Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Tajikistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Measures of a general character);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nicolas Bratza;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE . He is presently serving a prison sentence in GPE .

Until DATE the applicant was living in his native village of GPE in LOC of NORP . He was a merchant at the local food market .

The events preceding the applicant ’s departure from NORP were described by him as follows .

DATE the applicant attended a mosque , where he was studying the PERSON under the tutorship of PERSON . The latter was detained by local police and died in detention in DATE . Before his death PERSON PERSON had reportedly been ill - treated ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Following Mr PERSON ’s death , the NORP authorities started targeting his followers . The applicant fled the country , fearing prosecution on grounds of his religious activities .

The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE and made a living from various low - skilled jobs in the GPE suburbs .

On DATE the Prosecutor ’s Office of NORP brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and authorised his detention pending trial . The applicant was charged under LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of NORP with forming , some time in DATE , together with several other individuals , a “ criminal conspiracy ” named “ Bayat ” ( PERSON ) , which later joined a “ criminal armed group ” named “ ORG ” ( “ the IMU ” ) . The second charge against the applicant concerned his alleged involvement in an armed attack carried out on DATE on CARDINAL members of the regional parliament .

On DATE ORG issued a warrant for the applicant ’s arrest based on the charges mentioned above and put his name on the list of “ wanted persons ” .

The NORP police apprehended the applicant on DATE in GPE pursuant to an international search warrant issued by the NORP authorities . He remained in detention pending extradition until CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of NORP asked his NORP counterpart to order the applicant ’s extradition to NORP .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE ordered the applicant ’s extradition . He found , inter alia , that the applicant had been charged in NORP with involvement since DATE in a criminal organisation , the IMU . The Deputy Prosecutor General also noted that at DATE the applicant had moved to GPE , where he had founded an armed cell of the IMU and that in DATE he had transferred MONEY United States dollars per month to the IMU leaders in GPE , thus fuelling their terrorist activities , such as the murdering of ORG officials . The Deputy Prosecutor General considered that the applicant ’s acts were also punishable under LAW and that his extradition could not be prevented by a crime he may have committed in GPE , since no investigation or prosecution had been initiated in that respect . Nor did he find any obstacle to the applicant ’s extradition in either international treaties or legislation of GPE .

The applicant complained about the extradition order to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , stating that the NORP authorities would subject him to torture with a view to making him confess to a crime he had not committed . He cited extensive case - law of the ORG establishing the risk of torture to which certain applicants in a similar position would have been subjected in the event of extradition to that country ( PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , and GPE v. GPE , no . MONEY , CARDINAL DATE ) . The applicant also emphasised the contradictions and even the absurdity of certain charges brought against him in NORP , according to which he had been actively involved in terrorist activities since DATE when he was still a small child .

NORP The Deputy Prosecutor General provided ORG with a letter signed by his counterpart in GPE , which contained , inter alia , the following assurances :

“ We guarantee that in accordance with the norms of international law [ the applicant ] will be provided with all opportunities to defend himself in GPE , including through the assistance of a lawyer . He will not be subjected to torture or cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( NORP Convention for ORG , and relevant ORG conventions and protocols thereto ) .

LAW does not provide for the death penalty in respect of the crimes imputed to [ the applicant ] .

ORG guarantees that the aim of the extradition request in respect of [ the applicant ] is not his persecution on political grounds , or for reasons of his race , religious beliefs , nationality or political opinions .

... NORP undertakes to prosecute [ the applicant ] only for the crimes which constitute the basis of his extradition and that [ the applicant ] will not be handed over to a third State without the consent of GPE and will be free to leave the territory of GPE after having served his sentence . ”

On DATE ORG held a public hearing . It allowed the request by the defence to question PERSON , in her capacity as expert of ORG , about the situation in GPE . The expert responded to the questions at the public hearing , explaining the details of CARDINAL recent judgments delivered by the ORG in connection with the prospective extradition to NORP of the applicants concerned and the legal implications for GPE ( PERSON , cited above ; PERSON , cited above ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ; and ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

By a judgment adopted on DATE , ORG upheld the extradition order , finding no obstacle to the applicant ’s extradition to NORP . The applicant ’s arguments , based on GPE ’s obligations under the Convention and the ORG ’s case - law , were dismissed by ORG in the following terms :

“ ... the arguments that the applicant might be persecuted on religious grounds and regarding a serious risk of torture in the course of criminal prosecution in NORP ... are considered by the court to be unfounded since those arguments constitute assumptions that are in no way corroborated ; quite to the contrary , they are completely rebutted by the case materials , which have been examined by the court , and in particular by the written guarantees provided by the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE ...

The arguments ... that torture and persecution on religious and political grounds take place in GPE as confirmed by documents of ORG and other organisations for the defence of human rights ... are considered by the court to be unfounded , as those documents relate to other persons , but not to [ the applicant ] ; moreover , those arguments are negated by the aforementioned written guarantees of ORG . ”

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . The applicant ’s argument that his extradition would violate LAW CARDINAL of the Convention was dismissed by ORG by sole reference to the text of the written guarantees provided by ORG .

On DATE the applicant applied to the GPE branch of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for refugee status . He argued that he had been persecuted in NORP on the grounds of his religious beliefs and that he would be subjected to torture in the event of extradition .

On DATE the GPE branch of the ORG dismissed the application . The applicant was notified of the decision on DATE .

On DATE the Deputy Director of the ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision . He reminded the applicant that the IMU was considered by the supreme courts of both NORP and GPE as an organisation carrying out terrorist activities . While noting the extensive international criticism of the use of torture and the impunity of the ORG officials responsible in GPE , the Deputy Director of the ORG found no well - founded reason for fearing that the applicant would be persecuted on religious grounds . Noting that the great majority of the population of NORP were NORP , he found it unlikely that the applicant would be persecuted solely on the basis of his NORP beliefs . As to the authorities’ attempt to strengthen control over religious beliefs , this was considered to be pursuing the understandable aim of limiting the influence of radical ORG , including the IMU . He concluded that the applicant was not eligible for refugee status and that his application had been motivated by his intention to escape criminal liability in NORP . He noted at the same time that the existence of a well - founded fear of becoming a victim of torture or ill - treatment might be a ground for granting the applicant temporary asylum in GPE under section CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the ORG ’s decision to ORG of GPE . He argued that the ORG had not made a thorough and adequate analysis of the situation in NORP and taken due account of the information provided by various international sources in that connection . He further submitted that the ORG had presumed him guilty of the offences that had been imputed to him by the NORP authorities and had in effect upheld the version of the facts as presented by ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . It referred to the arguments contained in that decision , finding them convincing and considering that the applicant had failed to provide evidence to the contrary . On DATE the court ’s decision was upheld on appeal by ORG .

On DATE the applicant applied to the ORG for temporary asylum in GPE . On DATE ORG in GPE informed the applicant ’s representative that he met the criteria established by its statute and was eligible for international protection under its mandate .

On DATE the GPE branch of the ORG granted the applicant temporary asylum in GPE and issued a certificate to that effect . The certificate was recorded under reference ВУ № DATE and delivered to the applicant on DATE in his lawyer ’s presence .

Following the applicant ’s apprehension in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the ORG of GPE ordered his detention pending extradition .

On DATE the same court extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision on DATE . It was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The applicant appealed against that decision on DATE . ORG dismissed the appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision , which was dismissed by ORG of GPE on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s release under a personal guarantee provided by his lawyer in accordance with LAW .

According to the applicant ’s written testimony and the complementary information collected by his representatives from witnesses and other available sources , his abduction and transfer to NORP took place as follows .

At TIME on DATE the applicant and a friend were driving in the south - west district of GPE when their car was blocked by a mini - van in Michurinskiy avenue . According to the details provided by the applicant ’s lawyer to the police and investigative authorities , the incident took place DATE The applicant and his friend got out of the car and tried to escape . They were followed by CARDINAL unidentified men who fired QUANTITY shots . The applicant ’s friend managed to escape , while the applicant was stopped , beaten up with a truncheon and forced into the minivan by the same men , who did not identify themselves .

The applicant was kept in the mini - van for TIME a day . The individuals who had apprehended him subjected him to torture and illtreatment . They beat him up , put a gun to his head and threatened to kill him unless he agreed to return to his home country . The applicant showed them the temporary asylum certificate delivered by the ORG , but they just laughed at him in response . The person who put questions to the applicant was of NORP origin .

NORP In TIME of the following day the applicant was taken by his kidnappers directly to the airfield of GPE ’s GPE airport , without going through the usual border and customs formalities and security checks . The applicant was handed over to a NORP patrol , who forced him into a nearby aircraft without presenting a ticket or any travel documents .

At TIME DATE , the aircraft arrived at the airport of GPE in GPE , where the applicant was handed over to the NORP authorities . His requests for a lawyer were refused . According to the written testimony of the applicant ’s father , the applicant was detained and questioned for an unspecified period of time at GPE police station . The applicant ’s father testified in writing that police officers , one of whom was identified as PERSON , had severely ill - treated the applicant in order to make him confess to crimes he had never committed and state that he had come back to NORP voluntarily . He further testified that on DATE the investigator , ORG , had refused to allow him to meet with his son in detention , referring to the father ’s failure to help the authorities apprehend the applicant and bring him back to the country .

The Government ’s submissions in respect of the applicant ’s account of the facts were limited to the following .

Following enquiries from the ORG , letters received from the ORG dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE contained no information about the applicant ’s whereabouts or his crossing of the State border . The Government further submitted that the applicant ’s rights and freedoms had not been restricted in any way after his release on CARDINAL DATE , that the law had not obliged the authorities to ensure any surveillance over the applicant , that his extradition or expulsion had been suspended pursuant to the interim measures ordered by ORG and that he had not , therefore , been handed over to NORP through the extradition procedure .

On DATE the Government retransmitted the official information provided on DATE by ORG to his NORP counterpart , according to which the applicant had “ voluntarily surrendered ” on DATE to ORG for the Fight against Organised Crime ( РОБОП ) and had been detained in temporary detention facility no . CARDINAL ( ORG № CARDINAL ) of GPE .

According to the latest information received from the Government on DATE , the inquiry into the applicant ’s abduction and transfer was still pending .

Once informed of the applicant ’s abduction on TIME of CARDINAL DATE , his representatives immediately contacted the competent NORP authorities , asking them to take urgent measures to prevent the applicant ’s forcible removal from NORP territory .

CARDINAL on DATE , PERSON faxed CARDINAL formal requests to that effect to the head of ORG , the Director of the ORG , ORG and ORG at the ORG , respectively . She also solicited the assistance of the Commissioner for Human Rights of GPE .

In her letter to the head of ORG , the applicant ’s representative stated the circumstances of the applicant ’s abduction . She also reminded him of the applicant ’s legal status as a person to whom temporary asylum had been granted by the ORG and interim measures had been applied by the ORG to prevent his extradition . The letter concluded as follows :

“ In view of [ those circumstances ] there are weighty reasons to fear that an abduction attempt has been made in respect of [ the applicant ] with a view to his subsequent illegal transfer from GPE to GPE , whose authorities have requested his extradition for criminal prosecution .

The situation is aggravated by the fact that the applicant ’s brother [ Sh . T. ] disappeared on DATE in GPE and , according to the information provided by his wife , was remanded in custody on DATE in GPE , GPE , where he is still being detained . Some time earlier , on DATE , CARDINAL other asylum seekers who had been protected against forcible transfer by [ the interim measures decided by ] ORG , disappeared in GPE : a NORP national , PERSON , and an NORP national , PERSON They were both transferred to NORP and remanded in custody . Any claim that they left voluntarily must be excluded as they did not have any documents permitting them to cross the State border of GPE : PERSON national passport was being held by the GPE branch of the ORG , while PERSON had lost his passport DATE previously . ... ”

DATE . On DATE , the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation also sent a letter to the head of ORG , which read as follows :

“ ... There are well - founded reasons to fear that an attempt might be made illegally to transfer [ the applicant ] to NORP , where his life is threatened .

DATE , DATE , [ the applicant ’s representative ] asked you to take urgent measures in order to prevent [ the applicant ’s ] forcible transfer from the territory of GPE , and above all , through the airports of GPE .

I ask you to consider the [ above ] request as soon as possible and to take all possible measures with a view to finding [ the applicant ] and preventing his forcible transfer from the territory of GPE .

I ask you to inform me of the results following your consideration of the request . ”

There is no information about any protective measure taken by the authorities concerned in response to any of those requests .

On DATE ORG at the ORG replied to the applicant ’s representative that pursuant to the interim measures taken by the ORG , the NORP authorities were abstaining from his extradition and that the relevant instruction had been sent to ORG ( ORG ) , ORG and ORG .

Following the applicant ’s complaint about his abduction in the present case and similar events in certain other cases , on DATE the Registrar of the ORG sent a letter to ORG at the ORG . The letter read as follows :

“ The President of the ORG , Sir PERSON , has instructed me to express on his behalf his profound concern at the applicant ’s disappearance in GPE and his subsequent transfer to NORP notwithstanding the interim measures indicated under LAW .

The President has noted that since the ORG ’s judgment in the PERSON case ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) where it held GPE responsible for a violation of LAW of the applicant ’s unexplained abduction and transfer to NORP by unidentified persons , the ORG has been confronted with repeated incidents of that kind in CARDINAL other cases , including the above - mentioned case ( the other CARDINAL cases are : PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL ; PERSON GPE , no . MONEY ; and NORP v. GPE , no . CARDINAL ) . The explanations so far provided by the Government do not clarify how applicants could against their will be moved across the NORP State border notwithstanding the ORG ’s official assurances that no extradition would be effected pending examination of their cases by the ORG .

The President is deeply disturbed at those developments . He is particularly concerned about their implications for the authority of the ORG and possible continuation of such unacceptable incidents in cases of other applicants to whom the interim measures still apply on account of the imminent risk of violation of their rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention in the countries of destination . As an indication of the seriousness with which he views this turn of events , the President has asked that the Chairman of ORG , the President of ORG and the Secretary General of ORG be informed immediately .

The President also notes that ORG has requested additional observations from the Government to address this worrying and unprecedented situation and expects the NORP competent authorities to provide the ORG with exhaustive information about the follow - up given to the incidents in GPE . In the meantime , your authorities’ attention is drawn to the fact that interim measures continue to apply under Rule CARDINAL in CARDINAL other NORP cases concerning extradition or expulsion . Those cases are listed in appendix to the present letter . ”

On DATE the Representative of GPE at the ORG informed the Registrar in response that appropriate information would be submitted “ upon receiving the necessary data from the relevant authorities ” .

On DATE and DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s representative that her complaint about the applicant ’s abduction had been sent to the GPE South - West Police Department ( УВД по LOC GPE МВД PERSON по г. PERSON ) and then to LOC of the South - West Administrative Circuit of Moscow ( ORG по ЮЗАО ORG PERSON ) . On DATE the latter decided to transmit the file to the Nikulinskiy ORG of FAC ORG по ЮЗАО ORG LANGUAGE РФ по г. PERSON hereinafter referred to as “ ORG ” ) .

Under LAW , the senior investigator of ORG , GPE , conducted a pre - investigation inquiry ( проверка сообщения о преступлении – “ the inquiry ” ) .

On DATE PERSON refused to open a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant ’s alleged abduction on the grounds of absence of corpus delicti . After a brief recapitulation of the facts , as presented by the applicant ’s representative , the senior investigator concluded as follows :

“ ... having analysed the materials of the inquiry , the investigating authority finds at present no evidence of crime under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE , because it has not been objectively established whether the applicant remains on the territory of GPE or has crossed the border of GPE . Information has also been received in the course of the inquiry that no shootings or abductions of persons have been reported on the territory where [ the applicant ] was allegedly abducted . The investigating authority does not exclude the possibility that following [ the applicant ’s ] release from detention he might have staged his abduction with a view to escaping criminal liability for crimes he had committed on the territory of GPE . ”

On DATE the head of ORG , PERSON , quashed the above decision and sent the case back to the same senior investigator for a further inquiry . His decision was reasoned as follows :

“ The investigator ’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings is unfounded and must be quashed . In the course of a further inquiry it is necessary to obtain replies to all requests for information that were sent on the matter and to proceed to an additional interview of [ the applicant ’s representative ] . ”

On DATE the head of ORG ( ORG PERSON по г. PERSON ) also requested a further inquiry into the matter . Furthermore , on DATE , the deputy to the Nikulinskiy ORG ( заместитель Никулинского межрайонного прокурора ) asked the investigator to ascertain whether the NORP authorities had been involved in the applicant ’s alleged abduction .

On DATE the senior investigator , PERSON , again refused to open a criminal investigation by a new decision , which repeated word for word his earlier decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) .

On DATE the deputy head of ORG , ORG , quashed that decision , also repeating word for word the previous decision by the head of ORG of DATE , which had quashed PERSON first decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the senior investigator , PERSON , yet again refused to open a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant ’s abduction . The text of that decision was not submitted to the ORG .

On DATE the deputy head of ORG , ORG , again quashed that decision and demanded that the following procedural steps be taken :

“ In the course of a further inquiry a second request must be sent to the law - enforcement bodies of GPE in order to elucidate the following questions : has [ the applicant ] crossed the border of NORP ; is [ the applicant ] being detained in a pre - trial detention facility ; and have criminal proceedings been brought against [ the applicant ] ?

A separate set of proceedings needs to be instituted on the basis of the materials concerning the possible unlawful crossing of the NORP border by the applicant ... and the materials sent to the ORG with a view to carrying out an inquiry under LAW .

... [ the applicant ’s representative ] needs to be questioned on the following points : is she still a representative of [ the applicant ] and can she clarify anything about [ his ] crossing of the border ? A number of other verification measures need to be taken with a view to adopting a lawful and well - founded decision . ”

On DATE an investigator of ORG , ORG , refused to bring criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s abduction . After a brief statement of facts , the decision read as follows :

“ According to information received from ORG of ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) , the law of GPE does not provide for the names of persons crossing the State border of GPE to be recorded . In accordance with section PERSON ) of LOC of GPE , only the number of persons crossing the border is monitored .

It is therefore impossible to confirm or refute the information about the crossing of the State border by [ the applicant ] .

Following a request for information about [ the applicant ] , a national of GPE , ORG of GPE answered that the aforementioned request could not be satisfied as it had been made in breach of LAW DATE for legal assistance and legal relations in civil family and criminal cases .

The police authorities in charge of the relevant territory have not received any information during the relevant period about unlawful acts involving either the use of a weapon or the abduction of persons in the circumstances indicated in the application .

The GPE and Regional branch of the ORG has in its possession material relating to verifications of the possible unlawful crossing of the border of GPE by [ the applicant ] .

Given that [ the applicant ] is subject to an international search warrant for the commission of crimes under LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW [ of NORP ] , he might have staged his abduction with a view to escaping criminal liability for crimes he had committed on the territory of GPE .

Thus , the preliminary inquiry has established no objective data indicative of [ the applicant ’s ] abduction . ”

The investigator sent the above decision to the applicant ’s representatives on DATE .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that similar inquiries had continued and were still pending . No further decisions by the investigation authorities or documents were provided to the ORG . According to the ORG ’s information , the inquiry found that the applicant had illegally crossed the NORP State border , surrendered to the NORP authorities and had been placed in detention . The investigator ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing to open a criminal investigation was again quashed by his superior on an unspecified date . According to the Government , the latest decision refusing to open a criminal investigation had been issued on DATE by the head of ORG but had yet again been quashed . As a result , the file had been sent back to the investigators for an additional inquiry .

The Government also specified that the ORG had been asked to check the information about the applicant ’s illegal crossing of the State border . Another request had been sent to NORP authorities to identify the applicant ’s whereabouts in NORP . However , as of DATE no responses had been received to either request .

The applicant ’s representatives informed the ORG that on DATE the ORG of NORP had started its examination of a criminal case against CARDINAL individuals , including the applicant . The applicant had been charged with various crimes under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( c ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW NORP .

Public hearings were held by the court as from DATE . Lawyer PERSON , who took part in the trial , provided the applicant ’s representatives with a written testimony showing that the applicant had not pleaded guilty at the trial . According to NORP T. , the applicant submitted that he had been abducted in GPE , forcibly transferred to NORP and tortured in order to make him confess to the crimes .

DATE . In DATE and DATE TIME relatives of the co - accused repeatedly asked ORG , PERSON . PERSON , and the President of ORG , GPE , to order a forensic medical examination of the CARDINAL co - accused in order to verify their allegations that they had been tortured by the authorities during the criminal proceedings . Their written request referred to the relevant provisions of the LAW and LAW , which prohibit the use of torture and exclude any evidence obtained under duress . The applicant ’s mother made a similar request in respect of the applicant . There is no information regarding the authorities’ response to those requests .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . His thirtythree co - accused were also found guilty and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment , ranging from CARDINAL to QUANTITY years .

Chapter CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) of DATE governs the procedure to be followed in the event of extradition .

An extradition decision made by ORG may be challenged before a court ( LAW ) . In that event , the extradition order should not be enforced until a final judgment has been delivered ( LAW ) .

A court must review the lawfulness and validity of a decision to extradite within DATE of receipt of a request for review . The decision should be taken in open court by a panel of CARDINAL judges in the presence of a prosecutor , the person whose extradition is sought and the latter ’s legal counsel ( LAW ) .

Issues of guilt or innocence are not within the scope of judicial review , which is limited to an assessment of whether the extradition order was made in accordance with the procedure set out in applicable international and domestic law ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL lists the conditions under which extradition can not be authorised . Thus , the extradition of the following should be refused : a NORP citizen ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) or a person who has been granted asylum in GPE ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) ; a person in respect of whom a conviction has become effective or criminal proceedings have been terminated in GPE in connection with the same act for which he or she has been prosecuted in the requesting ORG ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) ; a person in respect of whom criminal proceedings can not be launched or a conviction can not become effective in view of the expiry of the statutory time - limit or for other valid grounds in NORP law ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) ; or a person in respect of whom extradition has been blocked by a NORP court in accordance with the legislation and international treaties of GPE ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) . Lastly , extradition must be refused if the act that serves as the basis for the extradition request does not constitute a criminal offence under LAW ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) .

In the event that a foreign national whose extradition is being sought is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence for another criminal offence in GPE , his extradition may be postponed until the prosecution has been terminated , the penalty has been lifted on any valid ground or the sentence has been served ( LAW ) .

DATE . In its ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE , the ORG of ORG indicated , with reference to LAW , that extradition should be refused if there were serious reasons to believe that the person might be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting country . Extradition could also be refused if exceptional circumstances disclosed that it might entail a danger to the person ’s life and health on account of , among other things , his or her age or physical condition . NORP authorities dealing with an extradition case should examine whether there were reasons to believe that the person concerned might be sentenced to the death penalty , subjected to ill - treatment or persecuted because of his or her race , religious beliefs , nationality , ethnic or social origin or political opinions . The courts should assess both the general situation in the requesting country and the personal circumstances of the person whose extradition was being sought . They should take into account the testimony of the person concerned and that of any witnesses , any assurances given by the requesting country , and information about the country provided by ORG , by competent ORG institutions and by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment .

The LAW guarantees the right to liberty ( LAW ) :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to liberty and personal integrity .

Arrest , placement in custody and detention are only permitted on the basis of a judicial decision . Prior to a judicial decision , an individual may not be detained for longer than TIME . ”

DATE LAW provides , among other things , that everyone should be guaranteed judicial protection of his or her rights and freedoms and stipulates that decisions , actions or inaction of ORG bodies , local authorities , public associations and officials may be challenged before a court .

When performing actions requested under LAW , to which GPE and GPE are parties , an official body applies its country ’s domestic laws ( LAW ) .

A request for extradition must be accompanied by a detention order ( LAW ) . Upon receipt of a request for extradition , measures should be taken immediately to find and arrest the person whose extradition is sought , except in cases where that person can not be extradited ( LAW ) .

A person whose extradition is sought may be arrested before receipt of a request for his or her extradition . In such cases a special request for arrest containing a reference to the detention order and indicating that a request for extradition will follow must be sent ( LAW ) . A person may also be arrested in the absence of such a request if there are reasons to suspect that he or she has committed , in the territory of the other ORG , an offence for which extradition may be requested . The other ORG must be informed immediately of the arrest ( LAW § CARDINAL ) .

A person detained pending extradition pursuant to LAW must be released if the requesting country fails to submit an official request for extradition with all the requisite supporting documents within DATE of the date of placement in custody ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL CARDINAL of the ORG provides that general principles and norms of international law and international treaties of GPE are a constituent part of its legislation concerning criminal proceedings . Should an international treaty provide for rules other than those established in the ORG , the former are to be applied .

LAW of the CCrP ( “ Measures of restraint ” ) governs the use of measures of restraint , or preventive measures ( меры пресечения ) , while criminal proceedings are pending . Such measures include placement in custody . Custody may be ordered by a court following an application by an investigator or a prosecutor if a person is charged with an offence carrying a sentence of DATE imprisonment , provided that a less restrictive measure of restraint can not be used ( LAW ) . The judicial decision to place a person in custody may be appealed against to a higher court within DATE . The higher court must decide the appeal within DATE of the date on which the appeal is lodged ( LAW ) .

A period of detention pending investigation may not exceed DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . A judge may extend that period DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Further extensions of DATE , or in exceptional circumstances , DATE , may only be granted if the person is charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences ( LAW ) . No extension beyond DATE is permissible and the detainee must be released immediately ( LAW ) .

Chapter DATE ( “ Extradition of a person for criminal prosecution or execution of a sentence ” ) regulates extradition procedures . Upon receipt of a request for extradition that is not accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court , a prosecutor must decide on the measure of restraint in respect of the person whose extradition is sought . The measure must be applied in accordance with established procedure ( LAW ) . If a request for extradition is accompanied by a detention order issued by a foreign court , a prosecutor may impose house arrest on the individual concerned or place him or her in detention “ without seeking confirmation of the validity of that order from a NORP court ” ( LAW ) .

By decision no . CARDINAL-O of DATE ORG held that the absence of any specific regulation of detention matters in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL did not create a gap in the law that was incompatible with the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary detention . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Minsk Convention provided that , in executing a request for legal assistance , the requested party would apply its domestic law , which in the case of GPE was the procedure laid down in the FAC procedure comprised , in particular , LAW and the norms in its LAW ( “ Measures of restraint ” ) which , by virtue of their general character and position in Part I of the LAW ( “ General provisions ” ) , applied to all stages and forms of criminal proceedings , including proceedings for the examination of extradition requests . Accordingly , LAW ORG did not allow the authorities to apply a custodial measure without complying with the procedure established in the ORG or the timelimits fixed in the LAW .

By decision no . CARDINAL-O - P of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that while Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG did not govern the procedure for detention pending the receipt of an extradition request , the applicable procedures and time - limits were to be established by domestic legal provisions in accordance with LAW . It further reiterated its settled case - law to the effect that the scope of the constitutional right to liberty and personal inviolability was the same for foreign nationals and stateless persons as for NORP nationals . A foreign national or stateless person may not be detained in GPE for TIME without a judicial decision . That constitutional requirement served as a guarantee against excessively long detention beyond TIME , and also against arbitrary detention , in that it required a court to examine whether the arrest was lawful and justified . ORG held that LAW CCrP , read in conjunction with LAW , could not be construed as permitting the detention of an individual for DATE on the basis of a request for his or her extradition without a decision by a NORP court . A custodial measure could be applied only in accordance with the procedure and within the time - limits established in LAW of the CCrP.

By decision no . CARDINAL - O of DATE ORG upheld the constitutionality of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG , stating that this provision “ does not establish time - limits for custodial detention and does not establish the grounds and procedure for choosing a preventive measure , it merely confirms a prosecutor ’s power to execute a decision already delivered by a competent judicial body of a foreign state to detain an accused . Therefore the disputed norm can not be considered to violate the constitutional rights of [ the claimant ] ... ”

Article CARDINAL of ORG of DATE , which was ratified by GPE on DATE , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . No Contracting State shall expel or return ( ‘ ORG ) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion .

NORP The benefit of the present provision may not , however , be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is , or who , having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime , constitutes a danger to the community of that country . ”

LAW ( Law no . GPE of DATE ) , as in force at the material time , incorporated the definition of the term “ refugee ” contained in LAW , as amended by LAW relating to ORG . The LAW defines a refugee as a person who is not a NORP national and who , owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , religion , nationality , ethnic origin , or membership of a particular social group or political opinion , is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or , owing to such fear , unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country , or who , not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events , is unable or , owing to such fear , unwilling to return to it ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) .

The Act does not apply to anyone believed on reasonable grounds to have committed a crime against peace , a war crime , a crime against humanity , or a serious non - political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a person seeking refugee status ( section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) .

A person who has applied for refugee status or who has been granted refugee status can not be returned to a ORG where his life or freedom would be imperilled on account of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

If a person satisfies the criteria established in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , or if he does not satisfy those criteria but can not be expelled or deported from GPE for humanitarian reasons , he may be granted temporary asylum ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . A person who has been granted temporary asylum can not be returned against his will to the country of his nationality or to the country of his former habitual residence ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The person loses temporary asylum if the underlying circumstances cease to exist or if he is granted a permanent residence permit in GPE or establishes his place of residence outside NORP territory ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The person is deprived of temporary asylum , inter alia , if he is found guilty of a crime committed on NORP territory or is found to have submitted false information or documents that had justified the authorities’ decision to grant him temporary asylum ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

According to the Procedure for Granting Temporary Asylum adopted by Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , as in force at the material time , a competent ORG body delivers a certificate for temporary asylum to any person to whom it has been granted ( § CARDINAL) . The certificate constitutes an identity document in GPE ( § CARDINAL ) . When a certificate for temporary asylum is delivered to a person , his other identity documents are withheld by the ORG on a temporary basis . Temporary asylum is granted for a period of DATE , which may be renewed for DATE upon request by the person concerned , provided that the underlying circumstances continue to exist ( § CARDINAL ) . The person to whom temporary asylum is granted enjoys all rights and obligations provided for by LAW except the right to receive a lump - sum allowance ( § CARDINAL ) .

Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL by ORG to member GPE on the right of rejected asylum seekers to an effective remedy against decisions on expulsion in the context of LAW reads as follows :

“ ORG ...

Without prejudice to the exercise of any right of rejected asylum seekers to appeal against a negative decision on their asylum request , as recommended , among others , in ORG No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG ,

Recommends that governments of member states , while applying their own procedural rules , ensure that the following guarantees are complied with in their legislation or practice :

An effective remedy before a national authority should be provided for any asylum seeker whose request for refugee status is rejected and who is subject to expulsion to a country about which that person presents an arguable claim that he or she would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .

NORP In applying paragraph CARDINAL of this recommendation , a remedy before a national authority is considered effective when : ...

that authority has competence both to decide on the existence of the conditions provided for by LAW and to grant appropriate relief ; ...

NORP the execution of the expulsion order is suspended until a decision under CARDINAL is taken . ”

On a more general level , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL of ORG to member GPE on the improvement of domestic remedies states as follows :

ORG ...

Emphasising that it is for member states to ensure that domestic remedies are effective in law and in practice , and that they can result in a decision on the merits of a complaint and adequate redress for any violation found ;

Noting that the nature and the number of applications lodged with the ORG and the judgments it delivers show that it is more than ever necessary for the member states to ascertain efficiently and regularly that such remedies do exist in all circumstances ...

Considering that the availability of effective domestic remedies for all arguable claims of violation of the LAW should permit a reduction in the ORG ’s workload as a result , on the one hand , of the decreasing number of cases reaching it and , on the other hand , of the fact that the detailed treatment of the cases at national level would make their later examination by the ORG easier ;

Emphasising that the improvement of remedies at national level , particularly in respect of repetitive cases , should also contribute to reducing the workload of the ORG ;

Recommends that member states , taking into account the examples of good practice appearing in the appendix :

I. ascertain , through constant review , in the light of case - law of the ORG , that domestic remedies exist for anyone with an arguable complaint of a violation of the LAW , and that these remedies are effective , in that they can result in a decision on the merits of the complaint and adequate redress for any violation found ;

II . review , following ORG judgments which point to structural or general deficiencies in national law or practice , the effectiveness of the existing domestic remedies and , where necessary , set up effective remedies , in order to avoid repetitive cases being brought before the ORG ; ... ”

The Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that every report of a crime must be accepted , verified and decided upon within DATE by an inquiry officer , inquiry agency , investigator or prosecutor . They may proceed , with experts’ assistance or on their own , to documentary verifications , checks , and the examination of documents , objects or dead bodies , and may issue compulsory orders for operational search activities ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . The aforementioned period of DATE may be extended to DATE in certain circumstances ( LAW ) . A criminal investigation may be initiated by an investigator or a prosecutor following a complaint by an individual or on the investigating authorities’ own initiative , where there are reasons to believe that a crime has been committed ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Orders by an investigator or a prosecutor refusing to institute criminal proceedings or terminating a case , and other orders and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede a citizen ’s access to justice , may be appealed against to a district court , which is empowered to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions ( LAW ) .

A report released by ORG in DATE contained the following information on the death of PERSON in police custody ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) :

“ PERSON , a member of ORG ( IRP ) , died in police custody in DATE after he was detained for questioning by law enforcement officers in PERSON . Initially the officers claimed that he had committed suicide by jumping from a third floor window . The IRP claimed that an autopsy report indicated that he had been beaten and ill - treated , and alleged that he had been pushed from the window . The general prosecutor ’s office subsequently announced that following an investigation CARDINAL officers had been detained . ”

The reports by ORG and nongovernmental organisations on the situation in NORP at the material time appear in several judgments of the ORG cited above ( see , among others , PERSON , § § DATE , and ORG , § § CARDINAL ) . More recently , the situation was further reported upon as follows .

ORG . Concluding his visit to NORP in DATE , the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture , Mr PERSON , stated that “ pressure on detainees , mostly as a means to extract confessions , is practiced in NORP in various forms , including threats , beatings and sometimes by applying electric shock ” . He stressed that “ confessions extracted by violence remain the main investigatory tool of law enforcement and prosecutorial bodies ” . He also expressed his concerns at the lack of safeguards against illegal extradition or rendition from and to other countries , as “ there seems to be no meaningful opportunity for judicial review of these measures that are generally conducted by the law enforcement bodies under the direction of ORG . LAW in civil and criminal matters of DATE , other agreements between ORG countries ... offer general language about protection against abuse , but they operate more meaningfully as international cooperation in law enforcement . The result is that international law prohibitions on refoulement to places where a person may be subjected to torture or cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment are not guaranteed in fact ” ( End - of - mission Statement by ORG , PERSON . Preliminary findings on his country visit to GPE , DATE ) .

On DATE a group of non - governmental organisations including international NGOs ( ORG , ORG ( FIDH ) , ORG ( ORG ) and ORG ( OMCT ) ) , as well as NORP NGOs ( ORG , ORG , LAW , LOC , and several others ) released a joint statement . It was headed “ NORP : A coalition of nongovernmental organisations is calling on the government to end torture and fulfil its international obligations ” and , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ In NORP police have in many cases been accused of torturing or beating detainees to extract money , confessions or other information incriminating the victim or others . This abuse has mostly taken place in the early stages of detention ; in many cases victims are initially detained without contact with the outside world ...

Torture practices reported in NORP include the use of electric shocks ; attaching plastic bottles filled with water or sand to the detainee ’s genitals ; rape ; burning with cigarettes . Beating with batons , truncheons and sticks , kicking and punching are also believed to be common .

... [ S]afeguards against torture enshrined in domestic law are not always adhered to . For example , while the new Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that detainees are entitled to a lawyer from the moment of their arrest , in practice lawyers are at the mercy of investigators , who can deny them access for DATE . During this period of incommunicado detention , the risk of torture or other ill - treatment is particularly high . The new Criminal Procedure Code also introduced remand hearings within TIME of a suspect ’s arrest . However , they often take place with a delay , and judges in many cases ignore torture allegations and the injuries presented to them in the courtroom . Usually they rely on the version of events given by [ those ] accused of the torture .

There are no routine medical examinations when detainees are admitted to police stations and temporary detention facilities . Upon transfer to pre - trial detention facilities under the jurisdiction of ORG they undergo a medical examination . However , when medical personnel suspect that a detainee [ has undergone ] torture or other ill - treatment they ... usually return them to the temporary detention facility until the signs of injury have faded .

Victims rarely lodge complaints ... for fear of repercussions , and impunity for abusive officers is the norm . Often relatives and lawyers are reluctant to file complaints , so as not to worsen the situation for the detainee .

Prosecutor ’s offices are tasked with investigating allegations of torture . Sometimes close personal and structural links between prosecutor ’s offices and police undermine the impartiality of prosecutors . The authorities have not published comprehensive statistics on prosecutions of law - enforcement officers relating specifically to torture or other ill - treatment , rather than broader charges such as “ abuse of power “ or “ exceeding official authority ” .

Judges [ regularly ] base verdicts on evidence allegedly extracted under duress ...

NORP has not given ORG access to detention facilities to carry out monitoring since DATE . It has not ratified LAW to LAW and other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , which provides for a system of regular visits to places of detention carried out by independent international and national bodies . ”

In DATE ORG released its World Report CARDINAL , in which the relevant chapter on NORP states :

“ Torture remains an enduring problem within NORP ’s penitentiary system and is used to extract confessions from defendants , who are often denied access to family and legal counsel during initial detention . Despite discussions with ORG ( ICRC ) in DATE , authorities have not granted ICRC access to places of detention . With rare exceptions , human rights groups are also denied access .

While torture is practiced with near impunity , authorities took a few small steps to hold perpetrators accountable ...

Under the pretext of combating extremist threats , NORP continues to ban several peaceful minority NORP groups ... Local media continued to report on prosecutions of alleged members of PERSON ut - GPE and the NORP Tabligh movement . ”

NORP The report by ORG entitled “ Shattered Lives : Torture and other ill - treatment in NORP ” , released on DATE , reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ... ORG research shows that practices of torture and other ill‑treatment remain widespread in all types of detention facilities in GPE . Detainees at the early stages of detention were found to be at particular risk , subjected to torture or other ill - treatment by law enforcement officers in order to “ solve ” crimes by obtaining confessions of guilt and also to obtain money from torture victims or their relatives . The general climate of impunity keeps police abuse virtually unchecked ...

NORP The scale of torture and other ill - treatment in GPE

In NORP torture and ill - treatment occur in a climate of secrecy . [ T]he perpetrators are rarely brought to justice ... [ T]orture and other ill - treatment occur particularly in pre - trial detention ... Domestic law has significant shortcomings when it comes to safeguards against torture . In addition , those crucial safeguards that do exist in law , such as access to a lawyer immediately after apprehension , are rarely applied in practice ...

Torture and other ill - treatment by police

[ T]he routine use of torture results from the lack of technical capacity to investigate crimes ... A local independent human rights observer told ORG that : “ people may get away without beatings in less serious cases , but in cases involving grave crimes – if they do n’t confess , they get beaten ” , adding that police “ wo n’t hesitate to resort to violence ...

Torture and other ill - treatment used in the context of national security and counter - terrorism

The fight against terrorism and threats to national security are often invoked by the ORG authorities as key to securing national and regional stability . However , ... frequently human rights are violated in the pursuit of groups perceived as a threat to national security ...

[ The ] research indicates that particular targets are NORP movements and NORP groups or parties , and that people accused of being NORP extremists are at particular risk of torture and other ill - treatment in NORP ...

In DATE an explosion occurred at the office of the [ police ] in GPE , resulting in several deaths and injuries to CARDINAL people . Following this the Tajikistani authorities redoubled their efforts to find members of NORP movements and NORP groups or parties who they alleged were responsible . Law enforcement officers came under increased pressure to solve cases with national security implications ...

Torture and other ill - treatment upon return to NORP

... ORG is concerned at a series of recent cases where the ORG authorities have made extradition requests based on unreliable information for people alleged to be members of banned NORP groups , who have subsequently alleged being tortured on their return . Many of these extradition requests have been issued for people in GPE . ”

In Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) on member States’ duty to cooperate with the ORG , adopted on DATE , ORG stated , inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG has also used the instrument of interim measures ( DATE the Rules of the Court ) in order to prevent irreparable damage . The ORG commends the ORG for finding that such interim measures are binding on states parties . It considers that this instrument may have still wider potential uses for protecting applicants and their lawyers who are exposed to undue pressure . The ORG may find it useful in this respect to examine the practice of ORG and ORG , which have used interim measures to enjoin the authorities to place applicants under special police protection in order to shield them from criminal acts by certain non - state actors . ”

The explanatory memorandum adopted by ORG Human Rights ( Doc . DATE of CARDINAL DATE , § DATE ) referred in this connection to the practice developed under LAW of LAW , which empowers ORG to order positive action by states . For example , in the PERSON - Lacayo case , ORG asked the ORG to adopt a measure requesting that the Government of GPE adopt effective security measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Dr ORG , including providing him and his relatives with the “ name and telephone number of a person in a position of authority ” who would be responsible for providing them with protection . The ORG granted the ORG ’s request and called upon ORG to adopt “ such measures as are necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of PERSON ” ( see PERSON case , ORG of DATE ) .

The ORG ’s Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) further called upon the competent authorities of all member GPE to :

“ CARDINAL . refrain from putting pressure on applicants , potential applicants , their lawyers or family members , aimed at obliging them to refrain from submitting applications to the ORG or withdrawing those applications which have already been submitted ;

NORP take positive measures to protect applicants , their lawyers or family members from reprisals by individuals or groups including , where appropriate , allowing applicants to participate in witness protection programmes , providing them with special police protection or granting threatened individuals and their families temporary protection or political asylum in an unbureaucratic manner ;

NORP thoroughly investigate all cases of alleged crimes against applicants , their lawyers or family members and to take robust action to prosecute and punish the perpetrators and instigators of such acts so as to send out a clear message that such action will not be tolerated by the authorities ; ... ”

The ORG further stated :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG is of the view that member states’ co - operation with ORG would benefit if the ORG were to continue to develop its case law to ensure full implementation of the member states’ duty to cooperate with the ORG , in particular by :

taking appropriate interim measures , including new types thereof , such as ordering police protection or relocation of threatened individuals and their families ;

NORP urgently notifying applications to respondent states in cases where the ORG is informed of credible allegations of undue pressure on applicants , lawyers or family members ;

granting priority to such cases ;

taking up cases of alleged unlawful pressure on applicants and lawyers with the representatives of the state concerned and , as appropriate , alerting ORG to any persistent problems . ”

Lastly , the ORG invited “ national parliaments to include all aspects of states’ duty to co - operate with the ORG in their work aimed at supervising the compliance of governments with obligations under the LAW , and to hold the executive or other authorities accountable for any violations . ”

In LAW ( DATE ) the ORG proposed that ORG address a recommendation to all member ORG inviting them to take the necessary measures in order to prevent applicants who had initiated proceedings before the ORG , their lawyers , members of their families , or the NGOs assisting them from being subjected to unlawful pressure or reprisals , and to ensure that perpetrators and instigators of such acts were brought to account .

The ORG ’s more recent Recommendation DATE ( DATE ) of CARDINAL DATE specifically dealing with the question of interim measures under Rule CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A major concern of the ORG is the growing number of member states that have recently ignored interim measures ordered by ORG under Rule CARDINAL . This emphasises the need for ORG to reinforce its role in the execution of the ORG ’s judgments .

The ORG therefore invites ORG to :

NORP consider extending its mandate under LAW ( “ the Convention ” , ORG . CARDINAL ) by introducing a competence to monitor compliance with the letter and spirit of Rule CARDINAL measures of which notice has been given under Rule CARDINAL of ORG ;

fully use its competence pursuant to LAW in resolving the cases of non - compliance in a way which fully and effectively upholds the Convention ; ensure , in collaboration with the ORG , that a mechanism or working method is established for follow - up in cases of non - compliance , and investigate cases and/or publish statements in this connection ;

give priority to judgments finding violations of LAW in cases concerning expulsion and extradition of aliens , while supervising their execution by respondent states according to LAW ;

NORP seek to adopt an interim resolution calling for member states to take individual and/or general measures , in those cases where an individual has been expelled to a state which has no wish to return him or her ;

NORP co - operate with the ORG and other relevant actors in order to publish uptodate Rule CARDINAL statistics as well as information on the extent of compliance by contracting parties ; ... ”

In its LAW ( DATE ) adopted on DATE , the ORG also stated :

“ CARDINAL . While still relatively rare , the growing number of breaches is of grave concern given the harm to the individuals concerned and the impact on the integrity of the Convention system as a whole . The ORG condemns any disrespect of legally binding measures ordered by the ORG , and in particular disrespect for the right of individual application as guaranteed by LAW , as a blatant disregard for this unique system of protection of human rights .

The ORG therefore urges the member states of ORG to :

NORP guarantee the right of individual petition to ORG under Article CARDINAL , neither hinder nor interfere with the exercise of that right in any manner whatsoever and fully comply with the letter and spirit of interim measures indicated by ORG under Rule CARDINAL , in particular by :

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . co - operating with ORG , by providing full , frank and fair disclosure in response to requests for further information under LAW ) , and facilitating to the highest degree any fact - finding requests made by the ORG ;

The ORG recognises the primary role of the ORG in finding solutions for dealing with interim measures under Rule CARDINAL and in this context expresses the hope that the ORG will :

NORP require , in more cases , the adoption of specific measures by states to remedy harm caused , in order that ORG may more effectively monitor the execution of judgments ... ”

In Resolutions ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL and ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL the Committee of Ministers emphasised that the principle of cooperation with the ORG embodied in the ORG was of fundamental importance for the proper and effective functioning of the FAC system and called on the governments of GPE to ensure that all relevant authorities strictly complied with that obligation .

The ORG of ORG Interim PERSON / ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL concerning the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) reads as follows :

“ ORG ...

Recalling that the applicant in the present case was expelled to GPE on DATE despite the ORG ’s interim measure under LAW requiring the NORP authorities not to do so until further notice ;

Noting that the ORG consequently found that the applicant ’s expulsion amounted to violations of LAW CARDINAL of the Convention ;

Recalling that , in the context of the examination of the present case , the ORG noted , at its CARDINALth meeting ( DATE ) , that the NORP authorities were fully committed to complying with the interim measures indicated by ORG CARDINAL ;

Deploring that , despite this commitment , the NORP authorities expelled another applicant , Mr. PERSON , to GPE on DATE in breach of an interim measure indicated on DATE by ORG requiring the NORP authorities not to do so until further notice ;

Noting with concern that in CARDINAL other cases the NORP authorities have expelled applicants to GPE although the ORG had previously indicated not to do so under Rule CARDINAL ;

Recalling firmly that , according to the ORG ’s well - established case - law , LAW entails an obligation to comply with interim measures indicated pursuant to LAW since ORG judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON and PERSON against GPE ,

Stressing once again the fundamental importance of complying with interim measures indicated by ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG ;

Expressing confidence however that the NORP authorities will finally take the necessary measures to ensure that interim measures indicated by the ORG are strictly complied with , to prevent similar violations in the future ;

FIRMLY RECALLS the obligation of the NORP authorities to respect interim measures indicated by the ORG ;

URGES the NORP authorities to take all necessary steps to adopt sufficient and effective measures to prevent similar violations in the future ;

DECIDES to examine the implementation of this judgment at each human rights meeting until the necessary urgent measures are adopted . ”

Responding to Recommendation DATE ( DATE ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG adopted Resolution CM / Res(CARDINAL)CARDINAL on member States’ duty to respect and protect the right of individual application to the ORG , the relevant parts of which read as follows :

“ ... PERSON that the right of individuals to apply to ORG hereinafter referred to as ‘ the ORG ) is a central element of the convention system and must be respected and protected at all levels ;

Stressing that respect for this right and its protection from any interference are essential for the effectiveness of the Convention system of human rights protection ;

Recalling that all GPE Parties to the LAW have undertaken not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right , as stipulated by LAW ;

Recalling that positive obligations , including to investigate , form an essential characteristic of the Convention system as a whole ;

Recalling also that the ORG ’s case law has clearly established that LAW entails an obligation for GPE Parties to comply with an indication of interim measures made under LAW and that non - compliance may imply a violation of LAW ;

Noting therefore with concern that there have been isolated , but nevertheless alarming , failures to respect and protect the right of individual application ( such as obstructing the applicant ’s communication with the ORG , refusing to allow the applicant to contact his lawyer , bringing pressure to bear on witnesses or bringing inappropriate proceedings against the applicant ’s representatives ) , as found in DATE by the ORG ;

Deploring any interference with applicants or persons intending to apply to the ORG , members of their families , their lawyers and other representatives and witnesses , and being determined to take action to prevent such interference ;

Recalling the DATE ORG relating to persons participating in proceedings of ORG ( ETS No . CARDINAL ) ;

Recalling its Resolutions ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL and ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL on the states’ obligation to co - operate with ORG ,

Calls upon the GPE Parties to :

NORP refrain from putting pressure on applicants or persons who have indicated an intention to apply to the Court , members of their families , their lawyers and other representatives and witnesses aimed at deterring applications to the Court , having applications which have already been submitted withdrawn or having proceedings before the Court not pursued ;

NORP fulfil their positive obligations to protect applicants or persons who have indicated an intention to apply to the Court , members of their families , their lawyers and other representatives and witnesses from reprisals by individuals or groups including , where appropriate , by allowing applicants and witnesses to participate in witness protection programmes and providing appropriate forms of effective protection , including at international level ;

NORP in this context , take prompt and effective action with regard to any interim measures indicated by the ORG so as to ensure compliance with their obligations under the relevant provisions of the LAW ;

identify and appropriately investigate all cases of alleged interference with the right of individual application , having regard to the positive obligations already arising under the LAW in light of the ORG ’s case law ;

NORP take any appropriate further action , in accordance with domestic law , against persons suspected of being the perpetrators and instigators of such interference , including , where justified , by seeking their prosecution and the punishment of those found guilty ;

NORP if they have not already done so , ratify the DATE ORG relating to persons participating in proceedings of ORG ,

Decides also to examine urgently , particularly in the context of its supervision of the execution of judgments finding a violation of LAW , to any incident of interference with the right of individual application and encourages the Secretary General to consider exercising his powers under LAW where justified by the circumstances . ”

In its Final Declaration , the High Level Conference on the Future of the ORG held in GPE on DATE reiterated the requirement for GPE Parties to comply with the interim measures in the following terms :

“ [ The Conference ] stresses the importance of GPE Parties providing national remedies , where necessary with suspensive effect , which operate effectively and fairly and provide a proper and timely examination of the issue of risk in accordance with the LAW and in light of the ORG ’s case law ; and , while noting that they may challenge interim measures before the ORG , reiterates the requirement for GPE Parties to comply with them . ”

Replying to the ORG ’s Recommendation CARDINAL ( DATE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG assured the ORG that “ it fully uses its competence under LAW in all cases establishing violations of LAW , whether in order to ensure that urgent individual measures are rapidly adopted , or repetitions of violations prevented through the introduction of necessary domestic safeguards . ” The ORG reminded the ORG that the new working methods applied since DATE had fixed as indicators for classification under enhanced supervision all cases calling for urgent individual measures or revealing major structural problems ( see Doc . DATE ) .

Following the information received from the ORG about repeated complaints of GPE ’s disregard for interim measures in the present case and several other cases ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG examined that issue in connection with the execution of the ORG ’s judgment in the PERSON case ( cited above ) .

The ORG of ORG decision ( ORG Dec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , adopted on DATE at the CARDINALth meeting of ORG , reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ The Deputies

as regards the PERSON case , recalled that the violations of the LAW in this case were due to the applicant ’s kidnapping by unknown persons , whom the ORG found to be NORP ORG agents , and his forcible transfer to NORP after his extradition had been refused by the NORP authorities ;

noted with profound concern the indication by the ORG that repeated incidents of this kind have recently taken place in respect of CARDINAL other applicants whose cases are pending before the ORG where it applied interim measures to prevent their extradition on account of the imminent risk of grave violations of the LAW faced by them ;

took note of the NORP authorities’ position that this situation constitutes a source of great concern for them ;

noted further that the NORP authorities are currently addressing these incidents and are committed to present the results of the follow - up given to them in GPE to ORG in the framework of its examination of the cases concerned and to the ORG with regard to the PERSON case ;

NORP urged the NORP authorities to continue to take all necessary steps to shade light on the circumstances of Mr. PERSON ’s kidnapping and to ensure that similar incidents are not likely to occur in the future and to inform ORG thereof . ”

During its subsequent examination of the issue , ORG , confronted with yet another case of alleged disappearance of an applicant notwithstanding the interim measures indicated by the ORG , reiterated its previous concerns at the repetition of such incidents and continued as follows ( see decision adopted on DATE at the FAC meeting - ORG ) :

“ The Deputies

NORP deplored the fact that , notwithstanding the serious concerns expressed in respect of such incidents by the President of the Court , ORG and by the NORP authorities themselves , they were informed that yet another applicant disappeared on DATE in GPE and shortly after found himself in custody in NORP ;

took note of the NORP authorities’ position according to which the investigation in the PERSON case is still ongoing and had not at present established the involvement of ORG in the applicant ’s kidnapping ;

NORP regretted however that up to now , neither in the PERSON case nor in any other case of that type have the authorities been able to make tangible progress with the domestic investigations concerning the applicants’ kidnappings and their transfer , nor to establish the responsibility of any state agent ;

noted that , according to the information given by the NORP authorities , following the dissemination in DATE of ORG decision adopted at the CARDINALth meeting to ORG , to ORG , ORG , ORG and to ORG , no other incidents of this kind had taken place , and invited the NORP authorities to clarify whether they consider that this measure is sufficient to effectively put an end to such an unacceptable practice . ”

By a decision adopted at the CARDINALth meeting of ORG on DATE ( ORG Dec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , ORG made the following findings and assessment :

“ The Deputies

noted with regret that to date CARDINAL responsible for the applicant ’s illegal transfer to GPE has been identified in the PERSON case ;

noted that no incidents similar to those described in the PERSON case took place since the last examination of this case by the ORG and invited the NORP authorities to continue to take all necessary measures in order to ensure that such incidents no longer occur in the future ;

welcomed the adoption on DATE by ORG of GPE of a Ruling providing important guidelines on how to apply domestic legislation in the light of the Convention requirements , in particular with regard to ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention ;

noted further with satisfaction that the measures adopted by the NORP authorities in response to the judgments of this group ( ORG decision , instructions issued by ORG and ORG ) have already resulted in a number of judgments of the ORG finding no violations of the LAW ;

NORP encouraged the NORP authorities to ensure rapid progress with regard to the preparation and adoption of the legislative reform required by these judgments . ”

ORG resumed examination of the issue at the CARDINALth meeting of ORG held on DATE and adopted the following decision ( ORG Dec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) :

“ The Deputies

recalled that in abiding by a ORG ’s judgment , ORG has an obligation to take all measures to prevent violations similar to those found by the ORG ;

NORP consequently deeply regretted that , notwithstanding the serious concerns expressed by the Court and by ORG in respect of incidents allegedly similar to that in the PERSON judgment , they were informed that yet another applicant , who was subject to an interim measure indicated by ORG under Rule CARDINAL in connection with his planned extradition to NORP , would have disappeared from GPE on DATE ( PERSON v. GPE , No . MONEY ) ;

NORP noted that such incidents , if confirmed , and lack of appropriate response thereto by the authorities would raise a more general issue as to the compatibility of this situation with the obligations of GPE under the Convention ;

NORP reiterated their regret expressed in their earlier decision that up to now , neither in the PERSON case nor in any other case of that type have the authorities been able to make tangible progress with the domestic investigations concerning the applicants’ kidnappings and their transfer , nor to establish the responsibility of any state agent ;

NORP consequently called upon the NORP authorities to address without further delay this worrying and unprecedented situation , notably by adopting protective measures in respect of other persons who may be subject to an interim measure indicated by ORG under Rule CARDINAL in connection with their removal from the NORP territory and ensuring that all such incidents are effectively investigated in strict compliance with their Convention obligations ;

invited the NORP authorities to provide information on the applicant ’s current situation in the PERSON case , in particular as far as guarantees against illtreatment are concerned . ”

The Committee of ORG latest decision on the matter ( ORG ) , which was adopted on DATE at the ORG meeting of ORG , reads as follows :

“ The Deputies

took note of the NORP authorities’ position according to which the measures taken so far can prevent further abductions and forced transfers of persons in whose respect the ORG indicated an interim measure under LAW ;

NORP noted however with serious concern that at present several complaints of foreign nationals are pending before the ORG concerning alleged violations of their rights and the non - observance of interim measures indicated by the ORG with regard to their forced transfer from the territory of GPE ;

invited the NORP authorities to clarify the relevance of the measures already taken in circumstances similar to those described in the LOC and PERSON judgments ;

NORP reiterated their call upon the NORP authorities to adopt without further delay the necessary measures to put an end to such incidents by taking further special protective measures in respect of the applicants and a set of measures to ensure rapid and effective investigations into disappearances and forced transfers , and to inform ORG accordingly ;

in view of the persistence of this alarming situation and having regard to the obligations of GPE under the Convention , invited the President of ORG to address a letter to his NORP counterpart in order to draw his attention to the serious concern of ORG as well as its repeated calls to adopt the above - mentioned measures ;

decided to resume consideration of these questions at the latest at their CARDINAL meeting ( DATE ) ( DH ) however agreeing , in the event that a new , similar incident is brought to the ORG ’s attention , to return to this issue at their first meeting following notification of such an incident . ”