Communicated on 12 July 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 46601/16
Avadallakh Albadre Suliman VAYEL
against Russia
lodged on 10 August 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Avadallakh Albadre Suliman Vayel, is a Sudanese national, who was born in 1989 and is detained in Petrozavodsk. He is represented before the Court by Mr Y.A. Petrovskiy, a lawyer practising in Petozavodsk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was born in southern Gezira, Sudan, and, according to him, before coming to Russia lived in Darfur.
On unspecified date he applied for and was granted Russian student visa.
On unspecified date apparently in March 2016 the applicant came to Russia.
On 24 March 2016 the applicant quit his studies at the Povolzhskiy State University of Technology. It appears that he applied for a visa to Finland.
In the course of a check carried out on 31 March 2016 the administrative authorities established that the applicant misrepresented the purpose of his stay in Russia, as he was not enrolled in studies but was seeking entry to the European Union with a view to remain there.
On 1 April 2006 the Kostomukshinskiy District Court of the Republic of Karelia held a hearing in the administrative proceedings against the applicant. The latter submitted at the hearing that on 12 March 2016 he had entered Russia with a view to study. However, later he decided to leave for Finland in order to study and work there. The court ordered the applicant’s expulsion for breach of immigration regulations on the ground that he misrepresented the purpose of his stay in Russia. The court ordered a fine in the amount of 2,000 roubles and the applicant’s administrative removal to Sudan. It also ordered his detention in a special detention facility for foreign nationals awaiting deportation.
The applicant appealed, arguing that his return to Sudan would put him in danger of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He referred to international reports on the general situation in Darfur in this respect. The applicant also noted that he might be persecuted by the Sudanese authorities for his participation in a peaceful demonstration held as a protest against the authorities’ policies. The applicant provided no other information about either the demonstration or the ill-treatment he had allegedly suffered.
On 11 April 2016 the applicant applied for asylum. There is no information on the outcome of his application.
On 15 April 2016 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia upheld on appeal the decision on the applicant’s administrative removal. In particular, it dismissed the applicant’s argument that he had come to Russia because in Sudan there existed a threat to his life and health. The Supreme Court noted that he had not applied for a refugee visa, although such a possibility had been open to him, but for a student visa, and only asked for asylum after a decision on his expulsion had been taken.
On 22 June 2016 the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia dismissed the application for supervisory review of the decision on the applicant’s administrative removal.
The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in the Petrozavodsk special detention facility for foreign nationals awaiting deportation: in the cell measuring 9 sq. m there were six beds, i.e. each detainee had 1,5 sq. m of personal space. Detainees were taken outside the cell once a day into a small patio behind a grille that looked like a cage. While the applicant is a non-smoker, a he was placed in the same cell with a smoker. There was no television set in the cell, and the detainees were not provided with either books or newspapers. There was no canteen in the detention centre. The detainees had to eat sitting on their beds. The food arrived in metal tanks and was always cold. Fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy products were never served, the ration mostly consisted of bread and cereals, and the nutrition norms were not complied with.
It is not clear whether the applicant is still being retained or whether he was deported.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in the Petrozavodsk special detention facility for foreign nationals awaiting deportation.
2. He also complains under Articles 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention that his detention pending deportation was too long and that Russian law does not provide for a judicial review of such detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant’s administrative removal been executed? If so, on what date?
2. How long has the applicant been held in Petrozavodsk special detention facility for foreign nationals awaiting deportation?
3. Have the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Petrozavodsk special detention facility for foreign nationals awaiting deportation been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide original documents relating to the conditions of detention, including the building and cell plans, registers of inmates, food rations and other relevant records.
4. Has the applicant been deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Has his detention been “lawful” within the meaning of paragraph (f) of this provision (compare Mikolenko v. Estonia, no. 10664/05, §§ 59-68, 8 October 2009)?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal the procedure by which the lawfulness of his detention can be examined by a court and his release ordered, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy