M.D. v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible
Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković
1. The applicant, Mr M. D., is a Kyrgyzstan national, who was born in 1987 and currently resides in Novosibirsk. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He was represented before the Court by Ms I.B. Kalkopf, a lawyer practising in Novosibirsk. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant is a Kyrgyztan national of an Uzbek ethnic origin. 5. In October 2010, after the inter-ethnic violence in the region of JalalAbad in June 2010, the applicant left Kyrgyzstan for Russia, fleeing ethnic-motivated violence. 6. On 30 January 2011 the Kyrgyz authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in June 2010. On 1 May 2011 they issued an international search warrant. 7. On 30 September 2011 the applicant was arrested and placed in custody in Russia. The Kyrgyz authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant’s extradition. 8. On 30 September 2012 the detention measure was lifted and the applicant was released from custody under an obligation not to leave his place of residence. 9. Pending the completion of the extradition proceedings, the applicant unsuccessfully sought a refugee status, temporary asylum and political asylum in Russia. 10. On 4 April 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant’s extradition. The order mentioned that the Kyrgyz authorities provided diplomatic assurances that the applicant would not be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment; the extradition request did not aim at persecuting the applicant on religious, political grounds or grounds relating to his ethnic origin; he would benefit from free access by the Russian authorities’ representative in the place of his detention. 11. The applicant appealed against this decision and advanced an argument that he might be subject to ill-treatment due to his Uzbek ethnic origin. 12. On 21 June 2013 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the extradition order. As to the applicant’s arguments about alleged risk of illtreatment the court concluded that they were unfounded, since the reports provided by the applicant referred to past years, namely 2011, and the opinions of human rights activists were their own subjective opinion not based on real facts. 13. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Russia. 14. On 11 September 2013 the Court acceded to the applicant’s request to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and indicated to the Government that the applicant should not be extradited or otherwise involuntarily removed from Russia to Kyrgyzstan or another country for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. 15. On 17 September 2013 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment of 21 June 2013 and remitted the case for a fresh examination in the first instance. 16. On 5 October 2013 the Novosibirsk Regional Court quashed the extradition order of 4 April 2013. 17. On 14 January 2014 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the appeal lodged by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Novosibirsk Region and upheld the judgment of 5 October 2013. The extradition order of 4 April 2013 was thus annulled. 18. For a summary of relevant international and domestic law and practice see Abdulkhakov v. Russia (no. 14743/11, §§ 71-98, 2 October 2012). 19. For relevant reports on Kyrgyzstan see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia (no. 49747/11, §§ 30-46, 16 October 2012).