AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 26727/95
by Rustem KADYROV
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 29 November 1995, the following members being present:
Mrs. G.H. THUNE, Acting President
MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 3 February 1995
by Rustem Kadyrov against Sweden and registered on 17 March 1995 under
file No. 26727/95;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant was born in Russia in 1961. He was formerly a
citizen of the Soviet Union, but is now stateless. He arrived in Sweden
in 1990 and was granted a permanent residence permit. Previously, he
lived in Latvia for three years. Before the Commission he is
represented by Ms. Karin Falkvall, a lawyer practising at Helsingborg.
On 22 June 1994 the Latvian Prosecutor-General issued a warrant
of arrest concerning the applicant, as he was suspected of aggravated
smuggling of goods, an offence under Section 73 of the Latvian Penal
Code. Allegedly, the applicant had organised the smuggling of several
thousand tons of petrol into Latvia between November 1993 and
January 1994.
The applicant was arrested by the Swedish police on 29 June 1994
and placed in detention on 17 August 1994.
By note of 2 August 1994 to the Swedish Embassy in Riga, the
Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested that the applicant be
extradited to Latvia.
The matter was, in accordance with Section 15 of the Swedish
Extradition Act (Lagen om utlämning för brott, 1957:668), referred to
the Swedish Prosecutor-General (Riksåklagaren), who carried out an
investigation. During this investigation, the police confiscated
certain personal notes written by the applicant and submitted them to
the Latvian Prosecutor-General. These notes allegedly concerned the
applicant's thoughts on the work of the Latvian police, the KGB and the
Latvian mafia and on the extent of corruption in Latvia. They were
allegedly later published in Latvian newspapers.
On 6 September 1994 the National Immigration Board (Statens
invandrarverk) rejected the applicant's request for a declaration of
refugee status (flyktingförklaring), as he was not considered a refugee
under the Aliens Act (Utlänningslagen, 1989:529) or the United Nations
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The decision was upheld
by the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden) on 2 February 1995.
In an opinion of 22 November 1994, the Swedish Prosecutor-General
considered that there were no impediments under the Extradition Act to
the extradition of the applicant to Latvia. The Prosecutor-General
expressed that the investigation showed that the applicant was
suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed the offence in
question.
The matter was then, in accordance with Section 17 of the
Expulsion Act, referred to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen). After
having held an oral hearing on 29 December 1994, the Supreme Court, by
decision of 4 January 1995, agreed with the findings of the Prosecutor-
General.
By decision of 9 February 1995, the Swedish Government, referring
to the decision the Supreme Court, granted the Latvian request for the
applicant's extradition.
The applicant was extradited on 3 March 1995. Allegedly, he has
been in custody in Riga awaiting trial since that date.
COMPLAINT
The applicant claims that his expulsion to Latvia violated
Article 3 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 3 February 1995.
On 7 February 1995 the President of the Commission decided not
to recommend to the Government of Sweden, pursuant to Rule 36 of the
Commission's Rules of Procedure, to stay the extradition of the
applicant to Latvia.
Following further correspondence with the applicant, the
application was registered on 17 March 1995.
THE LAW
The applicant complains of a violation of Article 3
(Art. 3) of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
The applicant claims that the rights of the Russian minority is
not respected in Latvia. He fears that, because of his Russian
extraction, he will be in custody for an indefinite period of time
awaiting trial and will not receive a fair hearing. He further fears
that he will receive a ten year prison sentence for the offence of
which he has been charged. Moreover, as he is stateless, no diplomatic
mission in Latvia will see to it that his rights are respected.
Finally, he fears that, due to the submission of his personal notes to
the Latvian Prosecutor-General and their subsequent publication in the
Latvian press, persons and organisations named in these notes might put
his life and personal security in jeopardy.
The Commission recalls that the decision by a Contracting State
to extradite a person may give rise to an issue under Article 3
(Art. 3) of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of that
State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown
for believing that the person concerned, if extradited, faces a real
risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment in the requesting country (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Soering
judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 35, para. 91). A mere
possibility of ill-treatment is not in itself sufficient (cf., mutatis
mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., Vilvarajah and Others judgment of 30 October
1991, Series A no. 215, p. 37, para. 111).
In the present case, the Commission notes that the applicant
claims that he will receive treatment contrary to Article 3
(Art. 3) of the Convention upon return to Latvia. The Commission,
however, does not find a possible ten year prison sentence for the
alleged offence so severe as to raise an issue under Article 3
(Art. 3). Moreover, even assuming that the other treatment feared by
the applicant would attain the minimum level of severity required for
the application of Article 3 (Art. 3), the Commission considers that
the applicant's submissions fail to substantiate his fears.
Accordingly, the applicant has not shown substantial grounds for
believing that he will face a real risk of being subjected to treatment
contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in Latvia.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary Acting President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (G.H. THUNE)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy