Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition;Positive obligations) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Extradition) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Extradition);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)

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

The applicant was born in DATE . Until DATE he was detained in PERSON . He is currently held in detention in GPE , GPE .

Until DATE the applicant and his family were living in LOC of LOC , located in LOC of GPE . He transported goods to the nearby villages in a cart pulled by a donkey . The applicant is a practising NORP . In DATE he started performing PERSON and attending a mosque .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s passport ( “ the old passport ” ) expired , and , to apply for its renewal , he completed a “ form no . CARDINAL ” , a questionnaire containing his personal details and the old passport number . On DATE he was issued with a new passport ( “ the current passport ” ) . The original form no . CARDINAL was filed at the local branch of ORG , GPE .

According to the applicant , in DATE he learned of the arrest of a neighbour with whom he had regularly performed PERSON . Being aware of the widespread practice of torture in detention in GPE , he decided to leave the country for fear of arrest on fabricated charges and torture in custody .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE via ORG ( “ FAC ” ) . On DATE he was issued with a temporary residence permit valid until DATE . He lived in GPE in ORG , until his arrest . His wife and a minor daughter live in GPE .

On DATE ORG of the ORG brought criminal proceedings against a group of persons , apparently including the applicant , on suspicion of setting up a criminal group attempting to overthrow the constitutional order of ORG .

On DATE the above - mentioned department issued CARDINAL separate formal statements of charges against the applicant . Both decisions specified that he had been charged in absentia with involving minors in criminal activity ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) ) , terrorism ( LAW ) , incitement to hatred and hostility giving rise to discrimination on grounds of race and religion by an organised group and by means dangerous to the public ( LAW ) , conspiracy to overthrow the NORP State ’s constitutional order ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) , unlawful crossing of the State border ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) ) , repeated forgery of official documents and use of the fabricated documents ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) , ( b ) ) , setting up a criminal group ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) , producing and disseminating documents containing ideas of religious extremism , separatism and fundamentalism , and threats to national security and public order ( Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) § CARDINAL ( a ) of the ORG ) , setting up , managing and participating in extremist , separatist , fundamentalist and other banned organisations ( LAW ) § CARDINAL of the ORG ) , and smuggling material disseminating extremist , separatist and radical fundamentalist ideas ( LAW of the ORG ) .

The first statement of charges , issued in respect of the applicant only , began with an outline of NORP State policy in the sphere of the fight against religious extremism and , in particular , referred to the events of DATE in LOC as an armed attempt to seize State power conducted by members of the extremist movement “ PERSON with the assistance of international terrorist forces and “ under the influence of certain GPE acting on the basis of double standards and seeking to achieve their own geopolitical aims ” . It further described actions allegedly committed by various individuals identified as members of the criminal group the applicant belonged to . The actions imputed directly to the applicant were described as follows :

“ GPE , with a view to studying the works of the leader of the criminal association ‘ ORG ... and having chosen the path of jihad , met in DATE with residents of LOC of LOC [ CARDINAL names quoted ] and others ... studied the ideas of the religious extremist movement and became member of the extremist movement ‘ PERSON . ”

In the second statement of charges the investigator listed various actions the applicant had participated in “ as a member of a criminal group ” or “ on the basis of a criminal conspiracy ” . In particular , he was suspected of membership of the banned religious movement “ Wahhabism ” , studying materials by ORG , spreading ideas of religious extremism , disseminating and storing video - materials by the abovementioned banned religious movements , and providing financial support to members of the criminal group .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s arrest . On DATE his name was put on the crossborder list of wanted persons by the decision of an investigator of ORG of the ORG . It appears that at some point the applicant was placed on the ORG Fugitives List ( in the absence of further information , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the police arrested the applicant in ORG as a person on the cross - border wanted list . On the same date the Anti - Terrorism Criminal Investigation Unit of ORG of the ORG confirmed to the NORP authorities the applicant ’s placement on the cross - border wanted list and its intention to request his extradition , enclosing a petition for the applicant ’s arrest and placement in custody , the first statement of charges , his passport details , and a copy of the form no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to the prosecutor ’s office of ORG stating that he had left GPE after the arrest of his neighbour , out of fear that he would also be arrested , tortured and convicted on fabricated charges . He stated that he had gone to GPE in order to earn money , firmly denied all charges against him as fabricated and asked the NORP authorities not to send him to GPE , referring to the risk of torture in detention .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE sent a request for the applicant ’s extradition to GPE to ORG . The request contained assurances that the applicant would be prosecuted only for the offences for which he was being extradited , that he would be able to freely leave GPE when he had stood trial and served any sentence , and that he would not be expelled or extradited to a third State without the consent of the NORP authorities . The second statement of charges was enclosed with the request .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE reiterated the earlier assurances provided in respect of the case and further assured his NORP counterpart that the applicant would not be prosecuted on political , racial or religious grounds , that he would not be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment , and that the guarantees of a fair trial would be observed in the criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE ORG ordered the extradition of the applicant to GPE on account of the charges under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ( attempt to overthrow the NORP State ’s constitutional order , participation in and direction of religious , extremist , separatist and other prohibited organisations ) , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) ( involvement of minors in criminal activity ) , LAW ( terrorism ) , LAW ( incitement to hatred and hostility giving rise to discrimination on grounds of race and religion by an organised group and by means dangerous to the public ) , LAW ( conspiracy to overthrow the NORP State ’s constitutional order ) , LAW ( b ) ( unlawful crossing of the State border ) , LAW setting up a criminal group ) , and LAW producing and disseminating documents containing ideas of religious extremism , separatism and fundamentalism , and threats to national security and public order ) . By the same decision ORG refused the extradition request in so far as it concerned the charges LAW of the ORG ( forgery ) , stating that the alleged offence had been committed by a different person , LAW b ) ( smuggling material disseminating extremist , separatist and radical fundamentalist ideas ) , since the offence was not punishable under LANGUAGE law , and LAW ) § CARDINAL of the ORG ( participating in extremist , separatist , fundamentalist and other banned organisations ) , since the charge was subsumed by another one in accordance with NORP law .

On DATE the applicant and his lawyer sought judicial review of the extradition order . They submitted , in particular , that it was unlawful since it had been issued before the applicant ’s request for refugee status had been determined by the domestic authorities . They argued that the “ Wahhabism ” movement was not an organisation banned in GPE and the documents submitted by the NORP authorities lacked information on the applicant ’s membership of a religious organisation after DATE . They pointed out that , according to the decision of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was charged with several offences as the perpetrator . However , the facts outlined in the statement of charges concerned acts allegedly committed by several other persons , but not by the applicant . They stated that the applicant had been charged with an attempt to overthrow the ORG order of his home country and therefore his criminal prosecution was politically motivated . Finally , referring to the ORG ’s extensive case - law on the matter and various reports by international observers , the defence stressed that the use of torture and ill - treatment against detainees in GPE was systematic and went unpunished by the law - enforcement and security authorities , and that the applicant ran an individualised risk of ill - treatment in the event of extradition .

On DATE the ORG upheld the extradition order as lawful and well - founded . The applicant was present , represented , and assisted by an interpreter . During the hearing the applicant maintained that he had a limited command of NORP , and that he had decided to leave GPE after his neighbour ’s arrest out of fear of arrest and torture . He had not applied for refugee status in GPE immediately after his arrival there , since he had at first been unaware of the charges against him and then he had thought that such information would lead to his expulsion from GPE . He had only made such an application after receiving his lawyer ’s advice . The lawyer maintained his grounds for appeal and pointed out that the case - file did not contain the first statement of charges but only the second , which was different from the initial one .

The defence further requested the admission of PERSON as the applicant ’s defender ( « защитник GPE ) , since she could provide an expert opinion on the situation in GPE and law - enforcement practice in similar cases . The court rejected that request , finding that the applicant was represented by a professional lawyer , and that PERSON was not a member of the applicant ’s family , had only a technical education and did not practise “ in the law - enforcement sphere on extradition matters ” .

ORG observed that the applicant did not have refugee status in GPE ; he had failed to either apply for it in a timely manner or to advance a plausible explanation for that omission . The court observed that on DATE the ORG Novgorod ORG ( ORG ) had refused to accept his request for an examination on the merits ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , noting that the decision “ was , in substance , correct ” and that it had not been appealed against within the time - limits set out in the domestic law . The court noted , without giving further details , that there was no evidence that the applicant had been , or would be , prosecuted in GPE on political or religious grounds . Turning specifically to the allegation of persecution on political grounds , the court rejected it as having no legal basis . The court noted that , in accordance with the reservation of GPE on ratification of LAW , NORP law did not contain a definition of a “ political offence ” and the list of offences GPE would not consider as “ political ” or “ connected with political offences ” was not exhaustive . Finally , the court found no formal obstacles to the applicant ’s extradition and noted that the NORP authorities had provided assurances in the applicant ’s case .

On DATE the defence appealed against ORG decision , arguing that the first - instance court had omitted to make a legal assessment of the evidence submitted in support of the argument concerning the risk of ill - treatment in custody . The defence pointed to various discrepancies between the CARDINAL statements of charges constituting the basis for the arrest request and the formal extradition request , respectively , and concluded that the charges had been fabricated . They further argued , on the basis of the first statement of charges , that it did not contain information about offences committed by the applicant but referred to suspicions in respect of other persons . They maintained that the decision to extradite the applicant had been taken unlawfully in the absence of a final ruling in the refugee status proceedings , and also challenged the refusal to admit PERSON as the applicant ’s defender .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged objections regarding the court hearing transcript , stating , in particular , that the following information had not been included therein : the applicant ’s request for a letter from the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees to be admitted to the case file ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , submissions regarding the applicant ’s limited command of NORP , and a request for a legal assessment of the charges against the applicant . At some point ORG rejected these objections .

At some point the applicant’ lawyer lodged a request with the office of ORG for clarifications as regards the significant discrepancies in the CARDINAL statements of charges against the applicant . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that , inter alia , it had requested clarifications on the matter from the office of the of ORG prosecutor . In the meantime , on DATE ORG office of GPE received a letter dated DATE from their NORP counterpart specifying that the applicant ’s extradition was sought only in connection with the offences listed in the formal request for extradition ( apparently , those listed in the second statement of charges ) and asking for the first statement of charges forwarded by the NORP authorities on the date of the applicant ’s arrest in GPE to be disregarded .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of DATE and upheld the extradition order and ORG decision as lawful and wellfounded . In reaching that conclusion , ORG referred to the assurances by the NORP authorities and noted that ORG of GPE had not pointed out any obstacles to the applicant ’s extradition to GPE . The court found no evidence that the applicant had been , or would be , prosecuted on political or religious grounds and observed that the applicant neither had refugee status nor could be regarded as a person seeking such status in GPE . As regards the alleged discrepancies in the statements of charges provided by the NORP authorities to their NORP counterparts , ORG rejected that argument as irrelevant , since it was not the task of the domestic courts , or the prosecutor ’s office , to decide on the applicant ’s guilt in the extradition proceedings . ORG rejected the request for Ms Ryabinina to be admitted as a defender and questioned as a specialist , upheld ORG refusal to do so and endorsed its reasoning in that respect . The extradition order became final .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for refugee status in GPE with ORG on the ground of fear of persecution because of his religious beliefs . He submitted that the accusations against him were unfounded and that he faced torture and other forms of ill - treatment if extradited to GPE . He had left GPE after the arrest of a neighbour with whom he had regularly attended the mosque . He referred to reports by the ORG agencies issued in DATE and reports by respected international NGOs demonstrating that torture was widespread in GPE and confessions were often extracted from defendants under duress . He also referred to the ORG ’s case - law , in particular the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , concerning extradition to GPE . He specified that he had not applied for refugee status immediately after his arrival in GPE because of his poor command of NORP and also because he had “ not been aware of such a possibility ” .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG NORP ORG advised the applicant that it could not examine his application since he did not meet the “ refugee ” criteria set out in the domestic law . On DATE the applicant challenged that refusal before ORG of GPE ( “ the NORP FMS ” ) , submitting that ORG had failed to establish the facts of the case and , furthermore , that he had left GPE before the opening of the criminal case against him in his home country .

On DATE the NORP ORG notified the applicant that it had instructed ORG to examine his request .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Nizhniy NORP FMS informed the applicant that on DATE it had refused to examine the complaint , since the applicant did not meet the “ refugee ” definition .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to the NORP ORG , referring to the regional migration authority ’s failure to assess the risk of ill - treatment . In addition to his earlier submissions he provided references to articles from the local press published in DATE concerning the continuing practice of ill - treatment of detainees in GPE . The appeal was received by the NORP ORG on DATE . On DATE the NORP ORG accepted the applicant ’s complaint and remitted it to the regional migration authority for examination on the merits .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) informed the defence that the applicant met the criteria established by its statute and was eligible for international protection under its mandate .

On DATE the ORG Novgorod ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for refugee status by a letter received by the applicant on DATE , citing CARDINAL grounds for the refusal : ( CARDINAL ) failure to meet the “ refugee ” definition ; and ( CARDINAL ) the inapplicability of LAW to individuals who had “ committed a serious criminal offence of a nonpolitical nature outside GPE before being admitted to GPE as a person requesting refugee status ” .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that refusal , maintaining that the charges had been fabricated and pointing to the risk of illtreatment , with extensive references to reports by ORG and ORG , and information from ORG of ORG . He also requested an extension of DATE time - limit for lodging his appeal , since he had allegedly not been able to understand the contents of the letter of CARDINAL DATE because of his poor command in NORP , and his lawyer had explained the grounds for the refusal to him only on DATE .

On DATE the NORP ORG rejected the appeal . It noted that , according to information from ORG , the human rights situation in GPE was “ ambiguous ” . The dissemination of ideas of religious extremism and separatism constituted a criminal offence in that country . After the defeat of the ORG uprising the importing of NORP literature had been proscribed . The GPE leadership had an expressed intention to fine and put in jail individuals who worshipped outside the areas designated for that purpose . The NORP authorities considered that members of ORG and PERSON , a branch of PERSON - ut - GPE , had actively participated in the NORP events of DATE , and criminal proceedings against CARDINAL persons , including CARDINAL members of PERSON , were underway . Turning to the applicant ’s case , the ORG noted that the applicant had failed to apply for asylum in due time after his arrival in GPE and had referred to his poor command in NORP to justify that failure . However , the migration authority noted that , first , the applicant had performed military service in GPE , GPE , in DATE , which would have been impossible without an adequate knowledge of NORP , and second , he had received a temporary resident permit for GPE in DATE . Thus , the NORP ORG concluded that the applicant had provided false information about his language proficiency and that fact “ undermined confidence in the applicant and in the remainder of his submissions ” . The ORG concluded as follows :

“ Having analysed the applicant ’s submissions and the information provided by ORG and ORG of GPE on the situation in GPE and the activities of banned religious organisations , [ the NORP ORG ] finds no grounds to consider that the applicant would be persecuted on racial , religious , nationality , social or political grounds in the event of his return [ to the requesting country ] . ”

On DATE the applicant challenged that decision in court . In written submissions and an oral statement made during the court hearing the defence reiterated the applicant ’s fear that , in the event of extradition to GPE , he would be subjected to torture with a view to extracting a confession from him in respect of offences he had not committed . He further stated that the ORG had failed to duly assess that risk . As to his limited command of NORP , he stated that he had performed his military service DATE prior to his arrest , that fluent NORP had not been necessary for obtaining the temporary residence permit and , furthermore , that his difficulty in understanding NORP had been confirmed in several hearings concerning his extradition and the extensions of his pretrial detention , where the courts had heard him in person and had agreed that he needed an interpreter ’s assistance .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected that appeal . The court reiterated that the applicant had not complained of a risk of persecution in GPE and had not raised his wish to remain in GPE as a refugee until his arrest . His allegations of persecution for attending a mosque were ill - founded , given that the majority of the population of the destination country freely practised ORG . In addition , the court noted that the destination country had signed various international human rights treaties concerning , in particular , the protection of refugees . The court further endorsed the NORP ORG ’s decision as lawful , noting the applicant ’s failure to adduce “ convincing arguments to support his allegations of fear of unlawful persecution on religious grounds ” .

The applicant appealed , maintaining the claims summarised in paragraph CARDINAL above and submitting in addition that the first - instance court had failed to assess the risk on the basis of all available information , as well as to address his counter - arguments to the ORG ’s conclusion regarding his command of the LANGUAGE language .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . The appeal court found that the migration authority had taken its decision in compliance with the existing procedure and that the firstinstance court had ORG endorsed the conclusion that no evidence of the applicant ’s persecution on religious grounds had been adduced , and noted that the defence had not referred to any new facts capable of altering that conclusion . The court also referred to several international human rights treaties signed by GPE and noted that on CARDINAL DATE ORG had lifted various sanctions , including an arms embargo , against that country on account of progress achieved in the human rights sphere and the abolition of the death penalty there .

Following the applicant ’s arrest on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the ORG Novgorod transport prosecutor ordered his placement in custody pending extradition . On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the detention order . On DATE the Nizhniy ORG upheld decision on appeal .

On DATE , upon receipt of the formal request for the applicant ’s extradition ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG GPE deputy transport prosecutor , by a separate decision , again ordered the applicant ’s detention pending extradition . It is unclear whether the decision was appealed against .

It appears that at some point the ORG Novgorod transport prosecutor ’s office asked the court to extend the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the ORG examined that request , found that the latest extension of the applicant ’s detention had been granted on DATE [ sic ] , and the applicant could be held in custody on the basis of a prosecutor ’s order for a period not exceeding DATE . The court noted the receipt of the formal extradition request from the NORP authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , observed that the extradition proceedings had not been completed , and decided that the applicant should remain in custody until DATE .

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed , arguing , inter alia , that the applicant had been held in custody unlawfully since DATE .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal and endorsed the extension of DATE .

DATE . On DATE the ORG of Nizhniy Novgorod Nizhniy GPE extended the applicant ’s detention pending extradition until DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the Nizhniy ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal of DATE and upheld the extension order .

On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the ORG , when examining the applicant ’s appeal against the extradition order ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , authorised the extension of the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court found no reason to apply a preventive measure other than detention , since it was necessary to ensure the applicant ’s extradition .

On DATE , by an additional statement of appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the defence challenged ORG findings in so far as they concerned the extension of the detention . He complained , in particular , about the overlap of the extension with the ruling of LOC of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE , deciding on the applicant ’s appeal against the extradition order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , upheld the entirety of the lower court ’s findings without addressing the detention issue separately .

On DATE ORG , by a separate decision , extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

On DATE the ORG upheld the extension on appeal . ORG found there was no contradiction between the CARDINAL decisions of CARDINAL DATE issued by ORG and ORG since the first CARDINAL concerned the applicant ’s detention pending extradition , whilst the second one dealt with the lawfulness of the extradition order .

On DATE the transport prosecutor ’s office lodged an application for a further extension of the applicant ’s detention with ORG .

On DATE the ORG examined the matter and granted an extension until DATE . According to the hearing transcript , the applicant requested the court to change the preventive measure in respect of him to CARDINAL of house arrest , and gave the address of a relative in GPE Novgorod where he could reside pursuant to the application of such a measure . He stated that before his arrest he had lived in PERSON and not in GPE , the place of his formal residence registration . He did not remember the exact address in GPE PERSON he had resided at . The applicant ’s lawyer stated at the hearing that the applicant had introduced an application with the ORG and that an interim measure had been applied to his case under Rule CARDINAL of ORG . The lawyer pointed to the similarly between the applicant ’s case and several others previously examined by ORG ( for instance , the case of PERSON and Others , cited above ) and stated that the applicant had a good chance of winning his case in GPE . The lawyer submitted that “ there exist[ed ] legal grounds for decreasing the amount of compensation , and even reducing it to CARDINAL ” if the preventive measure in respect of the applicant was changed to a milder one . The lawyer provided a full address in PERSON where the applicant could be placed under house arrest and specified that the applicant himself had by mistake cited the wrong street name .

When granting the extension , ORG observed that the circumstances requiring the applicant ’s detention remained unchanged . The court noted that the extradition order in respect of the applicant had indeed become final but the extradition had been suspended pursuant to the application of Rule DATE by ORG , and therefore the extradition order could not be enforced . However , there existed a risk of the applicant ’s absconding if he was released . The court noted that the applicant was wanted for particularly serious offences , had been hiding from the NORP authorities , and measures were being taken to ensure his extradition which involved the application of international treaties ; therefore his case should be considered exceptional . His detention was in accordance with the domestic law . Various case documents demonstrated the reasonableness of the suspicion against him as regarded the well - foundedness of the accusations brought by the NORP authorities , but ORG was not competent to decide on that matter . It concluded that the extension of the applicant ’s detention was in compliance with LAW . The court further rejected the possibility of changing the preventive measure to house arrest , since the applicant had been unable to indicate a specific address where he could reside if such a measure was applied , or to provide any further details in support of his petition .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision . In particular , he challenged ORG reference to the gravity of the charges against him and the exceptional nature of the case as immaterial . With reference to the PERSON case ( see PERSON v. GPE , DATE , § CARDINAL , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ) , he stated that no action had been taken with a view to his extradition since DATE , when the extradition order had become final , and ORG had failed to indicate any specific measures to be taken to enforce the extradition order after that date . He drew the court ’s attention to contradictory documents submitted by the NORP authorities and submitted that the charges were fabricated and unfounded .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The court endorsed the firstinstance court ’s reasoning as lawful and well - founded . In particular , it upheld ORG findings as to the gravity of the charges against the applicant , the possibility of his absconding or obstructing justice , and the exceptional nature of his case . ORG observed that the lower court had reached its conclusions on the basis of all available material , including the information on the application pending before ORG . The court further upheld as reasonable the refusal to place the applicant under house arrest , since the address of his registration was no longer his place of residence , he had failed to give his latest place of residence in GPE , and he had been unable to provide either an address where he could he held under house arrest or any other details .

On CARDINAL DATE LOC changed the preventive measure in respect of the applicant to house arrest , on account of the expiry of the maximum term for his detention pending extradition and in order to ensure the applicant ’s extradition , which was suspended at the time pursuant to the application of the interim measure by ORG . The applicant and his representative were present at the hearing . The court referred , in particular , to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) . The house arrest order read as follows :

“ ... to prohibit [ the applicant ] from leaving his permanent place of residence at the address [ ... ] , communicating , without an investigator ’s prior consent , with suspects , accused , victims or other participants in the criminal case , and from sending and receiving correspondence , or using any means of communication . ”

The court specified that the local transport prosecutor ’s office and ORG of ORG was to ensure supervision of the applicant ’s compliance with the restrictions imposed . The court further ordered the applicant ’s immediate release from detention and specified that the decision could be appealed against in ORG within DATE , and that the applicant could participate in the appeal hearing if he chose to appeal .

The applicant did not appeal against the house arrest order .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a petition ( ходатайство ) under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG with the ORG Novgorod transport prosecutor asking him “ to lodge a petition with a court ” for the discontinuation of the applicant ’s house arrest . Referring to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , the lawyer submitted that the period the applicant had spent in detention should be counted towards the term of the house arrest , pointed out that the maximum period for the applicant ’s detention had expired on DATE , and claimed that further application of the preventive measure to him was therefore unlawful .

On DATE the transport prosecutor ’s office notified the applicant of an extension of the time - limit for the examination of his request until CARDINAL DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE PERSON , the deputy transport prosecutor of GPE , rejected the applicant ’s request – which she referred to as “ a request to bring an extraordinary appeal ” ( « ходатайство о принесении протеста ORG ) DATE against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . She noted that the court had examined all available material on the extradition procedure and taken a reasonable and lawful decision to place the applicant under house arrest in order to ensure his extradition , that there was no reason to change the preventive measure , and that the domestic law did not specify a maximum time - limit for house arrest . A copy of the decision was submitted to ORG . It appears that the applicant and his lawyer did not receive it .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE Mr NORP , Head of ORG of the ORG transport prosecutor ’s office , informed the applicant that there were no grounds to bring an extraordinary appeal and cited the same reasons as in the above decision .

DATE . On DATE the applicant challenged D. ’s refusal to request his release in LOC under LAW of the CCrP.

On DATE ORG rejected a complaint by the applicant about “ the refusal to bring an application for a change of the preventive measure in respect of the applicant ” , noting that the applicant had complained about the actions of NORP , who had not taken any decisions in the applicant ’s case , the refusal having in fact been issued by PERSON applicant did not appeal against that decision .

On DATE the ORG GPE deputy transport prosecutor discontinued the applicant ’s house arrest on account of his placement in custody on DATE in connection with a criminal case against him in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against the transport prosecutor ’s office under Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , requesting the court to order the transport prosecutor ’s office to quash the refusal of CARDINAL DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE LOC refused to examine the civil complaint against the impugned prosecutor ’s decision , finding that the dispute at stake fell within the province of criminal rather than civil procedural law . It appears that the applicant did not appeal .

According to the official account of the events , on DATE the applicant was stopped by police on the street in GPE Novgorod while carrying a hand grenade in the pocket of his jeans . According to the applicant , the grenade had been planted on him by the police . Criminal proceedings were brought against him on suspicion of the illegal procurement , storage and possession of arms . On CARDINAL and DATE he was questioned in respect of the incident .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in pretrial detention in ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL detention facility ( “ SIZOCARDINAL ” ) pending the investigation of the above criminal case . His detention was extended several times by the domestic courts .

According to the applicant ’s representatives’ submissions to the domestic authorities ( see paragraph ORG below ) , the applicant ’s personal belongings , including his money , were held in trust for him by PERSON PERSON , his representative in the domestic proceedings and before this Court .

DATE . On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

The applicant appealed against the conviction and the appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE . He remained in detention in SIZOCARDINAL pending the examination of his appeal . On DATE the applicant was released from detention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On CARDINAL occasions , that is , on DATE and DATE , ORG adjourned the appeal hearings because of the applicant ’s absence and because he had not been properly notified of the examination of his case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below for details ) . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the conviction in the applicant ’s absence .

In the wake of the application of the interim measure under Rule CARDINAL in the applicant ’s case on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Government submitted on CARDINAL October DATE that the NORP authorities had taken steps to ensure that the applicant would not be extradited to GPE until further notice . On DATE the Government submitted that at some point the Privolzhskiy regional transport prosecutor ’s office and the prosecutor ’s office of ORG had received all necessary orders to take additional measures for nonadmission of the forced transfer of the applicant to GPE .

On DATE the applicant produced a written statement to his lawyer to the effect that he wished to maintain his case before the ORG and if ever he claimed otherwise , it would mean that he had changed his position under pressure .

On DATE the Registrar of the ORG sent a letter to ORG on behalf of the President of the ORG in connection with another case , expressing his profound concern at the repeated allegations concerning the secret transfer of applicants from GPE to NORP in breach of interim measures applied under Rule CARDINAL of ORG . Referring to this situation as worrying and unprecedented , the letter invited ORG to provide the ORG with exhaustive information about any follow - up given to the incidents in GPE . It also drew the authorities’ attention to the fact that interim measures continued to apply in CARDINAL other cases concerning extradition and expulsion , including the present case . As an indication of the seriousness with which he viewed this turn of events , the President asked that the Chairman of ORG , the President of ORG and the Secretary General of ORG be informed immediately ( see the full text of the letter quoted in PERSON v. GPE , no . ORG , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

According to the Government ’s submissions in reply to that letter made in another case pending before this ORG , on DATE ORG at the ORG informed the Prosecutor ’s ORG , ORG , the ORG and ORG of the interim measures issued by ORG .

On DATE Mr PERSON , the applicant ’s lawyer , visited the applicant in SIZO-CARDINAL , where he was serving his sentence of imprisonment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to Mr PERSON , the applicant expressed a fear of being apprehended and transferred to GPE immediately after release from custody . Allegedly , he had expressed similar concerns in his earlier conversations with the lawyer . The applicant promised to telephone Mr PERSON immediately after his release .

The applicant ’s term of imprisonment was due to end on CARDINAL DATE . In accordance with LAW , in cases where a detainee ’s term of imprisonment ends on a national holiday , the person is to be released on DATE immediately before the holiday . Thus , the applicant ’s release was due on DATE , DATE before DATE and national holiday .

At TIME on DATE , the applicant was released from SIZOCARDINAL . According to the release certificate , the applicant ’s current passport was returned to him upon release .

The office hours of the remand facility started at TIME At some point on CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON went to SIZO-CARDINAL to meet his client . The remand prison authorities did not allow him to see the applicant , explaining that that day was a professional holiday for officers of the prison service . They did not inform the lawyer of the applicant ’s release .

Having received no telephone call from the applicant on the date of his expected release or later , on DATE ( DATE after the national holiday and long DATE in GPE ) Mr PERSON again went to SIZO-CARDINAL to enquire about his client . He was informed by the detention facility officers that the applicant had been released from custody on QUANTITY DATE .

The applicant never contacted his representatives after his release , and they have not seen him or been unable to contact him ever since .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE , apparently at CARDINAL TIME ( GPE time ) , the applicant departed FAC for GPE , GPE , on board regular flight no . ORG operated by ORG ( ORG havo yo‛llari ) . The distance between GPE and FAC is QUANTITY . Information provided by the parties about the events of DATE may be summarised as follows .

According to a certificate issued on DATE by ORG of ORG of GPE , on DATE the applicant left GPE by the above - mentioned flight , having “ used his NORP passport , no . [ the number of the current passport ] to buy plane tickets ” .

On DATE the Government submitted that , according to the “ Central Database of Aliens ” of ORG , the applicant crossed the NORP State border at the checkpoint in FAC . They have not furnished any document in support of that submission .

On DATE the ORG asked the Government to specify the means of transport used by the applicant to get from GPE to GPE on DATE , to provide the exact times of his transfers on DATE , and to submit documents in support , such as , for instance , the relevant records from an airline company , or the train company , used by the applicant . No such information has been provided by the Government to date . On DATE they submitted , without providing further details or documents , that the applicant ’s name was not in the electronic database of persons on federal and local wanted lists – the “ Search - Highway ” ( « Розыск-Магистраль » ) .

On DATE the Government submitted that the plane ticket had been issued in GPE on the basis of the “ form no . CARDINAL ” . The applicant had checked in for the flight and departed for GPE alone . There was no information that he had been escorted by any other person .

Referring to the release certificate of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant ’s representatives submitted that the only document in the applicant ’s possession on the date of his release had been his NORP travel passport , and that he had had no money , credit cards or DATE clothes with him .

According to the information provided by ORG , as summarised in the decision not to bring criminal proceedings of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) :

“ ... the flight ticket for Mr PERSON was issued in GPE on the basis of a “ registration list form no . CARDINAL ” for NORP nationals issued by ORG of the Interior of ORG of GPE , [ on the basis of ] GPE passport no . [ the old passport number cited ] . ”

According to an undated reply by ORG , summarised in the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ,

“ ... on DATE the applicant ’s name was deleted from the ORG list because of his arrest . On the basis of that information , the search for the applicant in GPE was also discontinued . ”

The Government in their observations , including their latest submissions of CARDINAL DATE , have not provided any information about the applicant ’s whereabouts .

NORP The representatives have been unable to contact the applicant since his release and they have not had any information on his whereabouts . They attempted to contact the applicant ’s relatives in GPE , but received no reply . They submitted that the relatives could have been intimidated or the applicant could be detained incommunicado . On DATE they submitted , with reference to a “ confidential source whose identity has not been disclosed because of fears for his security ” , that the applicant was being held in detention in GPE , GPE , but stressed that no official confirmation of that information was available .

On DATE ORG launched an “ urgent action campaign ” and issued a statement expressing concerns about the applicant ’s alleged unlawful abduction , stating that the applicant faced a serious risk of torture . According to the statement , the applicant was “ allegedly held in pre - trial detention in GPE , eastern GPE ” .

On DATE the applicant ’s representatives submitted a copy of a letter of CARDINAL DATE from ORG confirming , in reply to a request by an unspecified person or authority , that the applicant was being held in pre - trial detention in remand facility no . UYa-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( NORP изолятор GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in LOC of GPE .

On DATE and DATE the Government informed the ORG that an inquiry into the applicant ’s disappearance was pending and that the authorities did not have any information on the applicant ’s forced transfer across the NORP border . They enclosed copies of the release certificate and the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the Government stated that in DATE and on DATE the NORP authorities had requested unspecified law - enforcement bodies and ORG of GPE to provide them with information on the applicant ’s whereabouts . Further , at some point in course of the internal inquiry the videorecords from FAC cameras had been requested by the investigators , but the footage was “ not available yet ” . They further stated , without enclosing any documents , that the material in the inquiry file did not contain any information on the applicant ’s transfer to GPE against his will and that his name had not been found in the ORG system ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In their latest observations , dated CARDINAL DATE , the ORG stated that the domestic inquiry was still in progress . In particular , at some point ORG of ORG of ORG had been requested to obtain submissions from the crew members of the flight by which the applicant had left GPE for GPE . The ORG has received no update on the progress of that request . The Government enclosed copies of the refusals to bring criminal proceedings of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and the respective decisions ordering the quashing of those refusals ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE Mr PERSON applied to the local police and prosecutor ’s office requesting the opening of an investigation into the applicant ’s disappearance . On the same date the applicant ’s other representatives before ORG informed ORG office , ORG and ORG about the incident and asked the authorities to take urgent measures to establish the applicant ’s whereabouts , to provide information on the applicant ’s crossing of the NORP State border , and to open an investigation into the circumstances of his disappearance .

On DATE ORG of GPE advised PERSON that domestic law did not provide for keeping a record of persons crossing State borders . However , the border control services were under an obligation to inform the migration authorities of the entry and departure of foreign nationals to and from GPE DATE . That information constituted the basis for the federal migration record system .

Decision no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE on ORG did not list the legal representative of an individual among those entitled to request access to that information system ( sections DATE of the Decision ) .

On DATE PERSON sent an enquiry as to the applicant ’s whereabouts to the office of ORG , referring to the information on the applicant ’s departure for GPE provided by the Government . It appears that she did not receive a reply .

On an unspecified date an investigator from police department no . CARDINAL of ORG in GPE PERSON opened a preinvestigation inquiry into the circumstances of the applicant ’s disappearance .

On DATE the investigator decided not to bring criminal proceedings in respect of the incident . The applicant ’s representatives have not received a copy of the refusal .

On DATE ORG of ORG advised PERSON that her complaint about the applicant ’s disappearance had been examined and it had been decided “ not to bring criminal proceedings and not to open a search file ( розыскное дело ) in respect of Mr GPE ” . ORG further noted that measures for establishing the applicant ’s whereabouts were “ being taken in connection with the already existing search file ” .

On DATE Mr PERSON requested the administration of SIZOCARDINAL to produce the footage of the surveillance cameras of the detention facility in order to confirm the exact time of the applicant ’s release on DATE , to inform him of the progress of the inquiry , and to provide him with copies of any decisions taken during it .

On DATE the prosecutor of GPE of PERSON quashed the decision of DATE on the ground that the inquiry had not been complete , and ordered an additional inquiry into the circumstances of the applicant ’s disappearance . The parties did not provide a copy of that decision .

On DATE the case was assigned to ORG of ORG ( “ the Sovetskiy investigative department ” ) .

On DATE the Sovetskiy investigative department requested the “ FAC ” company to provide the video footage taken by the airport surveillance cameras on DATE .

On DATE the above - mentioned company informed the investigators that their request needed to be directed to a different company , “ GPE ” – and that , in any event , in accordance with the internal regulations , video records were only kept for DATE .

On DATE the Sovetskiy investigative department refused to open criminal proceedings in respect of the incident , for lack of a criminal event . The decision was taken on the basis of the following evidence :

- submissions by NORP , an acquaintance of the applicant from PERSON , who stated that he had not seen the applicant for DATE ;

- submissions by PERSON . , living in PERSON and referred to in the decision as the applicant ’s sister ; she stated in a telephone conversation with an investigator that neither she nor her relatives in GPE had any information about the applicant ’s whereabouts ;

- information by ORG on the applicant ’s border crossing at FAC and his departure for GPE ;

- statements by the police officers in charge of the investigation of the criminal case against the applicant in GPE . The officers submitted that the applicant had not complained of a fear of abduction or any threats to his life before his release ;

- submissions by the SIZO-CARDINAL officer on duty at the checkpoint of the detention facility on DATE . She clearly remembered the applicant , since he had been released TIME on that date , which had not been the usual practice of the detention facility . She was unaware whether any person had come to meet the applicant on his release , since the window shutters at the checkpoint had been closed at that time of DATE and she could not see anything outside her workstation .

The applicant ’s representatives submit that they did not receive a copy of that decision . It was furnished to ORG by the Government on DATE .

On DATE the deputy head of the Sovetskiy investigative department quashed the above decision , noting that it was necessary to obtain information from the GPE office of ORG , as well as materials from the GPE transport prosecutor ’s office . An additional inquiry was ordered .

On DATE the office of the prosecutor of ORG , in response to the applicant ’s representative ’s request of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stated that the video surveillance records of the detention facility were kept for DATE , and therefore the video footage for the date in issue was no longer available , and that all copies of the decisions taken in the course of the inquiry had been sent to the representatives in due time .

On DATE ORG inspector in charge of the spot checks of passengers going through the “ GPE ” on DATE filed written submissions in reply to the Sovetskiy investigative department ’s request . He stated that he did not remember the applicant and reported that there had not been any unusual situations on that date . Having analysed its records for the said date , ORG further specified that the applicant had not declared any goods before his departure .

On DATE ORG of ORG submitted , in reply to the ORG inquiry , that the departmental officer in charge of border control on DATE did not remember the applicant . The officer specified that as a rule any person crossing the State border at the airport approached the border control point unaccompanied . If , exceptionally , a person was escorted ( for instance , for medical reasons or in the case of the expulsion of a foreign national by the lawenforcement agencies ) , the controller had to inform his superior at the control service thereof . However , no such report had been made on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a new refusal to bring criminal proceedings , for the lack of the event of the crime . In addition to the evidence cited in the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the investigator referred to a statement by the assistant to the Head of the remand prison , who stated that he had released the applicant but did not remember him . The decision further contained a reference to the reply of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the information obtained from ORG of ORG and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , and the information provided by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Having examined all the above material , the investigator concluded that there was no evidence that the applicant had been abducted . On DATE Mr PERSON was notified of the refusal .

On DATE the Deputy Head of ORG ordered that the inquiry be resumed , and stated that it was necessary to question the applicant . The inquiry is apparently still pending to date .

On CARDINAL occasions , DATE and DATE , ORG adjourned hearings concerning the applicant ’s appeal against the conviction of DATE , on account of the applicant ’s absence . The court found no evidence that the applicant had been properly notified of the examination of his case , and scheduled a new examination of the case for DATE , sending the summons to the address of the applicant ’s house arrest in PERSON , as well as to his permanent address in the village of GPE in LOC of GPE . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer asked ORG to request ORG to provide information on the applicant ’s whereabouts , so that the summons concerning the appeal proceedings against his conviction in GPE could be sent to him , but the request was refused by the court .

Once the conviction was upheld on appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the ORG sent a copy of the appeal judgment to the military commission of LOC in LOC of GPE , for information .

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

“ Extradition shall not be granted if the offence in respect of which it is requested is regarded by the requested ORG as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence .

The same rule shall apply if the requested ORG has substantial grounds for believing that a request for extradition for an ordinary criminal offence has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race , religion , nationality or political opinion , or that that person ’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons . ...

This article shall not affect any obligations which the Contracting Parties may have undertaken or may undertake under any other international convention of a multilateral character . ”

When depositing the instrument of ratification on DATE , GPE made the following declaration :

“ GPE proceeds from the understanding that the provisions of LAW should be so applied as to ensure inevitable responsibility for offences under the provisions of the LAW .

The GPE proceeds from the understanding that legislation of GPE does not provide for the notion « political offences PERSON . In all cases when deciding on extradition GPE will not consider as « political offences » or « offences connected with political offences ORG along with offences , specified in LAW to the DATE LAW , in particular , the following acts :

h. ... other comparable crimes specified in the multilateral international treaties which GPE is a party to . ”

For a summary of other relevant provisions concerning extradition proceedings and refugee status proceedings , see PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL respectively , CARDINAL DATE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG , as in force at the material time , provided that house arrest consisted of restricting a suspect ’s or an accused ’s freedom of movement , as well as forbidding him or her to ( CARDINAL ) communicate with certain persons , ( CARDINAL ) receive and send correspondence , and ( CARDINAL ) conduct conversations using any means of communication . A suspect or an accused could be put under house arrest on the grounds and in accordance with the procedure set out in LAW of the CCrP ( placement in custody DATE see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , with due regard for the person ’s age , health , family status and other circumstances ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . A decision to place a suspect or an accused under house arrest was to specify the restrictions imposed and designate a supervisory authority to ensure that the restrictions were observed ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

In Decision ( Определение ) N CARDINAL-O - O of CARDINAL DATE ORG found that the applicable criminal procedure law , in so far as it provided that house arrest was an alternative to detention on remand , implied that a court decision on placement under house arrest should contain a specific and reasonable time - limit for the application of that preventive measure ( § CARDINAL of the Decision )

By Ruling PERSON ) N CARDINAL of DATE , ORG of GPE reiterated the ORG ’s caselaw to the effect that the difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is CARDINAL of degree or intensity , and not CARDINAL of nature or substance ( § CARDINAL of the Ruling ) . Having analysed the relevant provisions of the ORG governing house arrest and detention , taken together , as well as the nature of the restrictions applied to an individual in the case of house arrest , ORG found , in particular , that house arrest , like detention on remand , implied the compulsory isolation of an accused or a suspect from society , in a limited space , and the prevention of the person from working , moving freely and communicating with other persons . Thus , in view of the restrictions suffered , house arrest involved a direct restriction of a person ’s right to physical liberty and security . Therefore , the procedural guarantees in the case of house arrest should be the same as those applicable to detention on remand ( § CARDINAL of the Ruling ) .

The Constitutional Court observed that LAW of the ORG , as in force at the material time , did not specify either the maximum period for house arrest , or instructions on how it should be applied or extended . ORG held as follows ( § CARDINAL of the Ruling ) :

“ Therefore , the provisions of LAW of the ORG , taken alone or in conjunction with other provisions of the Code , create uncertainty as regards the duration of house arrest , its extension , and the maximum time limit precluding any further extension of [ that preventive measure ] , and thus allow for the establishment of time - limits in respect of a restriction of the constitutional right to liberty and security of a person in an arbitrary manner and solely upon the decision [ of a law - enforcement authority ] . ”

ORG declared Article CARDINAL of the CCrP unconstitutional in so far as it did not specify the period for which house arrest could be applied , the grounds and procedure for the extension or the maximum period for placement under house arrest .

On DATE and DATE Article CARDINAL of the ORG was amended . LAW CARDINAL now stipulates that a period of house arrest may not exceed DATE . Where it is impossible to complete a preliminary investigation , and in the absence of grounds for amendment or annulment of the preventive measure , a court may extend that period within the procedure provided for in Article CARDINAL of the LAW stipulates that a period of detention on remand should be counted toward the period of the house arrest and the total length of house arrest and detention on remand may not exceed the maximum time - limit set out in LAW , irrespective of the order of application of these CARDINAL preventive measures .

Custody may be ordered by a court on application by an investigator or a prosecutor if a person is charged with an offence carrying a sentence of DATE imprisonment , provided that a less restrictive preventive measure can not be used ( LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

A period of detention pending investigation may not exceed DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . A judge may extend that period DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Further extensions up to DATE , or in exceptional circumstances , DATE , may only be granted if the person is charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . No extension beyond DATE is permissible and the detainee must be released immediately ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

A period spent under house arrest should be counted towards the total period of detention ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

If the grounds serving as the basis for a preventive measure have changed , the preventive measure must be cancelled or amended . A decision to cancel or amend a preventive measure may be taken by an investigator , a prosecutor or a court ( Article CARDINAL ) .

For a summary of other relevant CCrP provisions see Zokhidov , cited above , § CARDINAL .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG provides that a judge ’s decision on detention is amenable to appeal before a higher court within DATE of its delivery . Having received the file , the second - instance court must examine the appeal lodged against the judge ’s detention decision within DATE . A decision by the second - instance court to annul the detention is to be executed immediately .

Chapter CARDINAL of the ORG , as in force at the material time , set out the appeal procedure . Article CARDINAL of the ORG , as in force at the material time , established the scope for the examination of a case by an appeal court . It provided that the appeal court was to examine appeals with a view to verifying the lawfulness , validity and fairness of the judgment or other judicial decision of the first - instance court . An appeal court could also directly examine evidence , including additional material submitted by the parties ( LAW , as in force at the material time ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , as in force at the material time , provided that the appeal court could take the following decisions : ( CARDINAL ) to dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment or other judicial decision taken by the firstinstance court ; ( CARDINAL ) to quash the judgment or other judicial decision and discontinue the criminal proceedings ; ( CARDINAL ) to quash the judgment and remit the case for fresh examination to the first - instance court , or ( CARDINAL ) to amend the judgment or other judicial decision taken by the first - instance court .

A violation of procedural law where a party to the proceedings had been deprived of or restricted in the exercise of his or her procedural rights , or where a procedure had not been complied with , or where there had been another defect which had influenced or could have influenced the fairness of the proceedings , constituted a ground for the quashing or amendment of a judicial decision ( Article CARDINAL of the ORG , as in force at the material time ) .

Chapter CARDINAL of the ORG provides that suspects , defendants and their representatives may petition officials for taking procedural decisions that would secure rights and legitimate interests of the petitioner ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . A petition may be lodged at any stage of the criminal proceedings ( LAW ) , in particular , with the court ( LAW ) . It may be also lodged by a prosecutor ( LAW ) .

Chapter CARDINAL of the CCrP ( “ Complaints about the acts and decisions of courts and officials involved in criminal proceedings ” ) provides for 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 ) .

Chapter CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure sets out the procedure for judicial review of complaints about decisions , acts or omissions of ORG authorities and officials . A citizen may lodge a complaint about an act or decision by any ORG authority which he believes has breached his rights or freedoms either with a court of general jurisdiction or by sending it to the directly superior official or authority ( Article CARDINAL ) . The complaint may concern , in particular , any decision , act or omission which has violated rights or freedoms , or has impeded the exercise of rights or freedoms , of the citizen ( Article CARDINAL).The complaint must be lodged within DATE on which the citizen learnt of the breach of his rights .

For a summary of the legal provisions concerning the database code - named “ Search - Highway ” ( “ Розыск-Магистраль ” ) and establishing the procedure for its operation , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of Federal Law No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on the Procedure for Entering and Leaving GPE ( “ LAW ” ) provides that a foreign national ’s leaving of GPE may be restricted where criminal proceedings are pending against him or her , until a final decision in those proceedings is adopted .

For a summary of the recent reports on GPE by the ORG institutions and by NGOs , see Zokhidov , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

For a summary of ORG texts on the duty to cooperate with the ORG , the right to individual petition , and interim measures , see PERSON , cited above , § § CARDINAL .

For a summary of ORG decisions under LAW on related cases concerning GPE adopted DATE and DATE , see PERSON , cited above , § § DATE .

At the CARDINALth meeting of ORG held on DATE , ORG adopted the following decision in the wake of yet another incident involving allegations of disappearance of the applicant in respect of whom the interim measure was indicated by ORG ( CM / Del / Dec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL/HCARDINAL - CARDINALE ):

“ The Deputies ,

Recalling the decisions adopted at their ORG meeting ( DATE ) ( DH ) and CARDINAL meeting ( DATE ) ( DH ) in the PERSON group of cases against GPE ( see the list below ) ,

NORP noted with grave concern that a further incident involving allegations of kidnapping and illegal transfer of an applicant protected by an interim measure indicated by ORG under Rule DATE has been reported [ ... ]

NORP strongly insisted that light be shed on this incident and on the fate of the applicant as quickly as possible ;

NORP consequently insisted again on the pressing need to adopt as of now measures to ensure an immediate and effective protection of the applicants in a similar situation against kidnappings and irregular removals from the national territory ;

recalled in this context the letter sent by the Chairman of ORG to the Minister of ORG of GPE ;

NORP agreed that a draft interim resolution will be considered in the light of progress that would have been made , including the updated action plan submitted by the NORP authorities ; this text will be circulated in the draft revised order of business of their CARDINAL meeting ( DATE ) ( DH ) . ”


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska

The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE , respectively . They live in GPE . They are represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

On DATE the applicants arrived in GPE . Shortly thereafter they applied for asylum .

On DATE the first applicant married an NORP national . On DATE she applied for a residence permit on the basis of her marriage . She did not therefore pursue the asylum application . The marriage subsequently failed and the first applicant separated from her husband . Accordingly , on DATE ORG , LAW reform revoked her leave to remain as she was no longer residing with her spouse and proposed to deport her . The Minister for ORG and Law Reform ( “ the Minister ” ) issued a deportation order in DATE .

On DATE the applicants re - applied for asylum . The first applicant was interviewed on DATE . The application for asylum was based on the following claims . The first applicant claimed that she was ill in her late teens and was sent to live with the family of a native doctor ( “ E ” ) in or DATE . Thereafter , she was effectively detained by that family . E cut her with a blade and rubbed charcoal into her wounds and DATE began raping her . E threatened to kill the first applicant ’s father when the latter protested . Her father later died in DATE . She gave birth to her son in DATE and to the second applicant in DATE . In DATE E died . Since E ’s brother wished to marry the first applicant , the applicants escaped from E ’s funeral . They fled to GPE . Following threats , they left for GPE and , subsequently , they left for GPE , via GPE , leaving the first applicant ’s son with her mother . The first applicant claims that she was subjected to LAW ( “ ORG ” ) against her will prior to the birth of the second applicant . She feared that , on return , that she would be kidnapped and re - detained by E ’s family and that the second applicant would be subjected to ORG . The first applicant claims that internal re - location is not an option and that the NORP police would not assist her .

By letter of DATE the applicants were informed that ORG Commissioner ( “ ORG ” ) was recommending that they not be declared refugees . The PERSON report highlighted , inter alia , certain inconsistencies and vagueness in her claims and her failure to seek protection from the NORP police .

By decision of DATE , notified to the applicant on CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( “ RAT ” ) affirmed the recommendation of the ORG . The RAT , inter alia , found parts of her claim to be inconsistent and vague , relied on the country - of - origin information about ORG in GPE and noted her failure to seek assistance of the NORP authorities or asylum in GPE . The applicants were legally represented before the RAT .

In DATE the applicants applied , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL , for leave to apply for judicial review citing the RAT , the Minister , GPE and the Attorney General as respondents . They requested , inter alia , an order quashing the decision of the RAT as well as declarations that the RAT ’s failure to publish its previous decisions was unconstitutional and that the second applicant should have been heard as she was no longer an infant . They also took issue in some detail with the RAT ’s assessment of their factual claims .

On DATE the respondents filed a replying affidavit . In DATE the case was listed for hearing in DATE .

On DATE the High Court heard the applicants’ judicial review application and judgment was reserved .

In DATE the case was listed for mention when the parties were informed that judgment was not available . The applicants inquired on several later occasions about the delivery of the judgment .

The matter was listed for mention on CARDINAL DATE and the parties were informed that a judgment was not available . ORG requested the parties to explore a settlement of the action . Accordingly , on DATE the applicants wrote to the respondents seeking a possible settlement . No response was received .

The case was again listed for mention on DATE and ORG informed the parties that a judgment was not available but that a judgment should be ready by DATE .

By notice dated DATE , the applicants notified ORG of their change of solicitor .

The case has not been re - listed since then and no judgment has been delivered to date .