8.  The applicant was born in 1967. The Court has no official information about his current whereabouts. 9.  The applicant was an elected member of the Sughd Regional Assembly in Tajikistan from an unidentified date until his departure from the country. He was also a prominent businessman, owning several production plants, petrol stations, buildings and other property. 10.  According to the applicant, in 2006 he accompanied the President of Tajikistan on an official visit to Iran and Turkey. During the trip a relative of the President of Tajikistan demanded that the applicant transfer title to one of his plants to him. The applicant agreed out of fear. In August 2006 the same person again demanded on behalf of the President that the applicant transfer title to another plant owned by him. The applicant submits that following his refusal to do so, the authorities began to interfere with his business and threatened him with reprisals. On 27 September 2006 the applicant survived an assassination attempt allegedly planned by the authorities. The next day the residents of the town of Isfara in the Sughd Region held a rally in support of the applicant, demanding that the authorities find those involved in the assassination attempt and criticising the authorities’ conduct. 11.  In June 2007, fearing for his life and liberty, the applicant fled to the United Arab Emirates. 12.  On 30 July 2010 the applicant left the United Arab Emirates. After travelling through Turkey, Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus, he arrived in Russia, where his partner resided, on 13 August 2010. 13.  On 23 June 2007 the State Financial Control and Anti‑Corruption Agency of Tajikistan (“the Agency”) opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and eight other individuals on charges of misappropriation and embezzlement of property, money laundering, tax evasion, forgery of documents and making threats of violence against a public official. 14.  On 28 June 2007 the members of the Sughd Regional Assembly granted leave for the criminal prosecution and arrest of the applicant. On the same date an Agency investigator issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant and placed him on the international wanted list. He was also officially charged with the above-mentioned crimes on that day. 15.  On 26 July 2007 the Sughd Regional Prosecutor opened another criminal case against the applicant and an unspecified number of other individuals, accusing them of forming an organised criminal group, and joined it to the criminal case opened previously. 16.  On 29 October 2007 the Agency opened a new criminal case against the applicant and three other individuals accusing them of the assassination of the Deputy Prosecutor General of Tajikistan, Mr Boboyev, in 1999. 17.  On 14 March 2008 the applicant was indicted in absentia on all of the above charges. 18.  On 9 June 2009 the Supreme Court of Tajikistan, sitting as a trial court in Khujand, convicted the applicant’s thirty-one co-accused of various offences and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment ranging from ten to twenty-five years. At the trial, several of the defendants alleged that they had been forced through torture to falsely incriminate the applicant. The applicant submitted the following excerpts from the transcript of the court hearing on 16 July 2008:
“[Statement of the accused O.]:
In Khujand I was brought to the 6th division of the Sughd Region [of the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime] where I was pressured. The reason for the pressure and acts of violence was that they wanted me to testify that [the applicant] had been involved in the assassination of T. Boboyev. However, [the applicant] did not have anything to do with [it].
... I was made to sign an interview record with false statements. In December 2007 on the order of the investigator I was doused with cold water and tortured with electricity.
[Statement of the accused I.]:
When [certain police officers] brought me to the department’s premises, [one of them] smashed my head against the wall. He and other people in an office on the second floor tortured me with electricity. They burnt my body with cigarettes to force me to testify against [the applicant].
I could no longer resist the pressure and violence, and gave the evidence that they wanted.
... There is a forensic medical report that recorded the torture against me.
[Statement of the accused M.R.]:
... [Certain police officers] took me to see the head of the 6th division of the Sughd Region [Department for the Fight against Organised Crime]. Officer K ... hit me two or three times ... Then I was taken to another office and beaten up. Afterwards I was asked about [the applicant’s] whereabouts and questioned for about five hours. The next day I was [again] taken to see the head of the 6th division ... [whilst] there I was also tortured and electrocuted. Over the course of a few days they tortured me to make me show them a cache of ammunition in Chorkukh.” 19.  In September 2010 the applicant’s lawyer, Mr B., travelled to Tajikistan to collect information in respect of the ill-treatment of detainees and, specifically, of those who had been questioned in the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant and his co-accused. Mr B. obtained a total of twelve statements, which were recorded by him on identical forms bearing the following information:
“Pursuant to section 6(3.2) of the Federal Law “On the Activity of Legal Counsel and Bar Associations in the Russian Federation” as well as Articles 53 § 1 (2) and 86 § 3 (2) of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, with the consent of the person with information pertinent to [my client’s] case, counsel [belonging to] the Interregional Kaluga Bar Association interviewed:
Name
Date of birth
Place of birth
Place of recorded residence
Place of actual residence
Telephone number
ID
I agree to be interviewed (signature, date).
I have been apprised of Article 51 of the Russian Constitution, which provides that no one can be obliged to testify against oneself, one’s spouse and close family members (signature, date).” 20.  Two witnesses, who alleged that they had had first-hand experience of torture being used against them in connection with the criminal case opened against the applicant and who were witnesses to such treatment of others, testified as follows: 1.  Mr F.R.
“In June 2007 I was arrested ... Before [that], I used to work as a granary manager at a public company partly owned by [the applicant].
[After I was taken to a police station], the people who were in one of the offices there started asking me about the whereabouts of [the applicant] and my brother. [I said I did not know anything about that.] They started punching and kicking me, aiming the blows at my kidneys and torso. They avoided hitting my head so as to leave no bruises. Then they made me lift a chair and hold it, standing with my legs apart. When I was in this position, they also punched me in the kidneys.
[The deputy director of the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime] made me lie down facing the floor with my arms along my body. He put a foot on my waist and said that if I did not tell them the whereabouts of [the applicant] he would step on me and crush me ... [H]e stepped on my back and I fainted. The beatings and abuse went on for two days. They took turns questioning me. I did not have any sleep. They also did not give me any food or water.
...
They threatened to take me to the [premises of the] regional Department for the Fight against Organised Crime, where they would torture me with an electrical device ... Later I learned that such a device was used to torture my younger brother.
...
I did not complain about the torture. When they released me, they told me, ‘Do not complain, or we will kill you.’ ” 2.  Mr M.
“I am [the applicant’s] nephew. On 29 June 2007 I was at home. Officers working for the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime came to see me ..., got into my car with me and we went to the Isfara police station. Officers of the regional Department for the Fight against Organised Crime were working there in two offices.
When I entered one of the offices, I asked why they had brought me there. They started punching me on the torso, avoiding my head so as to not leave bruises.
[I was later taken to the premises of the Khujand Department for the Fight against Organised Crime]. I was held there for five days. I was asked about [the applicant’s] whereabouts. [Whilst] there they also beat me, and did not let me sleep. I heard M.R. screaming in an office nearby. Afterwards he told me that he had been tortured with electricity ... There I also saw [the applicant’s former] driver. He had been beaten up badly, and was bleeding from a wound to his head. I also saw D.R. being tortured ... Five days later, without any record of my detention, I was released, after having been made to sign a paper stating that I had been treated well and not abused.” 21.  Fourteen individuals who had been convicted as the applicant’s co‑accused and who were serving prison sentences used the assistance of their lawyers to give statements addressed to Ms Stavitskaya, the applicant’s counsel. Four of them stated as follows: 3.  Mr O.
“I ... was sentenced by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Tajikistan of 9 June 2009 to twenty-five years’ imprisonment ... I had been arrested in the Russian Federation and extradited to Tajikistan. On the way there I was escorted by officers of the 6th division of the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime. Next to me on the plane sat the head of the Tajikistan Department for the Fight against Organised Crime. I told him the truth about the assassination of T. Boboyev. He said, ‘We don’t need you, we need [the applicant], tell me about him, it was him who ordered the assassination’. I denied [the applicant’s] involvement but he did not like it.
When I was taken into the premises of the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime ... [my] torture began. Anyone who felt like it came in and beat me. I was electrocuted, I was in a lot of pain ... All they wanted from me was to testify that [the applicant] had ordered the assassination of T. Boboyev.
I had to give false evidence; for a month I was not allowed to see anyone, either a lawyer or my family, so that they would not see me in that state.
... During the trial I told the court everything that had happened during the arrest and pre-trial investigation. The court sympathised with me but interpreted my statements as a defence of [the applicant].” 4.  Mr Mi.
“... The staff members of the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime ... imposed their views on me and demanded that I give evidence as dictated by them.
I refused and they began to torture me. First they insulted me, used foul language, then they started beating me ... when they could not obtain what they wanted they took me outside, that was in December 2007, and began pouring cold water on me, then brought me back inside and electrocuted me. They repeated this without a break for a few days.
... After a while I gave in and started giving false evidence.
For the first few months I was not allowed to see anyone as I was swollen, my hands bore traces of burns caused by the electrical current.
At the trial I told the court how I had been treated during the investigation and how I had been forced to give false evidence ... I renounced [the statements I gave during the investigation].” 5.  Mr I.
“... I was arrested in May 2007. I used to work for [the applicant]. As I told them the truth, they got angry and started beating me, torturing me with electricity and scalding me with hot water ... All this was just to make me give false evidence against [the applicant].” 6.  Mr M.R.
“On 28 June 2007 I was arrested at my job – I worked as a security guard at a plant owned by [the applicant]. The police brought me to the [premises of the] Sughd Region Department for the Fight against Organised Crime where they questioned me in respect of [the applicant]. When they did not obtain the evidence they wanted from me, they beat me up brutally, at the same time electrocuting me, the pain was unbearable. As a result, when I urinated I had blood in my urine. During this treatment I screamed in pain, and to muffle the noise they put a gas mask on me.
As a result of the beatings, my appendix was ruptured and I underwent surgery for it. All this was done to make me testify that the ammunition they had shown me belonged to [the applicant].” 22.  On 17 November 2010 Mr A. submitted the following statement addressed to the Russian Prosecutor General’s office:
“... In June 2007 I arrived in Russia. In Kolomna, Moscow Region, I was arrested by Russian and Tajik police officers ...
By a decision of the Kolomna Town Court of 25 December 2007 I was placed on remand in SIZO 50/4 in Kolomna ... [I stayed on remand] until 29 September 2008 when I was extradited to Tajikistan pursuant to a decision of the Supreme Court of Russia. On that date ... I was brought to the international airport in Vnukovo where I was handed over to Tajik police officers.
[Upon arrival] the Tajik police took me from the airport to the [premises of the] 6th division of the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime.
As far as I know, according to the decision of the Russian Supreme Court I should have been taken to SIZO 2 in Khujand. However, for a long time I was kept in [one of the offices] of the 6th division of the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime ... They beat me up and raped me ... Late at night two of the officers undressed me, and tied up my hands and legs. I was subjected to a brutal rape by these people ... One of them took photographs as the other one was raping me. They made me sign some papers, give evidence that I had committed certain crimes ...
I draw your attention to the fact that during the torture described above there was some talk about ... [the applicant], in whose respect the authorities had opened a criminal case in 2007. I knew that in this case a Tajik court had convicted thirty‑three people ... I was forced to testify against [the applicant] that he had given me money in 2004 ... Despite the torture, rape and other inhuman treatment, I refused to sign those papers and to testify against [the applicant] and other people.
In this manner I was tortured and beaten up daily, until 3 October 2008.
On 3 October 2008 I was taken to a remand centre in Dushanbe. [A police officer] started visiting me there in order to obtain my confessions by using torture and psychological pressure. I could not handle this any longer and complained to the Prosecutor General of Tajikistan ...
As a result, in October 2008 the authorities opened a criminal case against [the two officers who had raped me]. They fled and were on the wanted list for over two years ...” 23.  A letter from the Prosecutor General’s Office of Tajikistan dated 18 November 2010 (see paragraph 35 below) enclosed the statements of nine individuals who had previously given statements to Mr B. or to Ms Stavitskaya. Some of those statements were recorded by Mr R., an investigator from the Sughd Regional Department of Internal Affairs, while others were handwritten, allegedly by the interviewees. Among those statements were those allegedly given by Mr M.R., Mr O., Mr Mi. and Mr I. quoted above. The statements given by Mr M.R. and Mr O. did not contain any reference to, or renouncement of, their previous statements. As to the others, the relevant part of the statement by Mr Mi. read as follows:
“I did not write the statement presented to me, nor do I know any counsel by that name. I did not make the signature shown on the statement.” 24.  The statement by Mr I., as far as relevant, read:
“... I do not know any counsel by that name ..., nor did I write any statements for her, the handwriting in the statement is not mine.” 25.  All of the above four individuals stated that the authorities had not carried out any unlawful actions against them – either at the remand centres where they had been detained pending trial or at the correctional facilities where they were serving their sentences. 26.  The Government also submitted written records drawn up by the heads of the correctional facilities where the above-mentioned fourteen individuals, including Mr O., Mr Mi., Mr I. and Mr M.R., were serving their sentences. The wording of the records is almost identical, as they state that upon arrival at the correctional facility their state of health was satisfactory, the detainee did not present with any particular complaints, nor were any superficial injuries detected. It was further submitted that the earlier medical records either had not indicated any problems or had mentioned medical monitoring of the detainees in connection with their chronic ailments. 27.  The applicant’s counsel subsequently submitted statements addressed to the Court by ten individuals who had previously written to give an account of the use of torture against them by the Tajik authorities. Among them were statements by Mr O., Mr Mi., Mr I. and Mr M.R. Mr M.R.’s two statements were dated 15 April and 30 November 2011; the rest of them were undated. The authors of the statements confirmed their previous statements collected by Mr B. and Ms Stavitskaya and reiterated their accounts of the events. Mr O., Mr Mi, and Mr I. also averred that after their sending their statements to Ms Stavitskaya they had been visited by staff members of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Tajikistan, who had coerced them by way of threats to state in writing that they had never made such statements. 28.  On 27 August 2010 the applicant was apprehended in Moscow pursuant to an international search warrant issued by the Tajik authorities. A record of detention of the same date contains a handwritten statement by the applicant expressing his disagreement with the apprehension and claiming that he was a Russian citizen being persecuted by the government of Tajikistan for political reasons. A form (лист экспресс-опроса) of the same date recorded the applicant’s refusal to give any statements. 29.  On 31 August 2010 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) remanded the applicant in custody. 30.  On 1 September 2010 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Tajikistan requested that the applicant be extradited following his apprehension in Moscow. The request for extradition contained the following assurances:
“...
[We] guarantee that in accordance with international law [the applicant] will have access to all means of defence, including the assistance of legal counsel; he will not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ([within the meaning of] the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and pertinent treaties of the United Nations and the Council of Europe and the protocols thereto).
Pursuant to the Law of the Republic of Tajikistan “On a Moratorium for Capital Punishment” of 30 April 2004, the implementation and execution of capital punishment and related activities in the Republic of Tajikistan have been suspended; accordingly, the Prosecutor General of Tajikistan guarantees that ... [the applicant] would not be subjected to capital punishment.
The Prosecutor General of Tajikistan guarantees that [this] extradition request is not aimed at prosecuting [the applicant] for political reasons, in connection with his race, religious faith, nationality or political affiliations.
Pursuant to Article 66 of the [Minsk] Convention [for Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters] Tajikistan pledges to prosecute [the applicant] only on those charges for which he would be extradited. [The applicant] will not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the Russian Federation and will be free to leave Tajikistan after the trial and completion of sentence.” 31.  On the same date the extradition prosecutor at the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office issued an opinion (заключение) stating that there was nothing to prevent the applicant’s extradition, based on the fact that Russian law also qualified the charges brought against him in Tajikistan as criminal. The opinion also referred to information provided by the Federal Migration Service to the effect that the applicant was not registered as resident in Moscow, nor had he applied for Russian citizenship. 32.  On 10 September 2010 Human Rights Watch’s Russian office petitioned the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to refuse the extradition request, referring to the deplorable human rights situation in Tajikistan. 33.  On 19 September and 29 November 2010 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office received replies to its inquiries from the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, respectively, stating that those authorities did not have any information preventing the applicant’s extradition and that his extradition would not prejudice Russia’s security and national interests. 34.  On 27 September 2010 the applicant’s counsel petitioned the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to refuse the extradition request and release the applicant from detention. The petition referred to a widespread practice of torture and poor treatment of detainees in Tajikistan, as reported by various sources. It further quoted the statements of Mr F.R. and Mr Mi. as conveyed above (see paragraphs 20 and 21 above), as well as those of several other people who had experienced torture or whose family members had been tortured at the hands of the authorities, albeit not in connection with the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his co‑accused. Reference was made to the public statements of a defence lawyer who had taken part in the criminal proceedings in question to the effect that both the applicant’s convicted co-accused and witnesses had been tortured and that the convictions had been handed down as a result of pressure from the authorities. Finally, the petition cited the Court’s judgments concerning extradition or expulsion to Tajikistan where a violation of Article 3 had been found. 35.  In their letter of 7 October 2010 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office dismissed that petition, adding that a copy of the part of the record concerning the alleged unlawful actions of the Tajik authorities had been forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s Office of Tajikistan for investigation. 36.  On 17 November, 7 December 2010 and 20 January 2011 the applicant’s counsel supplemented the original petition to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office to refuse the applicant’s extradition with new witness statements and excerpts from the transcripts of the trial of the applicant’s co-accused (see paragraph 18 above). 37.  In letters of 18 November 2010 and 4 March 2011 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Tajikistan informed its Russian counterpart that their inquiry in respect of the alleged ill-treatment by the Tajik authorities cited by the applicant’s counsel in her petition of 27 September 2010 had not discovered any proof thereof. They also enclosed the statements of some of the witnesses who had previously claimed to have been tortured by the authorities and of the records submitted by the heads of the correctional facilities where those witnesses were serving their sentences (see paragraphs 23-26 above). 38.  On 19 January 2011 Amnesty International petitioned the Russian Prosecutor General not to extradite the applicant, citing the statements obtained by the applicant’s counsel and reports in the media concerning the allegedly political motives of the prosecution and the unfair trial in the “Isfara case” involving the applicant (which was named after the town where most of the criminal activities had allegedly been carried out). Amnesty International also referred to the overall problems of unlawfulness and impunity of State officials in Tajikistan. 39.  In a letter of 27 December 2010 addressed to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office, the Special Representative of the Russian President for international cooperation in the fight against terrorism and transnational organised crime endorsed the request for additional assurances from the Tajik authorities in respect of the applicant, namely the opportunity for members of the Russian diplomatic corps in Tajikistan to visit him in detention. Such assurances were, apparently, subsequently provided by the Tajik Prosecutor General’s Office on 26 January 2011 as follows:
“The staff members of the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office and the Russian embassy in Tajikistan [will be able to] visit [the applicant] during the investigation and after conviction at any time and to see the conditions of his detention on remand and at a correctional facility.” 40.  On 16 February 2011 the Deputy Prosecutor General granted the extradition request in respect of the applicant. The decision, in its relevant parts, reads as follows:
“...
[The applicant] is charged with the following crimes committed on the territory of the Sughd Region of the Republic of Tajikistan.
In 1998, while serving as the deputy director of Spirtzavod plc based in Isfara, [he] created a criminal group from among his subordinates, family members, friends and employees of law‑enforcement authorities in Tajikistan with a view to committing serious and particularly serious criminal activities. [He] unlawfully acquired, transferred and stored large quantities of arms and ammunitions [for the group]. In December 2008 [he] merged [this] criminal group with another criminal group headed by A.B., thereby creating a criminal organisation which [he], along with A.B., also unlawfully armed.
Following the establishment of the criminal organisation, together with A.B. in Chkalovsk on 2 January 1999 [he] arranged the assassination of the then deputy Prosecutor General of Tajikistan, T. Boboyev, by Mr O. and Mr M. [in exchange] for 6,000 United States dollars, in the presence of his under-age nephew S.G., with particular cruelty and in a manner that put the lives of many people in danger.
From 2004 to 2007, with a view to arming the members of the criminal organisation, as part of an organised group [he] unlawfully acquired, stored and shipped large quantities of arms and ammunitions, which were confiscated by law-enforcement authorities during an investigation on 30 June 2007.
From 31 March 2004 to 6 July 2007, in his official capacity as Director General of Khimzavod plc, [he] committed theft by way of embezzlement and misappropriation, in concert with a group of people, of State property of a particularly high value totalling over 37,000,000 somoni.
From 2001 to 2004, serving as a deputy of the Sughd Regional Assembly (Majlis) in Tajikistan and working as the Director of Spirtzavod plc, [he] abused his power by organising theft from the State Treasury through misappropriation and embezzlement by [certain employees] of a particularly large sum totalling 368,532 somoni.
In 2001 [the applicant] established Sharaf plc. From August to December 2004, he laundered funds by way of unlawful property and monetary transactions, inflicting significant damage in the sum of 262,035.50 somoni.
On 1 March 2006, in concert with a group of people, [he] forged a deed concerning [intercompany] reconciliation between Sharaf plc and ORS Khimzavod Limited based in Isfara.
Between April 2004 and November 2005 [the applicant], in his capacity as the Director General of Khimzavod plc, Sharaf plc and Spirtzavod plc based in Isfara [and acting] as part of an organised group, shipped a large amount of wheat with a value of 2,625,745 somoni over the border of Tajikistan by forging freight customs declarations and other documents.
In the same period, in concert with a group of people, [the applicant] evaded customs payments in the particularly large sum of 707,544.30 somoni.
Working as Director General of Spirtzavod plc and Sharaf plc based in Isfara and acting in concert with a group of people, in 2005 and 2006 [he] evaded a particularly large amount of taxes and levies totalling 2,562,751.41 somoni by forging documents.
On 3 October 2006 [he] groundlessly accused M.Y., the Mayor of the town of Isfara [and a] member of the Milli Majlis of Tajikistan, of ordering his assassination and threatened [her] and her family with violence.
[The applicant’s] actions are punishable under Russian criminal law ... The above‑mentioned offences carry penalties of over one year’s imprisonment. The time‑limits for [the applicant’s] prosecution under Russian and Tajik legislation have not expired.
...
The request for [the applicant’s] extradition should not be granted as far as the criminal prosecution for money-laundering is concerned ... since the amount of the funds is not qualified as large under Russian law; therefore his actions in this regard do not constitute a corpus delicti ...
[The applicant] should also not be extradited for criminal prosecution for forgery of an official document ... since the forged document is not qualified as official on the territory of the Russian Federation ... [A]ccordingly, his actions in this regard do not constitute a corpus delicti ...
[The applicant] should also not be extradited for the evasion of customs payments ... since his actions in this regard were aimed at smuggling goods across the Tajikistani border, for which he is to be extradited, and do not require additional qualification.
[The applicant] should not be extradited for criminal prosecution for violence against a public official ... since under Russian law his actions do not constitute a corpus delicti ... as ... [the applicant] did not threaten M.Y. in connection with her official duties.
... According to the information provided by the Department for Citizenship Issues of the FMS, the Moscow FMS and the FMS of the Republic of Bashkortostan, [the applicant] has not acquired Russian citizenship.
International treaties and Russian legislation do not bar [the applicant’s] extradition.
...” 41.  The applicant and his counsel challenged the extradition order in court, arguing in particular that his extradition would put him at risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. Their submissions contained all of the information previously provided to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office. The Russian offices of Human Rights Watch and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as Civic Assistance (Комитет «Гражданское содействие»), a charitable organisation, also made submissions to the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) against the extradition order, citing the high risk of torture in the event of the applicant’s forced return to Tajikistan. 42.  Following a request by the defence, on an unidentified date the City Court heard several witnesses. Mr Ol., who had studied the criminal case against the applicant and his co-accused as a staff member of the Tajik Prosecutor General’s Office and who had been present in the courtroom during the trial, testified that many of the accused, and in particular, Mr O., Mr I. and Mr Mi., had claimed that their pre-trial statements had been obtained under duress and had renounced them, giving new testimonies. Mr Kh., who had participated in the trial on an anonymous basis, stated the following:
“[They] arrested 500 people and instituted criminal proceedings against thirty-three of them. To extract false confessions in respect of [the applicant], they were tortured with electricity, doused with cold water outside in the winter ... In the courtroom they renounced their statements. When [Mr M.R.] was interrogated he was kicked in the stomach [and] was taken to an intensive-care unit following an intestinal rupture ... When they interrogated [Mr. A.] they coerced him to testify against [the applicant] about drugs. He did not want to do it because that had not happened, and they raped him in the office.
...
At the trial [Mr M.R.] showed a medical record [noting] that he had been tortured.” 43.  The court also heard Mr B.; Mr N., who had provided legal assistance to Mr O. at the trial; Mr Kh.A., the brother of Mr A. (see paragraph 22 above); and Ms Ryabinina, who worked for Civic Assistance. The court refused to admit in evidence the written statements of the applicant’s co‑accused concerning their torture by the authorities on the grounds that it was impossible to establish who had in fact written them or, as was the case with the statement by Mr A., on the grounds that it had been addressed to the Prosecutor General of Russia. 44.  On 12 April 2011 the City Court considered the applicant’s challenge to the extradition order. As noted in the text of the decision, the applicant’s lawyer “argued with reference to the Court’s case‑law concerning extradition to Tajikistan that the applicant should not be extradited because he risked being subjected to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention”. The rest of the defence’s argument was based on claims that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were politically motivated and that it would be impossible for him to receive a fair trial in Tajikistan. 45.  The City Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It firstly noted that the Constitution of Tajikistan enshrined the principle of the separation of powers and held human rights and fundamental freedoms in the highest esteem, with the prosecutor’s office overseeing compliance with the law. It observed that Tajikistan was a member of the United Nations and party to the most prominent international instruments for the protection of human rights, including the Convention against Torture, the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol thereto, and others. It further observed that Tajikistan had established the post of national ombudsman and a human rights commission headed by the Prime Minister, and had amended its Code of Criminal Procedure to exclude admission by the courts of evidence obtained under duress. On the basis of the above, the City Court concluded that Tajikistan “had recognised the fundamental documents concerning the protection of human rights and had taken measures to create mechanisms for their implementation”. 46.  In respect of the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment faced by the applicant, the City Court reasoned as follows:
“Assessing [the applicant’s] fear of becoming a victim of inhuman treatment, the court takes into consideration the following circumstances: firstly, the issue of the criminal prosecution of [the applicant], who was a member of a representative body, was considered not only by the law-enforcement authorities but also by the representative body itself; secondly, being aware of the criminal charges against him, [the applicant] left the territory of Tajikistan ...
The arguments [that the applicant must not be extradited to Tajikistan on account of his well-founded fears of torture and ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention] are unfounded since they constitute assumptions that are in no way corroborated, having been rebutted by the aforementioned credible assurances of the Tajik authorities in respect of [the applicant], which the court has no reason to distrust.
The court does not consider well-founded the statements of any of the defence witnesses, as none of them indicate that in the event of extradition [the applicant] will personally be subjected to torture or other unlawful methods of interrogation. On the contrary, as follows from the assurances furnished by the Tajik authorities, in line with international legal norms [the applicant] will be provided with all means of defence, including legal assistance. He will not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in compliance with the [Convention] and the relevant treaties of the United Nations and the Council of Europe and the protocols thereto.
...
The Republic of Tajikistan provided the Russian Federation with ... assurances which cannot be questioned in the view of the fact that the trial of the other individuals indicted in the same criminal case was held in public for a lengthy period of time; the accused gave their statements freely; the witnesses heard during the examination of the present complaint also claimed that he had not been forced to give certain statements; and it was guaranteed that the competent representatives of the Russian authorities would have access to [the applicant] at any time during the proceedings.
As to the documents submitted by the defence, the court notes that the report of the United Nations Committee against Torture on the situation in Tajikistan is dated 6‑24 November 2006 and contains information relevant for the period from 2000 to 2004; the recommendations of the [United Nations] Committee for Human Rights, which remark on positive developments in the observance of common human rights norms, were issued on 22 July 2004 and 13-14 July 2005; the report of the [non‑governmental organisation] on compliance by Tajikistan with the Convention against Torture is based on information obtained in October 2006 and covers the situation before that date.
In addition, the defence submitted the information of the Bureau for Human Rights for 2007, 2008 and 2009, the review of the human rights situation in Tajikistan dated June 2010 and the national review dated January 2011.
The above documents are generic and do not contain any statements [that it would be inappropriate] for foreign states to extradite Tajikistani nationals to the authorities of Tajikistan.
...
Contrary to the argument of the defence made with reference to the statements of the witnesses, the reply from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office demonstrates that the competent Russian authorities are not in possession of any information concerning the use of unlawful methods of interrogation on the individuals accused of crimes committed in complicity with [the applicant] and extradited by the Russian Federation for criminal prosecution, including Mr O. The office of the representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights is also not in possession of any such data.
...” 47.  On 2 June 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia found the decision of the City Court of 12 April 2011 lawful and reasoned and upheld it on appeal, without adding any further reasoning. 48.  On 23 September 2010 the applicant applied for refugee status with the Moscow City branch of the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”). On 8 October 2010 he was interviewed in the presence of his counsel in respect of his application. The applicant stated that he had arrived in Russia in search of refuge, as the authorities of Tajikistan had persecuted him and had threatened to take his life. 49.  On 7 December 2010 the Moscow City branch of the FMS refused to grant the applicant refugee status, finding that the reason for his request was his fear of criminal liability. 50.  On 31 January 2011 the applicant applied to the Moscow City branch of the FMS for temporary asylum, citing the same grounds as in the refugee application. On 5 March 2011 his application was dismissed for lack of humanitarian grounds warranting the granting of temporary asylum. On the same date the Deputy Director of the FMS rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the Moscow City branch of the FMS to refuse him refugee status. 51.  On 16 September 2011 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow examined the applicant’s appeal against the final decision of the FMS to refuse him refugee status. The applicant averred that in Tajikistan he had been persecuted for his political convictions and for belonging to a certain social group. The court dismissed the appeal, considering that the applicant had failed convincingly to demonstrate the well-foundedness of his fears of persecution in Tajikistan and that his request for refugee status had been prompted by his intention to escape criminal liability in his home country. It is not clear whether that decision was appealed against to a higher court. 52.  On 3 September 2010 the applicant and his counsel submitted an appeal to the District Court against its decision of 31 August 2010 (see paragraph 29 above). On 6 September 2010 the District Court returned the note of appeal for amendment because it had been signed with a facsimile of counsel B.’s signature. The decision to return the note of appeal was sent to the defence on 17 September 2010. The amended note of appeal arrived at the District Court on 21 September 2010. 53.  On an unspecified date the District Court submitted the file to the City Court, which decided on 6 October 2010 to uphold the applicant’s detention. 54.  On 18 October 2010 the District Court further extended the applicant’s term of detention. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, which reached the District Court on 25 October 2010. On an unspecified date the District Court submitted the file to the City Court. On 8 November 2010 the City Court upheld the District Court’s decision on appeal. 55.  On 21 February 2011 the District Court again extended the applicant’s detention pending extradition. The applicant again lodged an appeal, which arrived at the District Court on 28 February 2011. On an unspecified date the District Court submitted the file to the City Court. A hearing of the appeal scheduled for 21 March 2011 was adjourned to 23 March 2011 to allow for further examination of the case file. On 23 March 2011 the City Court upheld the District Court’s decision on appeal. 56.  The final decision to extend the applicant’s detention was taken by the District Court on 16 August 2011 and upheld on appeal on 8 September 2011. 57.  The applicant’s term of detention pending extradition expired on 27 February 2012. 58.  On the same date, at the premises of the Moscow Khamovnicheskiy District Prosecutor’s Office, the applicant and his lawyer were served with a decision to change the applicant’s custodial measure to an undertaking not to leave town. The applicant was served immediately afterwards with a warrant to appear as a witness, signed on 24 February 2012 by investigator A. S. of the Shchelkovo Town Investigation Division, Moscow Region (Следственный отдел по г. Щелково ГСУ СК РФ по Московской области, hereinafter referred to as “the Shchelkovo Investigation Division”). The warrant stated that the applicant was wanted as a witness in a criminal case opened on 10 March 2010 concerning two attempts to assassinate a Mr K. in 2009 and 2012. According to the document, the applicant had been repeatedly summoned to take part in investigative actions but had failed to appear, and his whereabouts had not been known to the authorities. 59.  The applicant was immediately taken to the premises of the Shchelkovo Investigation Division, where he was interviewed and made to take part in a confrontation with Mr K., who allegedly identified him as a possible perpetrator. At 12.40 a.m. on 28 February 2012 the applicant was arrested as a suspect in that criminal case. 60.  By a fax message of 29 February 2012 the Sughd regional prosecutor of Tajikistan, Sh.K., asked A.K., an investigator of the Shchelkovo Investigation Department, to postpone the applicant’s release from custody, citing the Tajik authorities’ suspicions of his involvement in planning the assassination of another person which had allegedly taken place after the applicant’s arrest in Moscow on 27 August 2010. 61.  On 2 March 2012 the Shchelkovo Town Court, Moscow Region, decided to remand the applicant in custody as a criminal suspect until 28 April 2012. 62.  On 25 January 2012 the Registrar of the Court addressed a letter to the Russian Government on behalf of the President of the Court, expressing his profound concern at the repeated allegations of applicants’ secret transfers from Russia to Tajikistan in breach of the interim measures issued under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Qualifying this situation as worrying and unprecedented, the letter invited the Russian Government to provide the Court with exhaustive information about any follow-up given to the incidents in Russia. It also drew the authorities’ attention to the fact that the interim measures continued to apply in twenty-five other cases concerning extradition and expulsion, including the present case. As an indication of the seriousness with which he viewed this turn of events, the President asked that the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe be informed immediately (see the full text of the letter quoted in Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 52, 25 April 2013). 63.  According to the Government, all bodies with competence to secure the applicant’s forcible transfer to Tajikistan were informed of the prohibition of such an action: on 3 February 2012 the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court informed the Prosecutor’s General’s Office, the Ministry of the Interior, the FMS and the the FSB of the interim measures issued by the Court, inter alia, in respect of the applicant. 64.  At the 1136th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies held on 8 March 2012, the Committee of Ministers adopted the following decision on that issue (CM/Del/Dec(2012)1136/19):
“The Deputies
... 4.  as regards the Iskandarov case, recalled that the violations of the Convention in this case were due to the applicant’s kidnapping by unknown persons, whom the Court found to be Russian State agents, and his forcible transfer to Tajikistan after his extradition had been refused by the Russian authorities; 5.  noted with profound concern the indication by the Court that repeated incidents of this kind have recently taken place in respect of four other applicants whose cases are pending before the Court where it applied interim measures to prevent their extradition on account of the imminent risk of grave violations of the Convention faced by them; 7.  noted further that the Russian authorities are currently addressing these incidents and are committed to present the results of the follow-up given to them in Russia to the Court in the framework of its examination of the cases concerned and to the Committee with regard to the Iskandarov case; 8.  urged the Russian authorities to continue to take all necessary steps to shed light on the circumstances of Mr. Iskandarov’s kidnapping and to ensure that similar incidents are not likely to occur in the future and to inform the Committee of Ministers thereof.” 65.  On 26 March 2012 members of the Moscow Region Public Commission for Monitoring the Protection of Human Rights in Detention («Общественная наблюдательная комиссия по осуществлению общественного контроля за обеспечением прав человека в местах принудительного содержания в Московской области») visited the applicant and held a conversation with him in the SIZO-50/12 remand centre located in Zelenograd, Moscow Region. In a letter dated 8 April 2012, two members of the Commission, Mr N. D. and Mr I. Sh., stated that the applicant had unambiguously confirmed that he had no intention of returning to Tajikistan where he feared torture and an unlawful criminal conviction. He had also declared that he was doing everything in his power to remain in Russia and pursuing his fight for release. 66.  The applicant’s nephew, Mr I. D., testified in writing that in his last telephone conversation with the applicant on 27 March 2012, the latter had confirmed his intention to stay in Russia, while voicing fears that the new charge had been brought against him with a view to ensuring his subsequent abduction and transfer to Tajikistan. According to both the applicant’s representative and his nephew, the fear of abduction had prompted the applicant to arrange for them immediately to meet him at the remand centre in case he was suddenly released. 67.  On 29 March 2012 the applicant left the premises of the SIZO-50/12 remand centre in Zelenograd. According to information provided by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences (“the FSIN”) and transmitted by the Government to the Court, the applicant was released at 1 p.m., having signed an undertaking not to leave town. Neither the applicant’s lawyer nor his next-of-kin were notified of the decision to release him. In the morning of the same day the lawyer received a phone call from one of the applicant’s cellmates informing her that the applicant was about to leave the remand centre. However, by the time she reached the remand centre the applicant had disappeared without leaving any trace. 68.  Subsequently, the applicant’s lawyer received a letter from the Shchelkovo Investigation Division dated 23 March 2012 informing her that the applicant would be served with new charges at SIZO-50/12 at 9 a.m. on 29 March 2012 and inviting her to attend. The postmark on the letter showed that it had been posted on 31 March 2012. 69.  The respondent Government submitted a letter of 6 June 2012 from the Prosecutor General’s Office of Tajikistan to its Russian counterpart according to which the applicant had gone to the State Committee for National Security of Tajikistan on 5 April 2012 and had been arrested. The letter stated that the applicant had been released on 9 April 2012 having signed an undertaking not to leave town. 70.  On 7 April 2012 Tajik State television broadcast a video of the applicant reading out a statement that immediately following his release from the remand centre, feeling guilty and worrying about his children and elderly mother, he had decided to return to Tajikistan and to turn himself in to the authorities. With that goal in mind, he had walked to the nearest market in Zelenograd, where he had borrowed 15,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 370 Euro (EUR)) from his compatriots. Without specifying the means of travel, he stated that he had subsequently arrived in Orenburg; crossing the Russian‑Kazakh border, he had arrived in Almaty, Kazakhstan; crossing the Kazakh-Kyrgyz border, he had arrived in Bishkek. Then he had travelled to Osh, crossed the Kyrgyz-Tajik border and arrived in Kistakuz, a town near the northern border of Tajikistan. From there he had travelled to Dushanbe, the capital city of Tajikistan, where he had turned himself in to the State Committee for National Security. 71.  Following the applicant’s disappearance on 29 March 2012, his representative immediately addressed the Russian law-enforcement authorities seeking the applicant’s urgent protection. On the same date she sent letters to the Russian Prosecutor General, the Head of the State border service and the Representative of the Russian Federation at the Court, asking them to take urgent measures to prevent the applicant’s forced repatriation to Tajikistan. 72.  On the same date the Court forwarded the complaint about the applicant’s disappearance to the Government, asking them to comment on the alleged risk of the applicant’s being transferred to Tajikistan in breach of the interim measures issued by the Court. 73.  On the next day, the applicant’s representative addressed the prosecutor of Shchelkovo, informing him of the emergency and reporting alleged gross irregularities in the proceedings conducted by the Shchelkovo Investigation Division. She referred in particular to their failure to notify her about their intention to modify the charges against the applicant. She also referred to the Shchelkovo Investigation Division’s direct contacts with the Prosecutor’s Office of Tajikistan, which had asked them not to release the applicant from detention pending a new request for his extradition. She alleged that the deputy head of the Shchelkovo Investigation Division, A.K., was responsible for those events and asked the prosecutor to inquire into this situation.
74  On 2 April 2012 the Government informed the Court that they were not aware of the applicant’s whereabouts. 75.  On 4 April 2012 the above complaints by the applicant’s representative were transmitted to the Shchelkovo Prosecutor’s Office and the Shchelkovo Investigation Division. On 17 April 2012 the Shchelkovo Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant’s lawyer’s complaint, suggesting that she ask the police to search for the applicant as the prosecutor’s office was not competent to conduct any investigative or search activities. 76.  The Court has received no further information about any follow up given by the authorities to the requests seeking the applicant’s urgent protection against his alleged abduction and forcible transfer to Tajikistan. 77.  On 3 April 2012 the applicant’s representative wrote to the director of SIZO-50/12 in Zelenograd requesting details of the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s release and the preservation of footage possibly captured by closed-circuit cameras at the remand centre on 29 March 2012. She also wrote on the same date to the head of the Zelenograd Investigation Division of Moscow (Зеленоградский следственный отдел ГСУ СК РФ по г. Москве, hereinafter referred to as “the Zelenograd Investigation Division”) to inform it of the applicant’s disappearance and ask for a criminal investigation to be opened. She referred in particular to the recurrence of similar incidents with regard to Tajikistan and to possible involvement of the deputy head of the Shchelkovo Investigation Division, A.K., in the incident at issue. 78.  On 17 April 2012 the Court put additional questions to the Government (see paragraph 7 above), inviting them in particular to comment on the assertion by the applicant’s representative that Russian State agents had been involved in the applicant’s abduction and forcible transfer to Tajikistan. They were further requested to inform the Court of all decisions and actions taken by the investigation authorities in response to the request for the opening of criminal proceedings, which had been lodged by the applicant’s representative on 3 April 2012 with the Zelenograd Investigation Division. 79.  On 13 November 2012 the Government submitted, without providing any decision or document, that an investigator of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation had conducted a preliminary inquiry under Articles 144-145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued several decisions refusing to open a criminal investigation on the grounds of absence of corpus delicti. According to the Government, all those decisions had been repeatedly quashed, inter alia, by the Zelenograd District Prosecutor’s Office. 80.  On 25 February 2013 the Government submitted, again without providing any decision or document, that the inquiry into the applicant’s abduction and transfer to Tajikistan was still being pursued by the Zelenograd Investigation Division. On an unidentified date, a decision was taken not to open a criminal investigation in view of the failure to identify the offender to be prosecuted. On 14 January 2013 the deputy head of the Zelenograd Investigation Division quashed that decision and remitted the case for further inquiry. The State border service of the FSB was asked to check information about the illegal crossing of the Russian State border by the applicant or his crossing the border against his will. 81.  The Government expressed the view, nonetheless, that the applicant’s forcible removal from Russia to Tajikistan was an uncorroborated assumption by the applicant’s representatives. Referring to the version of the applicant’s voluntary surrender to the Tajik authorities (see paragraph 69 above), they informed the Court that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Tajikistan had made a detailed examination of the arguments submitted by the applicant’s representatives and had found them unsubstantiated. The Government also informed the Court that the State border service had not kept a record of the persons crossing the border. They submitted that the CCTV footage captured in SIZO‑50/12 on 29 March 2012, which had been requested by the applicant’s lawyer and the Court in the wake of the impugned events, had not been preserved “due to a shortage of server memory”.