ECtHR decision in Latipov v. Russia, Application No. 77658/11 [Articles 3 and 13], 12 December 2013

Date: 
Sunday, December 15, 2013

The Applicant is a Tajik national who is currently missing. He fled to Russia in 2001, having worked as a bodyguard for a Tajik opposition leader for nine years from the beginning of the civil war in Tajikistan in 1992. In November 2010, the Applicant was detained by Russian authorities pending extradition to Tajikistan on the charge of having organised a criminal gang in Tajikistan. He disappeared in October 2012. The Applicant’s representative submitted to the ECtHR that extradition to Tajikistan would violate the Applicant’s Article 3 rights and that the Applicant’s detention pending extradition from November 2010 to October 2012 had been contrary to Article 5(1). Following the disappearance, complaints were added concerning the alleged involvement of Russian officials.

The ECtHR concluded, on the basis of the available evidence, that it was not possible to establish that the Applicant was transferred to Tajikistan or any other country. The court then held that the Applicant had failed to adduce any evidence of the personal risks involved for him in Tajikistan, and relied only on general information about human rights concerns in Tajikistan. The Applicant’s Article 3 complaint about this risk was therefore rejected. As to Russia’s positive obligation to protect the Applicant under Article 3, the court was satisfied as to the effectiveness and promptness of the Russian authorities’ investigation into the disappearance of the Applicant. In addition, the available evidence did not permit the court to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the Russian authorities were directly or indirectly involved in the disappearance. Russia was therefore ruled to be compliant with Article 3, as well as with Article 34, due to no evidence of a breach of the Rule 39 Interim Measure halting extradition.

As to the Article 5 complaint, the court held that, on the basis of time limits and records of judicial approval, only the 21 August and 15 October 2012 period of detention was admissible. On the basis of the Russian Supreme Court’s order to release the Applicant on 21 August and the government’s delay in enforcing this order due to a ‘technical problem’, the ECtHR found no legal basis for this period of detention, rendering it incompatible with Article 5(1).

The Applicant was awarded no damages for the Article 5(1) violation.

Based on an unofficial ECRE translation.

Read the full judgment on the website of the European Court of Human Rights (French).


This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the weekly ELENA legal update supported by the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Funding Programme and distributed by email. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is published but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE, the IRC or its partners

Keywords: 
Detention
Effective remedy (right to)
Tags: 
Russia
ECtHR