Information Note on the Court’s case-law 109
June 2008
Ryabikin v. Russia - 8320/04
Judgment 19.6.2008 [Section I]
Article 3
Extradition
Proposed extradition of applicant to Turkmenistan where he risked treatment proscribed by the Convention: extradition would constitute a violation
Facts: The applicant is a Turkmen national of Russian ethnic origin who currently lives in St Petersburg. In January 2001, fearing that he was in danger because he had been a witness in a criminal case against two officials, the applicant left Turkmenistan and eventually came to Moscow. He was then informed that a criminal case had been opened against him in Turkmenistan and that part of his property had been confiscated. In 2003 the applicant applied for refugee status in Russia. He submitted, in particular, that he feared persecution in Turkmenistan and that he was the subject of a criminal investigation. His request was ultimately rejected by the Russian migration authorities, and then by the courts, mainly on the grounds that the applicant had been allowed to leave Turkmenistan legally and without any hindrance; his family continued to reside safely in Turkmenistan; on arrival in Russia he had not immediately applied for asylum; and, the criminal proceedings in Turkmenistan were not in any way linked to his political, religious or ethnic background, but to his commercial activities. In February 2004 the applicant was summoned to the St. Petersburg Passport and Visa Service and arrested on the basis of an international search warrant which included charges against him of embezzlement, an offence punishable under the Turkmen Criminal Code by eight to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The Russian courts subsequently ordered his detention pending extradition to Turkmenistan. In March 2004 the European Court, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, requested the Russian authorities not to extradite the applicant to Turkmenistan until further notice. The same day, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Moscow issued a statement saying that the applicant’s appeal concerning his refugee status was pending and that his extradition to Turkmenistan prior to the determination of his appeal might be in violation of national and international law. The applicant appealed against his detention on several occasions before the local courts. Ultimately, in March 2005 the district court decided to order his release. It noted that no decision on extradition had been taken by the Prosecutor General’s Office, in view of the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and that Russian law did not provide for the extension or variation of a preventive measure in respect of a person arrested further to an extradition request. The district court directly applied Article 17 of the Constitution of Russia, which guaranteed rights and freedoms in accordance with internationally recognised principles and norms of international law, and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The extradition proceedings against the applicant are still pending. In their latest observations submitted to the European Court in July 2007, the Russian Government stated that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Turkmenistan had provided guarantees in a letter to the effect that, if returned, the applicant would not be subjected to ill-treatment. The applicant submitted a number of reports on the situation in Turkmenistan, including documents issued by the OSCE, the European Parliament, the UN Commission on Human Rights, the US State Department and various NGOs. These indicated that the persecution of ethnic minorities (including Russians), extremely poor conditions of detention, ill-treatment and torture all remained a great concern in that country. They also indicated that accurate information about the human-rights situation was scarce and difficult to verify, in view of the exceptionally restrictive nature of the prevailing political regime, described as “one of the world’s most repressive and closed countries” (Human Rights Watch, 2007 World Report), and the systematic refusal of the Turkmen authorities to allow any monitoring of places of detention by international or non-governmental observers.
Law: Article 3 – The Court observed that to date no decision had been taken concerning the applicant’s extradition to Turkmenistan. Nevertheless, the parties had not disputed that the applicant remained under threat of such extradition. The evidence from the reports and documents submitted by the applicant revealed serious human-rights violations occurring in Turkmenistan and the fate of even the most prominent prisoners often remained unknown, even to their families. Moreover, although the Russian Government had requested assurances from the Prosecutor General of Turkmenistan, no copy of the Prosecutor General’s letter had been submitted to the Court. In any event, even accepting that such assurances had been given, the Court noted that the various reports indicated that the authorities of Turkmenistan had systematically refused international observers access to the country, and in particular to places of detention. The Court therefore questioned the value of any such assurances. It also noted that it had previously found that diplomatic assurances were not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment in countries where reliable sources had reported practices contrary to the principles of the Convention. The applicant’s claims for refugee status were limited to the question of whether he could claim to be a victim of persecution on one of the grounds listed in the relevant provisions of domestic and international law. The Russian Government stated that they had no reason to look into the conditions of detention of the applicant in Turkmenistan, because he had not been detained there. However, the Court considered that such an assessment had to take place prior to a decision on extradition and had to take into account the relevant factors in order to prevent the ill-treatment from occurring. Furthermore, the Court observed that in Turkmenistan the applicant had been charged with a serious crime. If extradited there, in the Court’s view, the applicant would almost certainly be detained and ran a very real risk of spending years in prison.
Conclusion: extradition would constitute a violation (unanimously).
The Court also found violations of Article 5 § 1 (f) and 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, 11 October 2007, Information Note no. 101).
Article 41 – EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy