Communicated on 6 December 2010 and 17 April 2018
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 44719/10
Michael GILANOV
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 30 July 2010
The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC.
QUESTION
Does the Republic of Moldova, as a State requesting – with the aim of obtaining extradition – the detention of a person by another State which is not a Party to the Convention (Belarus) have a positive obligation under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention to ensure that such detention is consistent with its key purpose, of preventing arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see, for example, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 84, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?
In particular:
(a) Does the requesting State have an obligation to verify whether relevant developments, such as the passage of time or the lack of a clear progress in the extradition proceedings, render detention pending extradition incompatible with the requirements of that provision and require the requesting State’s review, if necessary on its own motion, of the need to maintain the request for extradition? In this connection, did the Court of Appeal, in its decision of 9 July 2010, carry out such a review, especially given the arguments raised by the applicant against his continued detention pending extradition proceedings in Belarus?
(b) What is the relevance of the Law on international legal assistance in criminal matters (no. 371-XVI, in force since 4 March 2007), in particular Articles 10 and 55 read together with Article 73, as well as Article 75, in Moldova’s fulfilling any positive obligations referred to above?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy