Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 6-2

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant became a mullah in the mosque of ORG in GPE . In DATE he graduated as a qualified NORP teacher from ORG , GPE . From DATE to DATE he was not officially employed and provided religious consultations about ORG , as well as teaching LANGUAGE and Koran studies .

In DATE the applicant moved to GPE . On DATE he was registered as a migrant in GPE .

On DATE ORG of ORG charged the applicant in absentia with a number of crimes including membership of an extremist organisation , attempting to overthrow the ORG ’s constitutional order and dissemination of the views of a radical extremist movement . The applicant ’s name was put on the wanted list ; an arrest warrant was issued against him .

On DATE ORG Office of GPE forwarded a request for the applicant ’s extradition to ORG .

On DATE ORG Office of GPE informed ORG that it “ ... guarantee[d ] that the prosecution of PERSON [ would ] be carried out in strict compliance with NORP legislation ” .

NORP On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s arrest . The decision did not set any time - limits for the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on the basis of a letter from the NORP authorities and placed in a detention centre .

On DATE ORG issued an extradition order against the applicant . The text of the decision included the following :

“ ... ORG of ORG is investigating a criminal case against PERSON ...

The charges against ORG state that between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , in the Andijan region of GPE , being an active member of the prohibited religious extremist movement ... with the aim of overthrowing the ORG ’s constitutional order , ... he actively participated in the criminal activities of the supporters of the extremist religious movement ... and publicly called for the overthrow of the constitutional order of GPE by engaging in ‘ jihad’ ( holy war ) and for the creation of an NORP State ...

... The actions of PERSON are punishable under NORP criminal law and correspond to paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL ( public calls for extremist activities ) , paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL ( incitement to hatred ) and paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL ( membership of an extremist organisation ) of LAW ; the penalties envisaged under those Articles entail deprivation of liberty for DATE . The limitation period for the above crimes under NORP and NORP law has not expired ... ”

The applicant appealed against the extradition order to GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) , stating , among other things , that he was being persecuted by the NORP authorities for his political and religious beliefs and that if extradited , he would be subjected to ill - treatment in GPE .

On DATE ORG overruled the extradition order , stating that it had been issued prematurely DATE that is , before the examination of the applicant ’s request for temporary asylum DATE and ordered the applicant ’s release from detention .

The prosecutor ’s office appealed against that decision to ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) . On DATE ORG overruled the decision of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG again examined the applicant ’s complaint and upheld the extradition order , referring , amongst other things , to the guarantees provided by ORG office to the effect that the applicant would not be subjected to ill - treatment in GPE . The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG .

On DATE ORG granted a request by the applicant for the application of interim measures under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court entailing the suspension of his extradition to GPE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and the extradition order became final .

On DATE the applicant was arrested . On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) authorised the applicant ’s detention on the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the NORP authorities on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In its decision the court referred to LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) . No time - limits were set for his detention .

On DATE the ORG further authorised the applicant ’s detention with a view to extradition without laying down any relevant time - limits . In its decision the court referred to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that his detention pending extradition was unlawful . On DATE the court allowed his complaint in full and released him . The court ’s decision stated , amongst other things , that the applicant ’s detention had not been extended by court orders and its length was uncertain , in violation of LAW ORG and of LAW .

NORP The prosecutor ’s office appealed against that decision . On CARDINAL DATE GPE upheld the decision of DATE on appeal and reaffirmed that the applicant ’s detention during the above period had been unlawful .

On DATE the applicant was arrested again . On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as CARDINAL DATE ) the ORG district prosecutor ’s office of GPE ( “ the prosecutor ’s office ” ) requested that ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) authorise the applicant ’s detention with a view to extradition .

On DATE the ORG refused to grant the prosecutor ’s request , stating that the applicant had already been detained on the same grounds and that the authorities had failed to prove that he intended to abscond . In spite of the above decision , the applicant was not released from detention as on DATE the prosecutor ’s office ordered his detention on the basis of the arrest warrant issued by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date was sometimes given as DATE ) the applicant complained to ORG , stating , among other things , that in the absence of an extradition order his detention was unlawful , that he had already been detained with a view to extradition DATE and DATE and that his further detention from DATE was against the law as it was based on the same grounds .

On DATE the ORG examined the applicant ’s complaint under LAW ORG ( complaints against acts and decisions of officials involved in criminal proceedings ) and dismissed it , stating that the prosecutor ’s detention order of DATE was lawful and substantiated as it had been based on the detention order issued by ORG on DATE . The court did not examine the applicant ’s allegation that his continued detention from DATE was against the law as it was based on the same grounds as his previous detention DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . It did not examine the applicant ’s allegations concerning the use of the same grounds for his continued detention either .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant again complained to ORG , stating that his detention was unlawful and excessively lengthy as the DATE time - limit for the detention had expired and his further detention had not been authorised by the NORP courts .

On DATE the ORG allowed the applicant ’s complaint and acknowledged the excessive length of his detention . However , the applicant remained in detention . The applicant appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG overruled the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination . The applicant remained in detention .

On DATE the ORG again allowed the applicant ’s complaint of CARDINAL DATE . The court stated that the applicant ’s detention as of CARDINAL DATE had been unlawful as it had not been duly extended by the domestic courts . It ordered the applicant ’s release from detention even though he had actually been released on DATE following the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The prosecutor ’s office appealed against the decision . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by ORG in GPE and GPE and taken to the NORP district department of the interior in GPE ( the Viborgskiy ROVD ) , where he was detained from TIME before being released on an undertaking to visit the NORP district prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office placed the applicant under house arrest “ pending extradition to GPE ” .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested in the building of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He was taken to a police station ( CARDINALth office of the GPE department of the interior DATE CARDINAL отдел милиции ) , where he was detained until TIME on DATE .

During DATE the applicant was detained in an administrative - detention cell . The conditions of his detention were as follows : the cell , which measured CARDINAL sq . m , had a tiny window ; it did not have ventilation ; there was no bed or toilet ; the applicant slept on a narrow wooden bench which was designed for seating ; no food or drink was given to him throughout the detention ; and he was allowed to use the toilet in the adjacent area only with the permission of the police officers . The applicant had to obtain drinking water from the toilet .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was transferred from the police station to remand prison GPE in GPE .

DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . DATE , measuring QUANTITY m , with CARDINAL other inmates . There were CARDINAL bunk beds ; the applicant therefore had to sleep on the floor . The cell had neither a table nor hot water . No proper bedding was provided for the applicant . His personal space amounted to QUANTITY m. The inmates constantly smoked in the cell , which had an adverse effect on the applicant ’s health . On DATE the applicant was allowed to take his first TIME shower since his arrest on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL ( tuberculosis cell ) as it had been established that he was suffering from tuberculosis . The cell measured QUANTITY . m and had CARDINAL bunks . CARDINAL DATE it held CARDINAL inmates ; CARDINAL inmates ; CARDINAL it held TIME inmates ; CARDINAL inmates ; on DATE inmates ; on CARDINAL DATE inmates ; and CARDINAL May eleven inmates . Depending on the number of inmates the applicant ’s personal space varied from CARDINAL to QUANTITY m. The table in the cell was QUANTITY from the toilet ; no disinfectant was provided for the latter . The inmates had to do their laundry in the cell using a basin . Irrespective of the gravity of their medical condition and the degree of contagiousness , the inmates were kept together in the same cell .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m , had CARDINAL bunks and housed from CARDINAL other inmates . CARDINAL it held CARDINAL inmates ; CARDINAL it held TIME inmates ; CARDINAL inmates ; CARDINAL inmates ; CARDINAL inmates ; on CARDINAL and DATE inmates ; and DATE May thirteen inmates . Depending on the number of inmates , the applicant ’s personal space varied from QUANTITY . m. On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred back to cell no . DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY . m and had CARDINAL bunks . On CARDINAL May it held CARDINAL inmates ; on CARDINAL May eleven inmates ; on CARDINAL May ten inmates ; and CARDINAL May and DATE inmates . Depending on the number of inmates the applicant ’s personal space varied from CARDINAL to QUANTITY m. On DATE the applicant was transferred to another cell .

On DATE the applicant was placed in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and had CARDINAL bunks . DATE and DATE the cell held CARDINAL inmates . The applicant ’s personal space amounted to QUANTITY m. In addition , the inmates smoked in the cell , which had an adverse effect on the applicant ’s health as the cell was not properly ventilated .

The applicant substantiated his account of the conditions of detention in the remand prison by the following documents : a witness statement by PERSON , who was detained with the applicant in cell no . DATE , dated DATE ; a witness statement by PERSON , who was detained with the applicant in cells no . DATE and no . CARDINAL , dated DATE ; a witness statement by PERSON , head of a human rights NGO which monitored the conditions of detention in remand prison ORG , dated DATE ; and a number of photographs of the applicant ’s detention cells .

On a number of occasions DATE the applicant was handcuffed and taken to ORG in a lorry for transporting detainees ( ORG ) . The lorry was equipped with CARDINAL cages measuring QUANTITY ; each cage contained CARDINAL inmates , who were transported in cramped conditions .

Upon arrival in the courthouse , the applicant was placed for TIME in a cell without windows , measuring QUANTITY . m , with a narrow bench and without ventilation . He was usually detained there with CARDINAL other men . No food or drink was given to him in the courthouse .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG , alleging , amongst other things , that the conditions of his detention were inadequate ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG left the applicant ’s complaint about the conditions of his detention unexamined . The applicant did not raise the issue of the conditions of his detention on appeal as he considered that an appeal would be ineffective .

From the documents submitted it appears that the applicant neither applied for medical assistance while in remand prison GPE nor complained about the lack of such assistance to the prison ’s administration .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for refugee status in GPE , referring to his politically motivated persecution in GPE and the risk of ill - treatment .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s request , stating that it had been motivated by an attempt to avoid lawful criminal prosecution in GPE and that his allegations of a risk of ill - treatment there were unsubstantiated . The applicant was informed of the refusal on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is sometimes given as DATE ) ORG upheld the refusal by the ORG . The applicant did not appeal against that decision and the decision of DATE became final .

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is sometimes given as DATE ) the applicant applied to the ORG for temporary asylum in GPE .

On DATE the ORG rejected the request . The applicant appealed to the NORP ORG against the refusal .

On DATE the NORP ORG overruled the decision of CARDINAL DATE and referred the applicant ’s request back for a fresh examination .

On DATE the ORG again rejected the applicant ’s request for temporary asylum . The applicant appealed to the NORP ORG .

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is sometimes given as DATE ) the NORP ORG overruled the decision of CARDINAL DATE and again referred the applicant ’s request back for a fresh examination .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for temporary asylum for the third time .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant again appealed against the refusal to the NORP ORG . On DATE the NORP ORG overruled the decision of DATE and again referred the applicant ’s request back for a fresh examination .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for temporary asylum for the fourth time . The applicant appealed against the refusal to the NORP ORG . The proceedings appear to be still pending .

At TIME on DATE the NORP television channel ORG broadcast its regular TV news bulletin in GPE . News reports , quoting the press unit of ORG of the Interior of GPE and GPE ( the GUVD ) , displayed full - face and profile photographs of the applicant and contained the following information :

Newscaster : “ ... a terrorist from GPE , who worked in GPE as a driver of a PERSON lorry , was arrested DATE in the city centre by ORG officers . The leading member of the PERSON extremist religious movement had moved to GPE DATE and since then had worked as a driver for various companies . Having graduated from a foreign languages institute , he worked in GPE as a mullah . The DATE Urinboy Ergashev has been on the authorities’ wanted list for DATE ; he has been charged with a number of serious crimes , including terrorism ... ”

Newscaster : “ Mr D.R. , the deputy head of ORG in GPE and GPE , commented ... ”

Mr PERSON : “ ... having studied the ideas of the political extremist movement ... [ the applicant ] had created the ‘ PERSON group to spread the ideas of the PERSON movement in order to change the existing ORG order in GPE , seize power and remove lawfully elected officials ... ”

Newscaster : “ ... the law - enforcement bodies presume that the group headed by ORG was planning to create an NORP State in the PERSON valley ; it was financed by foreign organisations from GPE and GPE prohibited by the NORP authorities . Currently the arrested man ... is in detention and after all the paper formalities he will be extradited to his homeland , where a trial is awaiting him ... ”

The applicant was detained in the CARDINALth office of GPE department of the interior from TIME on DATE until an unspecified time on DATE .

The applicant was detained in an administrative - detention cell measuring CARDINAL m , which was not equipped for sleeping , and therefore no bed linen was provided . The applicant was allowed to use the toilet in the adjacent area of the police station with the permission of the police officers . The toilet was equipped with cold water . There were no shower facilities . The applicant ’s cell was ventilated twice a day by the police officers . The applicant was not provided with food by the authorities , but the officers allowed his relatives to bring him food and drink .

The applicant was transported from the detention centre to the courthouse on CARDINAL occasions , on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE , in specially equipped GAZ-CARDINAL and GAZ-CARDINAL vehicles . The vehicles have CARDINAL seating places , which are divided between CARDINAL shared cells and CARDINAL solitary cell .

On DATE the applicant was transported in the same vehicle with CARDINAL other detainees ; on DATE with CARDINAL other detainees ; and on DATE with CARDINAL other detainees .

On each occasion the applicant was provided with a DATE ration of food as prescribed by the relevant regulations .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in CARDINAL different cells ; in each cell the number of inmates matched the number of bunk beds , and therefore the applicant had an individual bed . He was provided with bed linen and cutlery . The applicant was detained :

from DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m , with CARDINAL other inmates ( capacity : CARDINAL inmates ) ;

from DATE in cell no . DATE , measuring QUANTITY m , with CARDINAL other inmates ( capacity : CARDINAL ) ;

from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring CARDINAL sq . m , with CARDINAL other inmates ( capacity : CARDINAL ) ;

from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m , with CARDINAL other inmates ( capacity : CARDINAL ) ;

from DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m , with CARDINAL other inmate ( capacity : CARDINAL ) ;

from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring CARDINAL sq . m , with CARDINAL other inmates ( capacity : CARDINAL ) .

DATE . The Government substantiated their account of the amount of personal space afforded to the applicant in the remand prison with poorquality copies of several pages of a registration log “ on transfers of inmates between cells ” dated DATE to DATE . The document did not contain any comprehensible information and included tables of numbers ; no names or other information about the inmates were provided . The Government also furnished several statements by the remand prison ’s staff confirming the number of bunk beds in each of the applicant ’s cells . These statements neither provided information as to the actual number of inmates detained in each cell nor specified whether the number of detainees exceeded the cell ’s capacity at the given period of time .

According to the Government , the sanitary conditions in each cell complied with the relevant regulations . Medical staff of the remand prison checked the sanitary conditions of all cells on a DATE basis and disinfected the cells at prescribed intervals . The ventilation in all cells was in working condition , and each cell was equipped with a cold water basin . On request the inmates could obtain hot water ; they were also allowed to use electric kettles . The applicant was allowed a DATE TIME shower ; his bedlinen was changed DATE . The inmates’ laundry was collected for washing once DATE ; the inmates were also allowed to do their laundry in plastic buckets provided by the administration .

According to the copies of documents enclosed with the Government ’s submissions , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in the remand prison ’s tuberculosis centre to receive medical treatment for the disease .

According to the ORG , the applicant ’s detention on remand was based on LAW ORG .

On DATE ORG authorised the applicant ’s detention from DATE to DATE .

On DATE ORG again authorised the applicant ’s detention with a view to extradition .

According to the Government , on DATE the ORG authorised the applicant ’s detention . However , from the documents submitted it appears that on DATE ORG actually refused to authorise the applicant ’s detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor ’s office of GPE GPE detained the applicant on the basis of ORG detention order of DATE .

DATE . In their observations of CARDINAL DATE the Government submitted that the text of the TV broadcast had been prepared on the basis of the official statement provided by ORG in GPE and the international search warrant issued against the applicant . The broadcast had stated that the applicant had been charged with serious crimes by the NORP authorities , but not that he was guilty . The law - enforcement bodies had only suspected that the applicant was pursuing extremist goals . The expression “ terrorist from GPE ” had been used by the TV journalists and had not been part of the official information statement issued by ORG in GPE .

The LAW guarantees the right to liberty ( LAW ) :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to liberty and personal integrity .

Arrest , placement in custody and detention are permitted only on the basis of a judicial decision . Prior to a judicial decision , an individual may not be detained for longer than TIME . ”

LAW DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL ) , to which GPE is a party , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In case of urgency the competent authorities of the requesting ORG may request the provisional arrest of the person sought . The competent authorities of the requested ORG shall decide the matter in accordance with its law .

Provisional arrest may be terminated if , within DATE of arrest , the requested ORG has not received the request for extradition and the documents mentioned in LAW . It shall not , in any event , exceed DATE from DATE of that arrest . The possibility of provisional release at any time is not excluded , but the requested ORG shall take any measures which it considers necessary to prevent the escape of the person sought . ”

The CIS Convention on legal aid and legal relations in civil , family and criminal cases ( the DATE Minsk Convention ) , to which both GPE and GPE are parties , provides that a request for extradition must be accompanied by a detention order ( LAW ) .

A person whose extradition is sought may be arrested before receipt of a request for his or her extradition . In such cases a special request for arrest , containing a reference to the detention order and indicating that a request for extradition will follow , must be sent . A person may also be arrested in the absence of such a request if there are reasons to suspect that he or she has committed , in the territory of the other ORG , an offence entailing extradition . The other ORG must be immediately informed of the arrest ( Article CARDINAL ) .

A person arrested under LAW must be released if no request for extradition is received within DATE of the arrest ( LAW ) .

The term “ court ” is defined by LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) of DATE as “ any court of general jurisdiction which examines a criminal case on the merits and delivers decisions provided for by LAW ” ( LAW ) . The term “ judge ” is defined by the ORG as “ an official empowered to administer justice ” ( LAW ) .

A district court has the power to examine all criminal cases except for those falling within the respective jurisdictions of a justice of the peace , a regional court or ORG ( LAW ) .

LAW ORG ( “ Preventive measures ” ) governs the use of preventive measures ( меры пресечения ) , which include , in particular , placement in custody . Placement in custody is a preventive measure applied on the basis of a court decision to a person suspected of or charged with a crime punishable by DATE imprisonment where it is impossible to apply a more lenient preventive measure ( LAW ) . A request for placement in custody should be examined by a judge of a district court or a military court of a corresponding level ( LAW ) . A judge ’s decision on placement in custody may be challenged before an appeal court within DATE ( LAW ) . The period of detention pending investigation of a crime can not exceed DATE ( LAW ) but may be extended DATE by a judge of a district court or a military court of a corresponding level ( LAW ) . Further extensions may be granted only if the person is charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences ( LAW ) .

LAW ( “ Complaints about acts and decisions by courts and officials involved in criminal proceedings ” ) provides for the judicial review of decisions and acts or failures to act by an investigator or a prosecutor that are capable of adversely affecting the constitutional rights or freedoms of parties to criminal proceedings ( LAW ) . The court must examine the complaint within DATE of its receipt .

Chapter DATE ( “ Extradition of a person for criminal prosecution or execution of sentence ” ) regulates extradition procedures . On receipt of a request for extradition not accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court , a prosecutor must decide on the preventive measure to be applied to the person whose extradition is sought . The measure must be applied in accordance with the established procedure ( LAW ) . Upon receipt of a request for extradition accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign judicial body , a prosecutor may place the person whose extradition is being sought under house arrest or in custodial detention without prior approval of his or her decision by a court of GPE ( LAW ) .

An extradition decision made by ORG may be challenged before a court . Issues of guilt or innocence are not within the scope of judicial review , which is limited to an assessment of whether the extradition order was made in accordance with the procedure set out in the relevant international and domestic law ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

A person may apply for judicial review of decisions and acts or failures to act by a ORG body or a ORG official that are capable of violating his or her rights or freedoms , hindering the exercise of his or her rights and freedoms , or imposing an obligation or liability unlawfully ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . If the court finds the application well - founded , it must order the ORG body or ORG official concerned to remedy the violation or remove the obstacle to the exercise of the rights and freedoms in question ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

“ LAW provides that the [ trial court ] may ... once DATE has passed since the case was sent to it , extend a defendant ’s detention for successive periods of DATE . It does not contain , however , any provisions permitting the courts to take a decision extending a defendant ’s detention once the previously authorised timelimit has expired , in which event the person is detained for a period without a judicial decision . Nor do other rules of criminal procedure provide for such a possibility . Moreover , LAW and LAW expressly require the court , prosecutor , investigator ... to immediately release anyone who is unlawfully held in custody beyond the time - limit established in the LAW . Such is also the requirement of LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ... which is an integral part of the legal system of GPE , pursuant to LAW ... ”

Verifying the compatibility of LAW ORG with LAW , ORG reiterated its established case - law to the effect that excessive or arbitrary detention , unlimited in time and without appropriate review , was incompatible with LAW in all cases , including extradition proceedings .

In ORG view , the guarantees of the right to liberty and personal integrity set out in DATE and LAW , as well as the legal norms laid down in LAW of the ORG on preventive measures , were fully applicable to detention with a view to extradition . Accordingly , LAW ORG did not allow the authorities to apply a custodial measure without abiding by the procedure established in the ORG , or in excess of the time - limits fixed therein .

The Prosecutor General asked ORG for an official clarification of its decision no . CARDINAL-O of DATE ( see above ) , for the purpose , in particular , of elucidating the procedure for extending a person ’s detention with the aim of extradition .

ORG dismissed the request on the ground that it was not competent to indicate specific criminal - law provisions governing the procedure and time - limits for keeping a person in custody with the aim of extradition . That was a matter for the courts of general jurisdiction .

In this decision ORG reiterated that LAW ORG did not imply that the detention of a person on the basis of an extradition request did not have to comply with the terms and time - limits provided for in the legislation on criminal procedure .

In this ruling ORG reiterated that the arrest and detention of a person with the aim of extraditing him or her under LAW of the ORG should comply with the requirements of LAW of the ORG , and that detention pending extradition could be extended only in compliance with the requirements of LAW ORG .

The DATE Law on the conditions of detention of suspects and accused persons ( as amended ) provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy health and hygiene requirements . They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and be given bedding , tableware and toiletries . Each inmate should have QUANTITY of personal space in his or her cell ( section CARDINAL ) . The PERSON also provides that inmates are entitled to medical assistance ( section CARDINAL ) . If an inmate ’s health deteriorates , the medical officers of the remand prison are obliged to examine the inmate promptly and inform him or her of the results of the examination in writing . If the administration refuses , the refusal can be appealed against to a prosecutor or court . If an inmate suffers from a serious disease , the administration of the remand prison is obliged immediately to inform the prosecutor , who can carry out an inquiry into the matter ( section CARDINAL ) .

ORG for the Prevention of Torture ( “ the CPT ” ) , in its CARDINALth ORG of DATE on its activities covering the period from DATE to DATE , expressed concern about reliance on diplomatic assurances in the light of the absolute prohibition on torture :

“ CARDINAL . Reference was made in the Preface to the potential tension between a ORG ’s obligation to protect its citizens against terrorist acts and the need to uphold fundamental values . This is well illustrated by the current controversy over the use of ‘ diplomatic GPE in the context of deportation procedures . The prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment encompasses the obligation not to send a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would run a real risk of being subjected to such methods . In order to avoid such a risk in given cases , certain GPE have chosen the route of seeking assurances from the country of destination that the person concerned will not be ill - treated . This practice is far from new , but has come under the spotlight in DATE as GPE have increasingly sought to remove from their territory persons deemed to endanger national security . Fears are growing that the use of diplomatic assurances is in fact circumventing the prohibition of torture and ill - treatment .

The seeking of diplomatic assurances from countries with a poor overall record in relation to torture and ill - treatment is giving rise to particular concern . It does not necessarily follow from such a record that someone whose deportation is envisaged personally runs a real risk of being ill - treated in the country concerned ; the specific circumstances of each case have to be taken into account when making that assessment . However , if in fact there would appear to be a risk of ill - treatment , can diplomatic assurances received from the authorities of a country where torture and illtreatment is widely practised ever offer sufficient protection against that risk ? It has been advanced with some cogency that even assuming those authorities do exercise effective control over the agencies that might take the person concerned into their custody ( which may not always be the case ) , there can be no guarantee that assurances given will be respected in practice . If these countries fail to respect their obligations under international human rights treaties ratified by them , so the argument runs , why should CARDINAL be confident that they will respect assurances given on a bilateral basis in a particular case ?

NORP In response , it has been argued that mechanisms can be devised for the postreturn monitoring of the treatment of a person deported , in the event of his / her being detained . While the ORG retains an open mind on this subject , it has yet to see convincing proposals for an effective and workable mechanism . To have any chance of being effective , such a mechanism would certainly need to incorporate some key guarantees , including the right of independent and suitably qualified persons to visit the individual concerned at any time , without prior notice , and to interview him / her in private in a place of their choosing . The mechanism would also have to offer means of ensuring that immediate remedial action is taken , in the event of it coming to light that assurances given were not being respected . ”

United Nations ( “ ORG ” ) ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ( “ Torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ” ( ORG Doc.:A / RES/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ) reads as follows :

“ ORG ...

Urges States not to expel , return ( refouler ) , extradite or in any other way transfer a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture , and recognizes that diplomatic assurances , where used , do not release GPE from their obligations under international human rights , humanitarian and refugee law , in particular the principle of non - refoulement ... ”

In his interim report submitted in accordance with ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( ORG . : ORG , DATE ) , the Special Rapporteur of ORG on torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , PERSON , reached the following conclusions :

“ CARDINAL . It is the view of the Special Rapporteur that diplomatic assurances are unreliable and ineffective in the protection against torture and ill - treatment : such assurances are sought usually from GPE where the practice of torture is systematic ; post - return monitoring mechanisms have proven to be no guarantee against torture ; diplomatic assurances are not legally binding , therefore they carry no legal effect and no accountability if breached ; and the person whom the assurances aim to protect has no recourse if the assurances are violated . The Special Rapporteur is therefore of the opinion that GPE can not resort to diplomatic assurances as a safeguard against torture and ill - treatment where there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture or illtreatment upon return .

The Special Rapporteur calls on Governments to observe the principle of nonrefoulement scrupulously and not expel any person to frontiers or territories where they might run the risk of human rights violations , regardless of whether they have officially been recognised as refugees . ”

Specifically referring to the situation regarding torture in GPE and returns to torture effected in reliance upon diplomatic assurances from the NORP authorities , the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture stated to the CARDINALnd Session of the UN Human Rights Council on DATE :

“ The practice of torture in GPE is systematic , as indicated in the report of my predecessor PERSON visit to the country in DATE . Lending support to this finding , my mandate continues to receive serious allegations of torture by NORP law enforcement officials ... Moreover , with respect to the events in DATE in GPE , the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that there is strong , consistent and credible testimony to the effect that NORP military and security forces committed grave human rights violations there . The fact that the Government has rejected an international inquiry into the LOC events , independent scrutiny of the related proceedings , and that there is no internationally accepted account of the events , is deeply worrying . Against such significant , serious and credible evidence of systematic torture by law enforcement officials in GPE , I continue to find myself appealing to ORG to refrain from transferring persons to GPE . The prohibition of torture is absolute , and GPE risk violating this prohibition DATE their obligations under international law – by transferring persons to countries where they may be at risk of torture . I reiterate that diplomatic assurances are not legally binding , undermine existing obligations of GPE to prohibit torture , are ineffective and unreliable in ensuring the protection of returned persons , and therefore shall not be resorted to by GPE . ”

Further referring to the situation regarding torture in GPE , the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture stated as follows to the CARDINALrd Session of ORG on DATE :

“ CARDINAL . The Special Rapporteur ... stressed that he continued to receive serious allegations of torture by NORP law enforcement officials ...

Moreover , with respect to the events in DATE in GPE , the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that there is strong , consistent and credible testimony to the effect that NORP military and security forces committed grave human rights violations there . The fact that the Government has rejected an international inquiry into the LOC events , and any independent scrutiny of the related proceedings , and that there is no internationally accepted account of the events , is deeply worrying . Even more so , given that no independent monitoring of human rights is currently being conducted .

In light of the foregoing , there is little evidence available , including from the ORG that would dispel or otherwise persuade the Special Rapporteur that the practice of torture has significantly improved since the visit which took place in DATE ... ”

The ORG High Commissioner for Refugees’ Note on ORG published on DATE reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In general , assessing the suitability of diplomatic assurances is relatively straightforward where they are intended to ensure that the individual concerned will not be subjected to capital punishment or certain violations of fair trial rights as a consequence of extradition . In such cases , the wanted person is transferred to a formal process , and the requesting ORG ’s compliance with the assurances can be monitored . While there is no effective remedy for the requested ORG or the surrendered person if the assurances are not observed , non - compliance can be readily identified and would need to be taken into account when evaluating the reliability of such assurances in any future cases .

The situation is different where the individual concerned risks being subjected to torture or other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment in the receiving ORG upon removal . It has been noted that ‘ unlike assurances on the use of the death penalty or trial by a military court , which are readily verifiable , assurances against torture and other abuse require constant vigilance by competent and independent ORG . ORG addressed the issue in its decision in PERSON GPE ( Minister of ORG ) , contrasting assurances in cases of a risk of torture with those given where the person extradited may face the death penalty , and signalling

‘ ... the difficulty in relying too heavily on assurances by a state that it will refrain from torture in the future when it has engaged in illegal torture or allowed others to do so on its territory in the past . This difficulty becomes acute in cases where torture is inflicted not only with the collusion but through the impotence of the state in controlling the behaviour of its officials . Hence the need to distinguish between assurances regarding the death penalty and assurances regarding torture . The former are easier to monitor and generally more reliable than the latter.’

NORP In his report to ORG of DATE , the special Rapporteur of ORG Human Rights on torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment examined the question of diplomatic assurances in light of the non - refoulement obligations inherent in the absolute and non - derogable prohibition of torture and other forms of ill - treatment . Noting that in determining whether there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture , all relevant considerations must be taken into account , the Special Rapporteur expressed the view that :

‘ in circumstances where there is a consistent pattern of gross , flagrant or mass violations of human rights , or of systematic practice of torture , the principle of nonrefoulement must be strictly observed and diplomatic assurances should not be resorted to.’ ”

The relevant passage of ORG DATE Country Reports on Human Rights Practices concerning GPE , dated DATE , reads as follows :

“ Torture and Other Cruel , Inhuman , or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Although the constitution and law prohibit such practices , law enforcement and security officers routinely beat and otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain confessions or incriminating information . Sources reported that torture and abuse were common in prisons , pre - trial facilities , and local police and security service precincts . Reported methods of torture included severe beatings , denial of food , sexual abuse , tying and hanging by the hands , and electric shock . Family members of prisoners reported several cases of medical abuse , and CARDINAL person reportedly remained in forced psychiatric treatment . The government reported that during DATE , it opened CARDINAL criminal cases against CARDINAL employees of law enforcement bodies . Of these , CARDINAL persons were accused of charges related to abuse of power , and CARDINAL were charged with torture or other brutal or degrading treatment . The remaining cases were for unspecified offenses . During DATE , the government dismissed and brought criminal charges against CARDINAL employees of law enforcement bodies for unstated reasons ...

Prison and ORG

Prison conditions were in some circumstances life threatening . Officials reported that the prison system is filled to PERCENT of capacity , but reports of overcrowding were common , as were reports of severe abuse and shortages of medicine . Inmates and their families reported that food and water were of poor quality but generally available . There were reports of political prisoners being held in cells without proper ventilation , and prisoners occasionally were subjected to extreme temperatures . Family members of inmates reported incidents of sexual abuse . Family members also reported that officials frequently withheld or delayed delivery of food and medicine intended for prisoners .

Relatives of prisoners reported the deaths of several prisoners serving sentences , most of whom received sentences related to religious extremism . In some cases , family members reported that the body of the prisoner showed signs of beating or other abuse , but authorities pressured the family to bury the body before examination by a medical professional ...

According to family members and some NGOs , authorities failed to release prisoners , especially those convicted of religious extremism , at the end of their terms . Prison authorities often extended inmates’ terms by accusing them of additional crimes or claiming the prisoners represented a continuing danger to society ... ”

ORG . ORG issued on CARDINAL DATE a document entitled “ GPE : A Briefing on Current Human Rights Concerns ” , stating the following :

“ ORG believes that there has been a serious deterioration in the human rights situation in GPE since the so - called PERSON events in DATE . ...

Particularly worrying in the light of GPE ’s stated efforts to address impunity and curtail the use of cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment have been the continuing persistent allegations of torture or other ill - treatment by law enforcement officials and prison guards , including reports of the rape of women in detention . ...

Despite assertions by GPE that the practice of torture has significantly decreased , ORG continues to receive reports of widespread torture or other ill - treatment of detainees and prisoners .

According to these reports , in most cases the authorities failed to conduct prompt , thorough and impartial investigations into the allegations of torture or other illtreatment . ORG is concerned that impunity prevails as prosecution of individuals suspected of being responsible for torture or other illtreatment remains the exception rather than the rule . ...

Allegations have also been made that individuals returned to GPE from other countries pursuant to extradition requests have been held in incommunicado detention , thereby increasing their risk of being tortured or otherwise ill - treated and have been subjected to unfair trial . In CARDINAL case in DATE , for example , a man who was returned to GPE from GPE was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment after an unfair trial . His relatives reported that , upon his return to GPE , he was held incommunicado for DATE during which time he was subjected to torture and other ill - treatment in pre - trial detention . He did not have access to a lawyer of his own choice and the trial judge ruled evidence reportedly adduced as a result of torture admissible . ...

The government continued its strict control over religious communities , compromising the enjoyment of their right to freedom of religion . Those most affected were members of unregistered groups such as ORG congregations and NORP worshipping in QUANTITY outside state control . ”