Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant is an ethnic NORP . He was born and lived in GPE in the south of GPE . In DATE he and his family moved to ORG and , DATE , to PERSON where the applicant worked at a telephone repair service . In DATE the applicant went to PERSON to attend his sister ’s wedding . On DATE he was carrying several passengers of NORP ethnic origin in his car . Afterwards one of them , a Mr M. , was found dead .

On DATE the applicant returned to ORG .

On DATE the PERSON - Abad regional police department brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and CARDINAL other individuals on suspicion of having murdered Mr M. On DATE the applicant was charged in absentia and on DATE ORG ordered his remand in custody , allegedly in the absence of his lawyer . On DATE the applicant was placed on the international wanted list .

According to the applicant and as confirmed by a lawyer of a local human rights organisation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , several NORP lawenforcement officers had demanded MONEY from his mother in return for dropping the criminal charges against him . Apparently she did not comply with their demand .

On DATE the FAC of the Jalal - Abad Region convicted PERSON of PERSON ’s murder and CARDINAL more individuals of misprision and disorderly conduct . The applicant is mentioned in the judgment as the driver of the car transporting the defendants and the victim on TIME of the murder . It does not follow from the judgment that the applicant had been involved in Mr PERSON ’s murder , which had apparently been committed by Mr U. alone .

On DATE the ORG of GPE altered the judgment of the trial court by reducing the term of Mr U. ’s imprisonment from DATE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in PERSON .

On DATE the prosecutor of LOC of ORG issued an order for the applicant to be remanded in custody for a period of DATE .

On DATE ORG of PERSON extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The applicant neither objected at the hearing nor appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , reasoning that extradition proceedings were pending and that the applicant might abscond .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG . He argued that the court had failed to duly reason the risk of his absconding , that the period of his detention was excessive , and that the court had not considered less stringent preventive measures , in breach of paragraph CARDINAL of Directive Decision no . CARDINAL adopted by LAW of ORG on DATE .

By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeal and upheld the lower court ’s ruling .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s period of detention until DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld that decision .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE noted the interim measure indicated by the ORG and ordered the applicant ’s release on condition that he did not leave his place of residence without permission and behaved properly ( подписка о невыезде и надлежащем поведении ) .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE lodged an extradition request with the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE seeking to extradite the applicant to GPE for prosecution on charges of murder ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The request stated , inter alia , that the applicant would not be extradited to any other ORG without ORG consent , that he would be prosecuted only for the offence which was the subject of the extradition request and which was not of a political nature , that in the event of conviction the applicant would be free to leave the territory of GPE after serving his sentence , and that he would not be subjected to any form of discrimination on any ground , including his nationality . The request also stated that the applicant would not be subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment prohibited by LAW .

On an unspecified date , at the request of the applicant ’s mother , a lawyer from a NORP human - rights NGO , PERSON PERSON , wrote a letter to the head of the extradition department of ORG of GPE . In the letter Mr PERSON argued that the applicant ’s criminal prosecution was arbitrary . He confirmed that police officers had demanded money from the applicant ’s mother in exchange for dropping the criminal charges against the applicant . He stated that the NORP authorities had been showing the applicant ’s photo to victims of the events of DATE to make them remember him with a view to charging him with the killings of ethnic NORP after his extradition . He also gave details of several criminal cases initiated against ethnic NORP who had allegedly been tortured and/or killed by the NORP police . In support of his statements PERSON PERSON referred to the opinion of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture who had concluded after his visit to GPE that many ethnic NORP had been arbitrarily convicted in GPE in DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE made enquiries with ORG on the issue of the applicant ’s extradition to GPE . On DATE ORG replied as follows :

“ ... ORG has no information which prevents the extradition of the NORP national PERSON to the law - enforcement authorities of GPE .

PERSON is of NORP ethnic origin , he does not belong to the titular ethnic group in GPE , which makes it possible for the NORP authorities to hear his case in an arbitrary manner . ”

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE granted the request for the applicant ’s extradition .

On DATE the applicant lodged a court appeal against the extradition decision . He pointed out that by the judgment of ORG of the PERSON - Abad Region of DATE , Mr U. had been found guilty of the murder of Mr M. with which the applicant had been charged . It followed from that judgment that nobody had been charged with complicity in that murder . The applicant further noted that the lawenforcement officers had attempted to extort money from his mother in exchange for dropping the criminal charges against him . He argued that the accusation of murder against him was baseless as he had not committed that crime . Besides , as a member of the ethnic NORP community , which was being persecuted and discriminated against , he would , if extradited , be subjected to torture or degrading treatment . The applicant ’s lawyer gave several examples of such illtreatment suffered by ethnic NORP in GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . In its decision ORG relied , inter alia , on the following : ( a ) the assurances by ORG , in particular that the applicant would not be subjected to torture and other forms of ill - treatment – the court stated that it had no reasons to doubt that they would be observed ; ( b ) the NORP authorities’ rejection of the applicant ’s request for refugee status ; and ( c ) the fact that the extradition request had not been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the applicant on account of his race , religion , nationality or political opinion .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG of GPE . In addition to the arguments put forward before ORG , his lawyer referred to information on the widespread practice of ill - treatment of detainees in GPE , as confirmed by the ORG High Commissioner on Human Rights , the UN Special Rapporteur on ORG and ORG .

On DATE by a final decision ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of ORG DATE . It endorsed the lower court ’s reasoning without commenting on the applicant ’s reference to the international sources regarding the risk of illtreatment .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request for refugee status before ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) . On DATE his application was rejected as ill - founded . In its decision ORG in GPE pointed out that the applicant had submitted his request after the beginning of the extradition proceedings . They also mentioned that such requests often served the purpose of revoking decisions to extradite .

The applicant appealed against that decision before ORG of Grozny . In his appeal he referred to information on the widespread practice of ill - treatment of NORP detainees in GPE , as confirmed by the ORG High Commissioner on Human Rights , the UN Special Rapporteur on ORG and ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the ORG ’s decision . The court did not address the applicant ’s arguments concerning the risk of ill - treatment and found that the reason for the applicant ’s request for refugee status was his fear of criminal prosecution . It held that there was therefore no legal basis for granting the request .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision before ORG . He pointed out , inter alia , that ORG had ignored his reference to information on the practice of ill - treatment confirmed by international human - rights organisations .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It did not analyse his arguments concerning the risk of ill - treatment in GPE .

On an unspecified date the applicant requested ORG in GPE to grant him temporary asylum in GPE . On DATE that request was granted and the applicant was provided with temporary asylum until DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Egidijus Kūris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings .


CASE OF BOKAN AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

The applicants live in GPE .

By CARDINAL judgments of ORG DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE which became final on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG ( an Entity of GPE ) was ordered to pay , within DATE , the following amounts in convertible marks ( BAM ) in respect of war damage with default interest at the statutory rate :

BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to Mr GPE ;

BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage to the Jovešs ;

BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to ORG ;

BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the ORG ; and

BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the ORG .

The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution ( rješenje o izvršenju ) on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively .

The applicants , except for Mr PERSON and the ORG , complained of non - enforcement to ORG the LAW ” ) . On different dates ORG found a breach of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW in the cases of Mr PERSON , the PERSON and the PERSON . The applicants did not claim compensation , but even if they had done so , their claim would most likely have been refused ( see , for example , ORG decisions ORG CARDINAL of DATE , § CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL of DATE , § CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL of DATE , § CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL of DATE , § DATE ) .

After an extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of ORG public debt ( including its debt arising from domestic judgments ) , DATE and DATE the applicants informed the authorities that they agreed to be paid only the legal costs in cash and the principal debt and default interest in bonds . Government bonds were then issued on the following dates :

on DATE to Mr GPE ;

on DATE to the Jovešs ;

on DATE to Mr PERSON ;

on DATE to PERSON and PERSON , on DATE to PERSON , on DATE to Ms PERSON ;

on DATE to PERSON and PERSON and on DATE to PERSON .

PERSON , Mr PERSON , the ORG , and the ORG have already sold some or all of their bonds on ORG .