Communicated on 24 January 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no 49973/15
V.N. against Russia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
2. The applicants are Uzbek nationals. On various dates they were charged in Uzbekistan with religious and politically motivated crimes, their pre-trial detention was ordered in absentia by the Uzbek courts and international search warrants were issued by the authorities.
3. The Russian authorities have taken final decisions to remove (extradite or deport) the applicants to Uzbekistan, despite their consistent claims that in the event of their removal to Uzbekistan they would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
4. On various dates the applicants’ requests under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court were granted. It was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicants should not be extradited, expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from Russia to Uzbekistan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. It was further decided that the applicants’ identities would not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4) and that the applications should be granted priority treatment (Rule 41).
COMPLAINTS
5. The applicants complain that they would be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if removed to Uzbekistan.
6. In the case of V.N. v. Russia, no. 49973/15, the applicant also complained that his arguments concerning the risk of being subjected to ill‑treatment if extradited to Uzbekistan had not received genuine and thorough consideration by the Russian authorities. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention 3 in conjunction with Article 3.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Would the applicants face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to Uzbekistan?
2. In the domestic proceedings, did the competent national authorities adequately assess the applicants’ claims that they would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to Uzbekistan?
3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective administrative or judicial domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Did this remedy in principle and in the applicants’ cases afford the applicants due consideration of their complaints? Did it provide for an automatic suspensive effect in respect of the applicants’ transfer to Uzbekistan?
APPENDIX
No.
Application number
Lodged on
Case name
49973/15
11/10/2015
V.N. v. Russia
8559/16
30/01/2016
U.A. v. Russia
50232/16
30/01/2016
R.S. v. Russia
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy