5.  The applicant was born in 1966. He lives in Kyiv. 6.  In November 2000 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant in Belarus. 7.  On 5 December 2003 Grodno Prosecutor’s Office decided that the applicant’s undertaking not to abscond be replaced by remand in custody. 8.  On 9 March 2004 the applicant was placed on an international wanted list. 9.  On 29 December 2004 the Lidsky District Police Department of the Republic of Belarus sent a letter to the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine informing it that according to their data the applicant, who was wanted for swindling and whose arrest had been ordered on 5 December 2003 by the Grodno Prosecutor’s Office, was living in Kyiv. Therefore, they requested that the applicant be found and arrested. They further stated that his extradition would be requested in accordance with the Minsk Convention 1993. 10.  On 29 December 2004 the applicant was arrested by the Kyiv Pechersky District Police Department on the basis of the arrest warrant of the Grodno Prosecutor’s Office of 5 December 2003. 11.  On 31 December 2004 a department of the Belarus Ministry of the Interior applied to the President of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv (“the Pechersky Court”), seeking that the applicant be placed in detention. 12.  On 5 January 2005 the Pechersky District Police Department requested from the Lidsky District Police Department of the Republic of Belarus the originals of documents needed to order the applicant’s arrest by a Ukrainian court. 13.  On 6 January 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Belarus applied to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine, requesting that the applicant be placed in detention until the request for his extradition had been submitted. 14.  On 11 January 2005 the Pechersky Court ordered that the applicant be placed in detention for one month. 15.  The applicant appealed against this decision on 13 January 2005, referring to the allegedly unlawful nature of the Belarus authorities’ decision of 5 December 2003 ordering that he be detained. In addition, the applicant complained that his detention prior to 11 January 2005 had been unlawful. By a judgment of 20 January 2005, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 11 January 2005, noting that the decision was well-founded and in accordance with procedural law. 16.  On 19 January 2005 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Pechersky Court, seeking a declaration that the applicant’s detention without judicial supervision during the period between 29 December 2004 and 11 January 2005 had been unlawful. 17.  On 19 January 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Belarus submitted an official extradition request to the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine. 18.  On 20 January 2005 the applicant asked the European Court of Human Rights to prohibit the Ukrainian Government from extraditing him to Belarus, alleging that there was a risk that he would be subjected to torture by the officers conducting the investigation and would not enjoy the benefit of a fair trial. 19.  On 21 January 2005 the President of the Chamber indicated to the Ukrainian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, not to extradite the applicant to Belarus until 21 February 2005 and invited the parties to submit additional information. 20.  On 22 January 2005 the applicant’s extradition was suspended. 21.  On 27 January 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine informed the Deputy Prosecutor General of Belarus of the interim measure indicated to the Ukrainian Government by the Court and requested guarantees that the applicant would be tried only for the offence which had given rise to the extradition request, that he would not be subjected to capital punishment or to inhuman and degrading treatment and that he would be allowed to leave Belarus freely after having served his sentence. 22.  In the light of the parties’ observations, on 21 February 2005 the President of the Chamber decided to extend the application of the interim measure so that the Chamber could rule on it on 8 March 2005. 23.  On 21 February 2005 the applicant submitted a request for refugee status, referring to the persecution of businessmen in Belarus and the risk of torture and degrading treatment by the Belarus authorities responsible for the investigation. 24.  By a decision of 1 March 2005 the Kyiv Migration Service accepted, for examination on the merits, the applicant’s request to be granted refugee status, having noted that the request had contained fully-reasoned grounds. The Service also noted that the decisions submitted by the Belarusian authorities in connection with the use of preventive measures against the applicant and the charge against him gave rise to doubts, on account of their vague and unsupported nature and the failure to recognise the principle of the presumption of innocence. In addition, the Belarus authorities had not supplied information regarding the expiry of the statute of limitations, given that the offences with which the applicant was charged dated back to 1995. Referring to the observations of the Belarus Helsinki Committee, the Service noted that the applicant’s friends, Y. Kravtsov and A. Klimov, businessmen linked to the opposition, had had an unfair trial and had been subjected to torture. The Service also took into account a letter from Mr Stanislav Shushkevich[1], in which the latter had stated that the applicant’s extradition to Belarus, as a businessman connected with the opposition, would constitute a violation of his fundamental rights, given that a fair and impartial trial was impossible in that country, and that torture was used against those who were associated with the political opposition. 25.  On 8 March 2005 the Court extended the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 until further notice. 26.  On 9 March 2005 the Pechersky Court considered the applicant’s complaint that his detention between 29 December 2004 and 11 January 2005 had been unlawful. During the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer submitted an additional complaint that the applicant’s detention from 12 February 2005, when the one month detention ordered on 11 January 2005 expired but no order on further detention had been made, was unlawful. By a decision of 9 March 2005 the Pechersky Court recognised that the applicant had been unlawfully detained between 29 December 2004 and 11 January 2005 and dismissed the remainder of the application, without ruling on the applicant’s detention subsequent to 12 February 2005. In this connection, the court noted that the request for release could not be examined in the context of the proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of the detention. 27.  The applicant appealed against this decision to the Kyiv City Court of Appeal. In his submissions, the applicant criticised the Pechersky Court’s refusal to examine the lawfulness of his detention after 12 February 2005. In addition, he noted that on 11 January 2005 the court had ordered his detention in order to guarantee his extradition to Belarus should such a measure be ordered by the relevant authorities. However, in view of the interim measure indicated by the Court and the ongoing asylum proceedings, the authorities had suspended examination of his possible extradition. Consequently, he requested that he be released immediately. The prosecutor also appealed against the decision of 9 March 2005. 28.  By a judgment of 4 May 2005, the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, allowed the prosecutor’s appeal and set aside the decision of 9 March 2005 in its entirety, on the ground that the complaints about unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention could not be dealt with under the procedure on challenging arrest under Article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 29.  On 14 September 2005 the applicant was granted refugee status by the State Migration Committee upon submission of the Kyiv Migration Service. 30.  On 9 November 2005 the applicant was released. 31.  By a letter of 15 November 2005, the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine informed the General Prosecutor’s Office of Belarus that the applicant would not be extradited.