ISAKOV v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible
Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
1. Mr Abdulazhon Mamadzhanovich Isakov was born in 1963 and lived, prior to his disappearance, in Tyumen. He is a stateless person. The application in his name was submitted to the Court by Ms N. Yermolayeva, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. In 1989 Mr Isakov moved from Uzbekistan to the Tyumen Region in Russia. 4. In 1998 the Uzbek authorities opened a criminal case against Mr Isakov on charges of attempting to overthrow the State’s constitutional order in Uzbekistan and put his name on the wanted persons’ list. 5. On 6 March 2008 Mr Isakov was arrested in Tyumen, Russia, and remanded in custody with a view to extradition. 6. On 12 August 2008 the Russian Prosecutor General’s office decided to extradite Mr Isakov to Uzbekistan. The domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction upheld the extradition order. A final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 22 December 2008. 7. On 21 March 2008 Mr Isakov lodged an application with the Court in which he complained about his detention in Russia with a view to extradition to Uzbekistan where he faced politically-based persecution by the local authorities. On 30 September 2008 Mr Isakov signed an authority form authorising several lawyers, including Ms Yermolayeva, to represent him in the proceedings before the Court. 8. On 10 November 2008 the Court granted Mr Isakov’s request for the application of interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court and indicated to the Russian Government that he should not be extradited to Uzbekistan until further notice. On the same date the application was communicated to the Government which were requested to submit observations concerning the risk of ill-treatment if the extradition order in respect of Mr Isakov were enforced, lawfulness and review of his detention in Russia and alleged lack of effective remedies in this respect. The parties’ observations were received on 28 July and 2 October 2009 respectively. The Government complied with the Court’s request as to the application of interim measures and submission of observations. 9. On 5 March 2010 Mr Isakov was released from custody and on 17 March 2010 he was granted temporary asylum in Russia. 10. On 8 July 2010 the Court delivered a judgment in Mr Isakov’s case (see Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010) where it found, inter alia, that in the event of the extradition order against Mr Isakov being enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 11. On 1 June 2011 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 12 August 2008 and the ensuing judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court’s decision of 22 December 2008 (see paragraph 6 above). 12. Mr Isakov and his family (wife and children) continued to reside in Tyumen, Russia. 13. On 3 February 2012 the Government informed the Committee of Ministers of the individual measures taken within the framework of the execution of the judgment in Mr Isakov’s case. In particular, the Government reported that (1) the judgment had been enforced as regards the payment of non-pecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses and (2) the extradition-related judicial decisions had been quashed. 14. In September 2013, within the framework of the supervision of the execution of a number of judgments against Russia relating to disappearances and/or forcible transfers and also repeated allegations of such incidents, the Committee adopted an Interim Resolution (CM/ResDh(2013)200) exhorting the Russian authorities to develop without further delay an appropriate mechanism tasked with both preventive and protective functions to ensure that applicants belonging to the risk group benefit from immediate and effective protection against unlawful or irregular removal from the Russian territory. 15. In the night of 21-22 July 2014 Mr Isakov’s car was found damaged on the road and Mr Isakov had disappeared. His family’s attempts to establish his whereabouts were to no avail. 16. On 22 July 2014 A.M., Mr Isakov’s nephew, reported Mr Isakov’s disappearance to the regional department of the interior. Mr Isakov’s family retained counsel Kh. to represent them in connection with the investigation into Mr Isakov’s disappearance. 17. On 23 July 2014 the Court granted a request lodged by Ms Yermolayeva, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, and indicated to the Government that Mr Isakov should not be extradited, expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from Russia to Uzbekistan or another country for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The Government were also requested to furnish any information about Mr Isakov’s whereabouts and possible arrest and detention in Russia and/or removal to Uzbekistan. The application was also granted priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of the Court. 18. On 6 August 2014 the Government reported that the investigation into Mr Isakov’s disappearance was pending and that his whereabouts were unknown to the authorities. 19. On the same date, relying on the authority form issued by Mr Isakov in 2008, Ms Yermolayeva lodged an application in Mr Isakov’s name. She alleged that Mr Isakov had been abducted by Russian state agents and forcefully removed to Uzbekistan where he would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Referring to Article 34 of the Convention, she argued that the Government had failed to comply with the Court’s indication made under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court. 20. On 25 August 2014 the senior investigator with the regional investigative committee opened criminal investigation into Mr Isakov’s disappearance. 21. On 4 September 2014 the senior investigator in charge of Mr Isakov’s disappearance questioned Kh.I., Mr Isakov’s brother. Kh.I. submitted that, according to his older sister who lived in Uzbekistan, Mr Isakov was allegedly in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. 22. On 12 September 2014 the President of the Section gave notice of the application to the Government and invited the latter to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. 23. On 24 October 2014 the senior investigator in charge of Mr Isakov’s disappearance questioned Z.I., Mr Isakov’s son. 24. On 29 October 2014 the Government submitted the observations. 25. On 8 January 2015 Ms Yermolayeva submitted the observations on the matter maintaining the complaints on Mr Isakov’s behalf and claims for just satisfaction. 26. On 12 February 2015 the Government provided comments on the claims for just satisfaction and further observations. 27. On 15 April 2015 the President of the Section invited the parties, under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of the Court, to submit further observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The parties were to comment as to whether the application was compatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and the Government’s failure to submit a complete investigation file concerning Mr Isakov’s alleged abduction and disappearance. 28. On 31 May and 1 June 2015 Ms Yermolayeva and the Government respectively submitted further observations (see paragraphs 34-35 below). 29. Mr Isakov’s whereabouts remain unknown to date. 30. In its decisions adopted at 1214th and 1230th meetings (December 2014 and June 2015), the Committee of Ministers, responding to the situation concerning disappearances and/or forcible transfers, noted that the Russian authorities adopted a number of awareness-raising measures and instructions. Nevertheless, the Committee of Ministers considered that these measures were insufficient and invited the authorities to adopt special protective measures in respect of the applicants who were exposed to such risks and underlined the need for special measures to ensure rapid and effective investigations into such incidents. 31. On 2-4 December 2014 (CM/Del/Dec(2014)1214E/05 December 2014) at its 1214th meeting (DH), the Committee of Ministers noted as follows, as regards Mr Isakov’s situation: “As to the investigation of the alleged abductions of Messrs Abdulazhon Isakov and Mukhitdinov reported in July 2014, criminal cases have been opened. No evidence has thus far been obtained regarding the removal of Mr Abdulazhon Isakov from the territory of the Russian Federation. The Russian authorities also insisted that the Committee of Ministers was not competent to supervise this issue as it was already being examined in the adversarial proceedings before the European Court. As regards the Russian authorities’ comments with respect to the Committee’s competence to supervise the investigations into the recent alleged abductions of Messrs Abdulazhon Isakov and Mukhitdinov, the following factors have to be taken into account. As regards the first case, there already exists a final Court judgment establishing a violation, granting the Committee full competence to look into both individual and general measures, irrespective of any new application made on behalf of the same person to the Court. Such situations are frequent and have never led the Committee to exempt the State concerned from its obligation to keep the Committee informed of the developments. As regards the second case, while it is true that there is no final judgment at the moment, the case is relevant for execution purposes as an example, among others, of the development of the situation and the efficiency of the general measures adopted (see e.g. the Court’s indication in the Savriddin Dzhurayev judgment (§263).”