Published on 10 May 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 5652/21
Shakhboz Kholmatovich MALIKOV
against Russia
lodged on 31 December 2020
communicated on 21 April 2021
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Shakhboz Kholmatovich Malikov, is a Tajik national, who was born in 1991.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 23 May 2016 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 8 years and 6 months imprisonment. He is currently detained in correctional colony no IK-25 in Verkhniy Chov, Komi Republic.
4. The applicant is a practicing Muslim. He submits that it is his religious duty to perform acts of worship (Salah) at least five times a day at set times, including at night-time.
5. At 2.51 a.m. on 16 August 2020 the prison guards noticed that the applicant was performing Salah in his cell.
6. On 18 August 2020 the applicant was placed into a disciplinary cell for seven days, for breach of the prison schedule.
7. On 7 October 2020 the Federal Penitentiary Service in Komi Republic examined the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 18 August 2020 and held that there had been no violation of his rights.
8. On 26 November 2020 the complaint against the above decision was dismissed by the prosecutor’s office of Syktyvkar.
9. The applicant did not appeal to the domestic courts.
COMPLAINTS
10. The applicant complains under Article 9 of the Convention that he was punished for performing acts of worship at night-time.
11. The applicant complains that he did not have at his disposal any effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 9 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention to complain about alleged breach of Article 9? In particular, was that remedy effective in practice as well as in law, accessible for the applicant and capable of providing acknowledgement and redress for the impugned situation? If so, did the applicant exhaust it?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom of religion, as set forth in Article 9 of the Convention, in view of disciplinary sanction imposed on him for performing acts of worship at the time prescribed by his religion (see Korostelev v. Russia, no. 29290/10, 12 May 2020)? In particular, was the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 9 of the Convention in accordance with the law and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued?
In particular, did the applicant have any legal possibility to perform acts of worship at night time? Do the applicable legislative provisions and internal prison regulations in force, in principle, allow the domestic authorities to assess the applicant’s individual situation and to provide him with a religious exception? If so, what are the legal grounds for such exception and the procedure for lodging, examining and deciding on such requests?
3. The parties are invited to submit all relevant documents to substantiate their submissions; in particular, extracts from the applicable legislative provisions and internal prison regulations, including daily timetables in force in the applicant’s colony.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy