Published on 7 June 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 41001/20
V.K.
against Russia
lodged on 1 October 2020
communicated on 18 May 2021
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr V.K., is an Uzbek national, who was born in 1987 and currently resides in Kazan, Russia. He is represented before the Court by Ms D. Trenina, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The applicant was charged by Uzbek authorities with economic crimes, particularly with misappropriation, embezzlement, fraud and money laundering, his pre-trial detention was ordered in absentia and an international search warrant was issued in his name. The applicant was a principal figure in this criminal case and an alleged founder of an organised gang alongside with his father and two other co-accused, one of them residing now in Latvia. A number of employees were supposed to be their accomplices.
After the applicant’s arrest in Russia, on 23 June 2020 his extradition was ordered by the Prosecutor General of Russia. On 11 August 2020 and 1 October 2020 the extradition order was upheld by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic and the Fourth Appellate Court of Russia respectively and thus became final and enforceable. On 2 October 2020 the applicant was released from detention.
In the extradition proceedings the applicant consistently claimed that he would face a real risk of ill-treatment in event of his extradition to Uzbekistan. He claimed that his prosecution was in fact politically motivated, since he had been investigated as affiliate of Gulnara Karimova, a daughter of the former Uzbek president, convicted in 2017 for tax evasion, embezzlement and extortion. The applicant also alleged that a number of his employees had been ill-treated and tortured during questioning in relation to the criminal case against him, in particular, placed in overheated van and for several days deprived of food and water or beaten; his relatives had faced pressure and threats in Uzbekistan. These allegations were supported by written statements given before state notaries and lawyers by the applicant’s relatives and in particular by an employee who directly suffered the ill‑treatment and witnessed it.
The applicant also claimed that on 8 October 2019 Latvian authorities refused to grant the request of Uzbek authorities to extradite his co-accused and alleged co-organiser referring to existence of a real risk of torture. The extracts of the decision were submitted to the domestic courts.
The domestic courts dismissed these claims as unsubstantiated. They held that the submitted documents do not prove that the applicant would necessarily be subjected to ill-treatment or torture in case of his extradition.
The applicant applied for refugee status in Russia, but on 25 August 2020 migration authorities refused to accept his request for consideration on the merits. On 16 September 2020 the applicant appealed against this decision to a higher migration authority. The proceedings are pending.
On 7 October 2020 the applicant’s request of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was granted. It was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicant should not be removed to Uzbekistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The applicant’s case was also granted priority (under Rule 41), confidentiality (under Rule 33), and the applicant was granted anonymity (under Rule 47 § 4).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in event of his removal to Uzbekistan.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In the light of the general situation in Uzbekistan and the applicant’s personal circumstances, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if extradited to his country of origin (see F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 114, 23 March 2016)?
2. Before deciding on the applicant’s extradition, did the Russian authorities carry out an adequate and rigorous assessment of his claim about the risks of ill-treatment in his country of origin (see Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 214, 28 June 2011, and F.G. v. Sweden [GC], cited above, § 119)?
3. What was the outcome of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s request for refugee status? The parties are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy