6.  On various dates, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants in Uzbekistan on suspicion of sedition; of creating, leading and of being members of a religious fundamentalist, extremist, separatist or other prohibited organisation; and, in respect of the first applicant, of the distribution of material threatening public order and causing incitement to ethnic or religious hatred. 7.  Orders for their arrest were issued by the Uzbek authorities and they were placed on an international list of wanted persons. 8.  They left Uzbekistan on various dates and eventually arrived in Ukraine. 9.  On 3 April 2009 the Ukrainian migration authorities dismissed the first applicant’s asylum application as being groundless. The applicant appealed. 10.  On 15 June 2010 the first applicant was arrested by the Ukrainian police as a person appearing on the international list of wanted persons. 11.  On 16 June 2010 the police applied to the Irpin Town Court (“the Town Court”) for the applicant’s arrest under provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning arrest of people suspected of criminal offences in Ukraine. 12.  On 17 June 2010 amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning extradition and detention pending extradition came into force (see paragraph 59 below). 13.  On the same day, the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention by up to ten days, considering that additional information was needed about his personal situation. It relied on legislation applicable to persons charged with criminal offences in Ukraine and did not refer to the new provisions of the Code concerning extradition. 14.  On 24 June 2010 the Town Court, acting under the amended provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning extradition, issued an order for the applicant’s provisional arrest for forty days, pending the receipt of an extradition request from the Uzbek authorities. On 30 June 2010 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld that order. 15.  On 23 July 2010 the Kyiv Shevchenkivsky District Court (“the Shevchenkivsky Court”), upon an application by the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine (“the GPO”), ordered the applicant’s arrest pending extradition, for a period not to exceed eighteen months, until the extradition proceedings had been completed. On 9 August 2010 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld that order. 16.  On 21 June 2011 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the migration authorities’ decision of 3 April 2009 and ordered that the applicant’s request for asylum be reconsidered. 17.  On 24 January 2012 the first applicant was released. 18.  On 14 December 2009 the UNHCR recognised the second applicant as a refugee under its mandate. 19.  On 23 December 2009 the migration authorities dismissed the second applicant’s application for asylum in Ukraine as being groundless. 20.  On 29 June 2010 the second applicant was arrested by the Ukrainian police as a person appearing on the international list of wanted persons. 21.  On 2 July 2010 the Bila Tserkva Court ordered the applicant’s provisional arrest for up to thirty days, until the receipt of an extradition request. 22.  On 28 July 2010 the UNHCR issued a certificate stating that it had recognised the applicant as a refugee. On 29 July 2010 the applicant lodged that certificate, together with his objections to the detention request, with the Shevchenkivsky Court. 23.  On 29 July 2010 the Shevchenkivsky Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending extradition for up to eighteen months, until the extradition proceedings had been completed. On 9 August 2010 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld that order. 24.  On 25 June 2011 the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court quashed the migration authorities’ decision of 23 December 2009 and ordered them to re-examine the applicant’s application. 25.  On 29 January 2012 the applicant was released. 26.  On 4 November 2009 the migration authorities dismissed the third applicant’s application for asylum in Ukraine as being groundless. The applicant appealed. 27.  According to police records, at 9.30 p.m. on 8 July 2010 the third applicant was arrested by the Ukrainian police as a person appearing on the international list of wanted persons. 28.  On 10 July 2010 the police requested that the Kyiv-Svyatoshyn District Court (“the Kyiv-Svyatoshyn Court”) place the applicant under provisional arrest pending receipt of an extradition request from Uzbekistan. 29.  In his submissions to the Kyiv-Svyatoshyn Court, the applicant opposed the police request on the grounds, in particular, that the proceedings concerning his request for asylum were still pending. In his submissions he stated that he had been arrested at 2 p.m. on 9 July 2010 and did not make any complaint in that regard. 30.  On 12 July 2010 the Kyiv-Svyatoshyn Court ordered the applicant’s provisional arrest for up to thirty days, until the receipt of an extradition request. 31.  On 19 July 2010 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the order of 12 July 2010 and remitted the request for provisional arrest to the first-instance court for fresh examination. The Court of Appeal held, in particular, that the first-instance court had failed to examine in detail the applicant’s personal situation and whether there were obstacles to his extradition. 32.  On 3 August 2010 the Kyiv-Svyatoshyn Court ordered the applicant’s provisional arrest for up to forty days. It held that his arguments concerning an alleged risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan had to be examined within the framework of the proceedings for extradition. 33.  On the same day, the police lodged a request for the applicant’s detention pending extradition, based on an extradition request which had arrived in the meantime (see paragraph 37 below). 34.  On 4 August 2010 the Shevchenkivsky Court ordered the applicant’s detention for up to eighteen months, until the extradition proceedings had been completed. On 12 August 2010 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld that order. 35.  According to the Government, on 14 July 2011 the Kyiv Circuit Administrative Court upheld the migration authorities’ decision of 4 November 2009. 36.  On 6 February 2012 the applicant was released. 4.  Extradition inquiry in respect of the first three applicants and applications for asylum in Sweden and the United States of America 37.  On 9 July 2010 the GPO received formal requests from the Uzbek authorities for the first and third applicant’s extradition and on 27 July 2010 received a similar request concerning the second applicant. The GPO asked the Kyiv regional prosecutor’s office to conduct an extradition inquiry into the applicants’ cases. 38.  On 10 July 2010 the GPO asked the Security Service and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for information about the first applicant, in particular whether he was being persecuted by the Uzbek authorities owing to political or religious activities. On 29 and 14 July 2010 similar requests were sent concerning the second and third applicants. 39.  On the same dates, the GPO asked the Uzbek authorities to provide more detailed information about the acts of which the applicants were suspected and for assurances concerning the applicants’ treatment if they were extradited. 40.  On 3 August 2010 the Security Service informed the GPO that it had no information concerning the details of the first and third applicants’ activities in Uzbekistan. 41.  On 24 August, and 2 and 6 September 2010 the Uzbek authorities provided the assurances requested by the GPO in respect of the third, second and first applicants respectively. 42.  On 24 August and 16 November 2010 the GPO, in response to its previous request, received copies of documents from the Uzbek authorities describing the nature of the charges against the third and first applicants in Uzbekistan. 43.  On 14 October 2010 the Ambassador of the United States of America (“the US”) to Ukraine asked the GPO to facilitate a visit to the detained Uzbek nationals on 15 and 21 October 2010 by representatives of the US Department of Homeland Security for interviews as part of the process of examining their requests for asylum in the US. 44.  According to the second applicant, on 1 October 2010 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to the GPO’s request for information. 45.  On 22 November 2010 the GPO received the reports of the Kyiv regional prosecutor’s office on the results of its extradition inquiries concerning the applicants. The reports recommended that the applicants’ extradition be refused, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that extradition can be refused where “the competent authority of the foreign State has not provided, at the request of the central authority, additional materials or data, without which a decision on the extradition request may not be taken”. 46.  On 8 April 2011 the GPO wrote to the US Embassy. It referred to the visit of the US officials to the first and third applicant and to information provided to the GPO by the second applicant’s lawyer that his application for asylum was pending before the US authorities. The GPO asked the Embassy to inform it of any progress in examining the applicants’ requests for asylum. 47.  On 5 July and 2 September 2011 the GPO again requested information from the US Embassy, indicating that no response to its previous requests had been received. 48.  On 18 October 2011 the US Embassy informed the GPO that members of its staff needed to visit the first and third applicants in order to finalise their asylum applications and take their fingerprints. It requested assistance in arranging such a visit. 49.  On 16 December 2011 the UNHCR informed the GPO that it had recognised the first three applicants as refugees under its mandate and invited the GPO to give due weight to this decision in examining Uzbekistan’s extradition requests. It further stated that the US authorities were in the process of examining the first and third applicants’ requests for asylum. The UNHCR added that it could not facilitate the second applicant’s resettlement because he was in a polygamous marriage. 50.  On 23 January 2012 the UNHCR informed the GPO that the first applicant had been granted asylum in Sweden. 51.  On 10 and 20 February 2012 the GPO decided not to extradite the third and first applicants to Uzbekistan in view of the fact that they had been granted asylum in the US and Sweden respectively. The GPO also observed that the information originally submitted by the Uzbek authorities in support of their requests for extradition had been insufficient and that the Uzbek authorities had not remedied that, despite the GPO’s requests. The GPO considered that that too constituted an obstacle to the applicants’ extradition to Uzbekistan. 52.  The parties did not inform the Court of any final decision concerning the second applicant’s extradition. As of the date of the submission of the applicants’ observations in reply to those of the Government, that is 9 December 2013, no such decision had been made. 53.  On 2 July 2010 the applicant was arrested by the Ukrainian police. He was released on the same day but re-arrested on 6 July 2010. 54.  On 9 July 2010 the Bila Tserkva District Court ordered his provisional arrest for up to thirty days. 55.  On 5 August 2010 the applicant was released as no extradition request had arrived by that date. 56.  On 16 August 2010 the GPO received an extradition request from the Uzbek authorities. 57.  On 7 October 2010 the GPO decided to refuse extradition on the grounds that the offence with which he had been charged under Uzbek law, namely creating, leading and being a member of a religious fundamentalist, extremist, separatist or other prohibited organisation, were not offences under Ukrainian criminal law.