B.T. v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible
Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra
1. The applicant, Mr B.T., is an Uzbek national who was born in 1977. 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 N.N. Motuz, a lawyer practising in Simferopol. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 3. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the real risk of ill-treatment in the event of his extradition to Uzbekistan. 4. On 19 July 2016 the applicant’s request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was granted. It was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicant should not be extradited until further notice. At the same time the Court, acting under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, requested the Government to provide factual information regarding the extradition proceedings. 5. On 30 August 2016 the Government provided the requested information, arguing in particular that the applicant did not face any real risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan because he did not belong to any vulnerable group and because the Uzbek authorities had provided relevant assurances. 7. On 19 December 2013 an investigator in Uzbekistan opened a criminal inquiry into the applicant’s actions. On 25 December 2013 he was indicted on charges of trafficking in drugs, a search warrant was issued in his name and his detention was ordered in absentia. 8. According to the applicant, at the end of January 2014 he crossed the Russian border and subsequently moved to the Crimea. 9. On 29 June 2015 the applicant was arrested. 10. On 24 July 2015 an extradition request was submitted by the Uzbek authorities. 11. On 7 April 2016 the applicant’s extradition was authorised by a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. The applicant challenged the decision in court. 12. On 19 May 2016 the extradition order was upheld on appeal. 13. On 28 July 2016 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the appeal court’s decision. The applicant’s extradition authorisation became final and enforceable. 14. In response to the applicant’s arguments under Article 3 of the Convention, the Supreme Court stated that the applicant did not face a risk comparable to persons belonging to vulnerable groups identified by the international reports. They considered that he voluntarily left Uzbekistan in pursuance of family life in Russia and was charged with a drug-related offence, which was not a politically or religiously motivated crime. They referred to the assurances of the Uzbek authorities and argued that he had failed to prove that his individual circumstances justified the conclusion that he would face a risk of ill-treatment if extradited to Uzbekistan. In the relevant part the judgment read as follows: “Having considered the complaints concerning possible torture of B.T. [in Uzbekistan], which would prevent his transfer to Uzbek authorities, [the court] notes the following. It follows from the World Report 2016 [by Human Rights Watch] on the situation in Uzbekistan, as well as reports on the criminal justice system in Uzbekistan of the UN and international non-governmental organizations, submitted by the representative of B.T., that there are instances of the use of torture, ill-treatment by law enforcement officials, and systematic persecution of political opposition, human rights activists, journalists, [non-orthodox] Muslims and Christians. Judicial consideration of this complaint by B.T. did not reveal circumstances capable of leading to a conclusion that he would be subjected to the risk of cruel treatment or torture in case of extradition to Uzbekistan. In his statements after arrest and during the court hearings B.T., an ethnic Uzbek, did not claim that he belonged to any opposition movement or a religious group. He did not justify his departure from Uzbekistan by any persecution on political, religious, ethnic, faith, or social grounds. Neither did he raise these arguments in his appeal. According to B.T.’s statements in court he arrived to Crimea, where his relatives (mother and brother) reside, with the purpose of establishing a family. The charges of drug-related offences pursued against B.T. also have no political or religious basis. Under these circumstances the written assurances of [Uzbek authorities], compliant with international legal standards, as well as assurances that the criminal prosecution will be pursued in strict compliance with criminal procedure legislation and international treaties, must be considered sufficient... Any other conclusion in absence of specific information on the existence of a real risk of violation of [B.T.’s Article 3 rights] would be a mere speculation. Violations of the said Convention provision in respect of persons charged with politically or religiously motivated crimes do not substantiate the conclusion that similar violations are going to take place in respect of B.T., who is accused of a common criminal offence.” 15. On 22 December 2016 the applicant was released on his own recognisance because of the expiry of the maximum statutory period of detention.