Communicated on 6 July 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no 36321/16
O.O.
against Russia
lodged on 27 June 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant is an Uzbek national charged with religious and politically motivated crimes in Uzbekistan.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On unspecified date in June 2012 the applicant arrived to Russia from Uzbekistan.
In June 2013 the applicant was indicted with religious and politically motivated crimes in Uzbekistan in connection with his alleged activities in the Islamic Movement of Turkistan. A search warrant was issued and his pre-trial detention was ordered in absentia.
On unspecified date the applicant was convicted in Russia and transferred to serve his sentence to a penal colony. His release date was set for June 2016.
1. Asylum proceedings
In May 2016 the applicant lodged an asylum request referring to the real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 by Uzbek authorities in case of transfer to Uzbekistan. His request was refused by the migration authorities within two weeks.
2. Deportation proceedings
The applicant’s deportation was ordered by regional migration authorities in May 2016. The applicant complained to the superior administrative authority and the complaint is apparently still pending.
In June 2016 the applicant also challenged the decision in courts. In his submissions he referred to belonging to a vulnerable group, running a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 by Uzbek authorities. He also requested an interim measure (stay of removal) from the Russian courts.
In June 2016 the applicant’s lawyer was informed that the hearing on the case was scheduled for the beginning of July 2016 and the interim measure was refused by the Russian courts.
3. Request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
In June 2016 he requested an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court asking to stay his deportation to Uzbekistan. In his request he referred to the real risk of ill-treatment by the authorities in case of his removal from Russia and relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
On the following day the request was granted and his removal stayed for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The Russian Government were immediately informed about the measure. They were as well informed that failure of a Contracting State to comply with a measure indicated under Rule 39 may entail a breach of Article 34 of the Convention.
4. The applicant’s release and alleged deportation
On the day when the applicant finished serving the sentence and was released from the penal colony he was immediately detained by the authorities without having a chance to contact his lawyer who was present outside the colony. The applicant’s representatives immediately verified with the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights that the relevant authorities were duly informed about the applied interim measure. The representatives further contacted the General Prosecutor’s office, the local police and the Federal Security Service informing them about the above interim measure and requesting compliance with it.
The applicant’s representative submits that despite of all these steps the applicant was deported to Uzbekistan the next day.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his deportation to Uzbekistan would lead to his ill-treatment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in case of his removal to Uzbekistan?
2. In the domestic proceedings, did the competent national authorities assess adequately the applicant’s claim that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to Uzbekistan?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective administrative or judicial domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Did this remedy in principle and in the applicant’s case afford for the due consideration of these complaints? Did it provide for an automatic suspensive effect in respect of the applicant’s transfer to Uzbekistan?
4. Did the applicant’s alleged deportation to Uzbekistan, contrary to the interim measure indicated, entail a breach of Article 34 of the Convention? (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 128-129, ECHR 2005‑I)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy