdiction which examines a criminal case on the merits and delivers decisions provided for by this Code” (Article 5 § 48). The term “judge” is defined by the CCrP as “an official empowered to administer justice” (Article 5 § 54). 92.  Chapter 13 of the CCrP (“Preventive Measures”) governs the use of preventive measures (меры пресечения) while criminal proceedings are pending. Such measures include 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). An initial period of detention pending investigation may not exceed two months (Article 109 § 1). A judge may extend that period up to six months (Article 109 § 2). Further extensions of up to twelve months, or in exceptional circumstances, up to eighteen months, may only be granted 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 then be released immediately (Article 109 § 4). If the grounds serving as the basis for a preventive measure have changed, the preventive measure must be cancelled or amended. A decision to cancel or amend a preventive measure may be taken by an investigator, a prosecutor or a court (Article 110). 93.  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 the parties to criminal proceedings (Article 125 § 1). The competent court is the court with territorial jurisdiction over the location at which the preliminary investigation is conducted (ibid.). Following the examination of the complaint, a judge can issue a decision to declare the challenged act, inaction or decision of the law-enforcement authority unlawful or unjustified and to instruct that authority to rectify the indicated shortcoming or to dismiss the complaint (Article 125 § 5). 94.  Chapter 54 (“Extradition of a person for criminal prosecution or execution of sentence”) regulates extradition procedures. Upon 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 established procedure (Article 466 § 1). If a request for extradition is accompanied by a detention order issued by a foreign court, a prosecutor may impose house arrest on the individual concerned or place him or her in detention “without seeking confirmation of the validity of that order from a Russian court” (Article 466 § 2). 95.  On 4 April 2006 the Constitutional Court examined an application by Mr N., who had submitted that the lack of any limitation in time on the detention of a person pending extradition was incompatible with the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary detention. In its decision no. 101‑O of the same date, the Constitutional Court declared the application inadmissible. In its view, the absence of any specific regulation of detention matters in Article 466 § 1 did not create a legal lacuna incompatible with the Constitution. Article 8 § 1 of the Minsk Convention provided that, in executing a request for legal assistance, the requested party was to apply its domestic law, which in the case of Russia was the procedure laid down in the CCrP. Such procedure comprised, in particular, Article 466 § 1 of the Code and the norms in its Chapter 13 (“Preventive Measures”), which, by virtue of their general character and position in Part I of the Code (“General provisions”), applied to all stages and forms of criminal proceedings, including proceedings for the examination of extradition requests. Accordingly, Article 466 § 1 of the CCrP did not allow the authorities to apply a custodial measure without complying with the procedure established in the CCrP or the time-limits fixed in the Code. The Court also refused to analyse Article 466 § 2, finding that it had not been applied in Mr N.’s case. 96.  On 1 March 2007 the Constitutional Court in its decision no. 333‑O‑P held that Articles 61 and 62 of the Minsk Convention, governing a person’s detention pending the receipt of an extradition request, did not determine the body or official competent to order such detention, the procedure to be followed, or any time-limits. Under Article 8 of the Minsk Convention, the applicable procedures and time-limits were to be established by domestic legal provisions. 97.  The Constitutional Court further reiterated its settled case-law to the effect that the scope of the constitutional right to liberty and personal inviolability was the same for foreign nationals and stateless persons as for Russian nationals. A foreign national or stateless person could not be detained in Russia for more than forty-eight hours without a judicial decision. That constitutional requirement served as a guarantee against excessively long detention beyond forty-eight hours, and also against arbitrary detention, in that it required a court to examine whether the arrest was lawful and justified. The Constitutional Court held that Article 466 § 1 of the CCrP, read in conjunction with the Minsk Convention, could not be construed as permitting the detention of an individual for more than forty‑eight hours on the basis of a request for his or her extradition without a decision by a Russian court. A custodial measure could be applied only in accordance with the procedure and within the time-limits established in Chapter 13 of the CCrP. 98.  On 19 March 2009 the Constitutional Court, by its decision no. 383‑O-O, dismissed as inadmissible a request for a review of the constitutionality of Article 466 § 2 of the CCrP, stating as follows:
”[This provision] does not establish time-limits for custodial detention and does not establish the grounds and procedure for choosing a preventive measure, it merely confirms a prosecutor’s power to execute a decision already delivered by a competent judicial body of a foreign state to detain an accused. Therefore the disputed norm cannot be considered to violate the constitutional rights of [the claimant] ...” 99.  On 10 February 2009 the Plenary Session of the Russian Supreme Court adopted Directive Decision No. 1, aimed at clarifying the application of Article 125 of the CCrP. It stated that acts or inaction on the part of investigating and prosecuting authorities, including a prosecutor’s decision to hold a person under house arrest or to place him or her in custody with a view to extradition, could be appealed against to a court under Article 125 of the CCrP. The Plenary stressed that in declaring a specific decision, act or inaction on the part of a law enforcement authority unlawful or unjustified, a judge was not entitled to annul the impugned decision or to order the official responsible to revoke it or to carry out any specific acts, but could only instruct him or her to rectify the indicated shortcomings. Should the authority concerned fail to comply with the court’s instructions, an interested party could raise that matter before a court, which could issue a special decision [частное определение] drawing the authority’s attention to the situation. 100.  On 29 October 2009 the Plenary Session of the Russian Supreme Court adopted Directive Decision No. 22, stating that, pursuant to Article 466 § 1 of the CCrP, only a court could order the placement in custody of a person in respect of whom an extradition check was pending when the authorities of the country requesting extradition had not submitted a court decision ordering his or her placement in custody. The judicial authorisation of the placement in custody in that situation was to be carried out in accordance with Article 108 of the CCrP and following a prosecutor’s request for that person to be placed in custody. In deciding to remand a person in custody, a court was to examine if there existed factual and legal grounds for applying that preventive measure. If the extradition request was accompanied by a detention order made by a foreign court, a prosecutor was entitled to place 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. 101.  In a recent ruling, no. 11 of 14 June 2012, the Plenary Session of the Russian Supreme Court held that a person whose extradition was sought could be detained before the receipt of an extradition request only in cases specified in international treaties to which Russia was a party, such as the Minsk Convention. Such detention should be ordered and extended by a Russian court in accordance with the procedure, and within the time-limits, established by Articles 108 and 109 of the CCrP. The detention order should mention the term for which the detention or extension was ordered and the date of its expiry. If the request for extradition was not received within a month, or forty days if the requesting country was a party to the Minsk Convention, the person whose extradition was sought should be immediately released. 102.  Article 33 of the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees of 1951, which was ratified by Russia on 2 February 1993, provides as follows:
“1.  No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. 2.  The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.” 103.  The Refugees Act (Law no. 4258-I of 19 February 1993), as in force at the material time, incorporated the definition of the term “refugee” contained in Article 1 of the 1951 Geneva Convention, as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. The Act defines a refugee as a person who is not a Russian national and who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it (section 1 § 1 (1)). 104.  The Act does not apply to anyone believed on reasonable grounds to have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a person seeking refugee status (section 2 § 1 (1) and (2)). 105.  A person who has applied for refugee status or who has been granted refugee status cannot be returned to a State where his life or freedom would be imperilled on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion (section 10 § 1). 106.  Decisions of the law-enforcement authorities taken in connection with the Refugees Act can be appealed against to a higher-ranking authority or a court (Article 10 § 2). The decision can be challenged within one month of receipt of a written notification of it or, in case of lack of a written reply, within one month after the complaint was lodged, and within three months after the asylum seeker has become aware of the refusal to grant him or her refugee status (Article 10 §§ 2 and 3). An individual who has been notified of the refusal to grant him or her asylum and who has made use of his or her right of appeal against the refusal, should there be no other legal grounds for him or her to remain, has to leave the territory of the Russian Federation within three working days of receipt of the notification of the decision dismissing his or her complaint (Article 10 § 5). An individual failing to comply with this requirement and refusing to leave Russian territory of his or her own free will is deported (expelled) from the territory together with the members of his or her family in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the relevant legislation and the international agreements to which the Russian Federation is a party (Article 13 § 2). 107.  For relevant reports on Uzbekistan during the period between 2002 and 2007 and, in particular, on the situation of persons accused of membership of HT, see Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 67‑72 and 73‑74, 11 December 2008. 108.  Referring to the situation regarding torture in Uzbekistan, the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to the 3rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council on 18 September 2008 states as follows:
“741. The Special Rapporteur ... stressed that he continued to receive serious allegations of torture by Uzbek law enforcement officials ...
... 744. In light of the foregoing, there is little evidence available, including from the Government, that would dispel or otherwise persuade the Special Rapporteur that the practice of torture has significantly improved since the visit which took place in 2002 ...” 109.  In its 2010 report (CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3), the UN Human Rights Committee, stated, in so far as relevant:
“11. The Committee notes with concern the continued reported occurrence of torture and ill-treatment, the limited number of convictions of those responsible, and the low sanctions generally imposed, including simple disciplinary measures, as well as indications that individuals responsible for such acts were amnestied and, in general, the inadequate or insufficient nature of investigations on torture/ill-treatment allegations. It is also concerned about reports on the use, by courts, of evidence obtained under coercion, despite the 2004 ruling of the Supreme Court on the inadmissibility of evidence obtained unlawfully ...
... 19. The Committee is concerned regarding the limitations and restrictions on freedom of religion and belief, including for members of non-registered religious groups. It is concerned about persistent reports on charges and imprisonment of such individuals. It is also concerned about the criminalization, under article 216-2 of the Criminal Code, of “conversion of believers from one religion to another (proselytism) and other missionary activities” (CCPR/C/UZB/3, para. 707). (art. 18) ...” 110.  In Amnesty International’s 2009 Report on Uzbekistan, published in May 2009, that organisation stated that it continued to receive persistent allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment, from persons suspected of being members of banned Islamic groups or of having committed terrorist offences. The report stressed that the Uzbek authorities were continuing to actively seek extradition of those persons, particularly presumed members of HT, from the neighbouring countries, including Russia, and that most of those returned to Uzbekistan were held incommunicado, which increased their risk of being tortured or ill-treated. 111.  On 1 May 2010 Amnesty International issued a document entitled “Uzbekistan: A Briefing on Current Human Rights Concerns”, stating the following:
“Amnesty International believes that there has been a serious deterioration in the human rights situation in Uzbekistan since the so-called Andizhan events in May 2005. ...
Particularly worrying in the light of Uzbekistan’s stated efforts to address impunity and curtail the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment have been the continuing persistent allegations of torture or other ill-treatment by law enforcement officials and prison guards, including reports of the rape of women in detention. ...
Furthermore, Amnesty International is concerned about reports of human rights violations carried out in the context of the stated aim of protecting national security and the fight against terrorism, following a number of reported attacks and killings throughout the country in 2009. ....
Amnesty International is concerned that the authorities’ response to attacks which occurred in May and August 2009 has been inconsistent with the obligations to respect the prohibitions against arbitrary detention and torture or other ill-treatment and the right to fair trial as enshrined in the ICCPR.
There were reported attacks in the Ferghana Valley and the capital Tashkent in May and August 2009 respectively; and a pro-government imam and a high-ranking police officer were killed in Tashkent in July 2009. The Islamic Jihad Union (IJU) claimed responsibility for the attacks in the Ferghana valley: attacks on a police station, a border checkpoint and a government office in Khanabad on 26 May 2009, as well as a suicide bombing at a police station in Andizhan the same day. At least three people died in a shoot-out between unidentified armed men and security forces in Tashkent on 29 August 2009. ...
Authorities blamed the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU) and the unregistered Islamist Hizb-ut-Tahrir party, banned in Uzbekistan, for the attacks and killings.
These crimes were followed by reports of new waves of arbitrary detentions. Among the scores detained as suspected members or sympathizers of the three above‑named organizations were men and women who attended unregistered mosques, studied under independent imams, had travelled or studied abroad, or had relatives who lived abroad or were suspected of affiliation to banned Islamist groups. Many are believed to have been detained without charge or trial for lengthy periods, allegedly subjected to torture and/ or sentenced after unfair trials.
In September 2009, at the start of the first trial of individuals charged in connection with the May attacks in the Ferghana Valley, human rights activists reported that the proceedings were closed to the public, despite earlier assurances by the President and the Prosecutor General that the trial would be both open and fair. However, independent observers were not given access to the court room. Relatives of some of the defendants told human rights activists that defence lawyers retained by them were not given access to the case materials and were denied access to the court room.
At least 30 men were arrested in October 2009 in Sirdaria on suspicion of involvement in the July killings in Tashkent and of being members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Relatives of some of the accused insisted the men had no connection with Hizb‑ut‑Tahrir or armed groups, but merely practised their faith outside state‑registered mosques. Relatives alleged that some of the accused had been tortured in pre-trial detention in an attempt to force them to confess to participating in the July killings. The mother of one of the men arrested said that her son’s face was swollen and his body covered in bruises, that needles had been inserted in the soles of his feet and electroshocks applied to his anus, and that he had difficulties eating, standing or walking.
In April 2010 a court in Dzhizakh sentenced 25 men to terms of imprisonment from between two to 10 years in connection with the July and August 2009 attacks. All were convicted of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and of religious extremism. At least 12 of the men had alleged in court in March 2010 that their confessions had been obtained under torture and the trial judge had ordered an investigation into these allegations, but ultimately found their allegations of torture to be unfounded. Independent observers reported that the men had admitted to having participated in prayer meetings and having practiced sports together, but had denied that they were part of a group intent on overthrowing the constitutional order.
Furthermore, Amnesty International is concerned by the risk of refoulement within extradition procedures. The Uzbekistani authorities continue to actively seek the extradition, in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism, of members or suspected members of banned Islamic movements or Islamist parties, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, or people suspected of involvement in the May 2005 Andizhan events, from neighbouring countries as well as the Russian Federation. ...
Despite assertions by Uzbekistan that the practice of torture has significantly decreased, Amnesty International continues to receive reports of widespread torture or other ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners.
According to these reports, in most cases the authorities failed to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into the allegations of torture or other ill‑treatment. Amnesty International is concerned that impunity prevails as prosecution of individuals suspected of being responsible for torture or other ill‑treatment remains the exception rather than the rule. ...
Allegations have also been made that individuals returned to Uzbekistan from other countries pursuant to extradition requests have been held in incommunicado detention, thereby increasing their risk of being tortured or otherwise ill-treated and have been subjected to unfair trial. In one case in 2008, for example, a man who was returned to Uzbekistan from Russia was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment after an unfair trial. His relatives reported that, upon his return to Uzbekistan, he was held incommunicado for three months during which time he was subjected to torture and other ill-treatment in pre-trial detention. He did not have access to a lawyer of his own choice and the trial judge ruled evidence reportedly adduced as a result of torture admissible.” 112.  In January 2011 Human Rights Watch released its annual World Report for 2010. The chapter entitled “Uzbekistan”, in so far as relevant, states:
“Uzbekistan’s human rights record remains abysmal, with no substantive improvement in 2010. Authorities continue to crackdown on civil society activists, opposition members, and independent journalists, and to persecute religious believers who worship outside strict state controls ...
...
Criminal Justice, Torture, and Ill-Treatment
Torture remains rampant in Uzbekistan. Detainees’ rights are violated at each stage of investigations and trials, despite habeas corpus amendments that went into effect in 2008. The Uzbek government has failed to meaningfully implement recommendations to combat torture that the United Nations special Rapporteur made in 2003.
Suspects are not permitted access to lawyers, a critical safeguard against torture in pre-trial detention. Police use torture and other illegal means to coerce statements and confessions from detainees. Authorities routinely refuse to investigate defendants’ allegations of abuse.
...
On July 20, 37-year-old Shavkat Alimhodjaev, imprisoned for religious offenses, died in custody. The official cause of death was anemia, but Alimhodjaev had no known history of the disease. According to family, Alimhodjaev’s face bore possible marks of ill-treatment, including a swollen eye. Authorities returned his body to his family’s home at night. They insisted he be buried before sunrise and remained present until the burial. Authorities have not begun investigating the death.
...
Freedom of Religion
Although Uzbekistan’s constitution ensures freedom of religion, Uzbek authorities continued their unrelenting, multi-year campaign of arbitrary detention, arrest, and torture of Muslims who practice their faith outside state controls or belong to unregistered religious organizations. Over 100 were arrested or convicted in 2010 on charges related to religious extremism.
...
Key International Actors
The Uzbek government’s cooperation with international institutions remains poor. It continues to deny access to all eight UN special procedures that have requested invitations, including those on torture and human rights defenders ...” 113.  The chapter entitled “Uzbekistan 2011” in the Amnesty International annual report for 2011, released in May of the same year, in so far as relevant, states as follows:
“Reports of torture or other ill-treatment continued unabated. Dozens of members of minority religious and Islamic groups were given long prison terms after unfair trials ...
...
Torture and other ill-treatment
Despite assertions by the authorities that the practice of torture had significantly decreased, reports of torture or other ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners continued unabated. In most cases, the authorities failed to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into these allegations.
Several thousand people convicted of involvement with Islamist parties or Islamic movements banned in Uzbekistan, as well as government critics and political opponents, continued to serve long prison terms under conditions that amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Uzbekistan again refused to allow the UN Special Rapporteur on torture to visit the country despite renewed requests.
...
Counter-terror and security
Closed trials started in January of nearly 70 defendants charged in relation to attacks in the Ferghana Valley and the capital, Tashkent, in May and August 2009 and the killings of a pro-government imam and a high-ranking police officer in Tashkent in July 2009. The authorities blamed the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU) and the Islamist Hizb-ut-Tahrir party, all banned in Uzbekistan, for the attacks and killings. Among the scores detained as suspected members or sympathizers of the IMU, the IJU and Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2009 were people who attended unregistered mosques, studied under independent imams, had travelled abroad, or were suspected of affiliation to banned Islamic groups. Many were believed to have been detained without charge or trial for lengthy periods. There were reports of torture and unfair trials.
...
•In April, Kashkadaria Regional Criminal Court sentenced Zulkhumor Khamdamova, her sister Mekhriniso Khamdamova and their relative, Shakhlo Pakhmatova, to between six and a half and seven years in prison for attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and posing a threat to public order. They were part of a group of more than 30 women detained by security forces in counter-terrorism operations in the city of Karshi in November 2009. They were believed to have attended religious classes taught by Zulkhumor Khamdamova in one of the local mosques. The authorities accused Zulkhumor Khamdamova of organizing an illegal religious group, a charge denied by her supporters. Human rights defenders reported that the women were ill-treated in custody; police officers allegedly stripped the women naked and threatened them with rape.
•Dilorom Abdukadirova, an Uzbek refugee who had fled the country following the violence in Andizhan in 2005, was detained for four days upon her return in January, after receiving assurances from the authorities that she would not face charges. In March, she was detained again and held in police custody for two weeks without access to a lawyer or her family. On 30 April, she was convicted of anti-constitutional activities relating to her participation in the Andizhan demonstrations as well as illegally exiting and entering the country. She was sentenced to 10 years and two months in prison after an unfair trial. Family members reported that she appeared emaciated at the trial and had bruises on her face.
...
Freedom of religion
The government continued its strict control over religious communities, compromising the enjoyment of their right to freedom of religion. Those most affected were members of unregistered groups such as Christian Evangelical congregations and Muslims worshipping in mosques outside state control.
•Suspected followers of the Turkish Muslim theologian, Said Nursi, were convicted in a series of trials that had begun in 2009 and continued into 2010. The charges against them included membership or creation of an illegal religious extremist organization and publishing or distributing materials threatening the social order. By December 2010, at least 114 men had been sentenced to prison terms of between six and 12 years following unfair trials. Reportedly, some of the verdicts were based on confessions gained under torture in pre-trial detention; defence and expert witnesses were not called; access to the trials was in some cases obstructed while other trials were closed.” 114.  In a decision (CM/Del/Dec(2012)1144/18) adopted on 6 June 2012 at the 1144th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers reiterated its concerns about repeated incidents of disappearance of applicants in respect of whom interim measures had been applied by the Court, and continued as follows:
“The Deputies 1.  recalled that in the Iskandarov case, despite the government’s assertion that the applicant’s kidnapping had not been imputable to the State authorities, the Court found violations of the Convention on account of the applicant’s arbitrary deprivation of liberty by the Russian State agents and his subsequent removal to Tajikistan in breach of the State’s obligation to protect him against the risk of ill-treatment; 2.  recalled further that at its last meeting the Committee expressed its profound concern that similar incidents had subsequently taken place in respect of other applicants whose applications are pending before the Court and in which the Court applied interim measures in order to prevent their extradition in view of the imminent risk of serious violations of the Convention faced by them; 3.  deplored the fact that, notwithstanding the serious concerns expressed in respect of such incidents by the President of the Court, the Committee of Ministers and by the Russian authorities themselves, they were informed that yet another applicant disappeared on 29 March 2012 in Moscow and shortly after found himself in custody in Tajikistan; 4.  took note of the Russian authorities’ position according to which the investigation in the Iskandarov case is still ongoing and had not at present established the involvement of Russian State into the applicant’s kidnapping; 5.  regretted however that up to now, neither in the Iskandarov case nor in any other case of that type have the authorities been able to make tangible progress with the domestic investigations concerning the applicants’ kidnappings and their transfer, nor to establish the responsibility of any state agent ...”