ECtHR - Tadzhibayev v. Russia, Application no. 17724/14, 1 December 2015

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Country of Applicant: 
Kyrgyzstan
Date of Decision: 
01-12-2015
Citation: 
Application no. 17724/14
Court Name: 
European Court of Human Rights
Headnote: 

The Court found that the applicant would face a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR if extradited to Kyrgyzstan, having regard to the various reports from UN bodies and international NGOs assessing the situation in the country.

Facts: 

The applicant, an Uzbek national of Kyrgyzstan, fled to Russia in June 2010 following violent inter-ethnic clashes in his country. He received a temporary residence permit for the period from 3 December 2010 to 3 December 2013. He was later placed on the Kyrgyz and Russian lists of fugitives for allegations of various crimes committed. He was arrested and detained by Russian authorities in 2012, who subsequently granted the extradition request submitted by Kyrgyzstan. He was released after successfully appealing the extradition order. However, this ruling was quashed by the Supreme Court of Russia on the basis that the Kyrgz authorities had provided diplomatic guarantees that the applicant would not be subject to ill-treatment. Enforcement of the order was suspended as the ECtHR indicated a Rule 39 measure to prevent his extradition. Whilst extradition proceedings were ongoing, the applicant claimed asylum, which was rejected at first instance and upon appeal, in a final decision of July 2014.

Decision & Reasoning: 

I. Article 3 ECHR

The Court recalled a previous case concerning an extradition to Kyrgyzstan were it had found that in 2012 the situation in the south of the country was characterized by torture and other ill-treatment of ethnic Uzbeks by law-enforcement officers. The Court held that the applicant belonged to a particularly vulnerable group, namely, ethnic Uzbeks, members of which were routinely subject to ill-treatment according to various reports by UN bodies and NGOs which state that the situation has not improved in Kyrgyzstan following the events of June 2010. The Court added that the applicant’s claim to be at risk of ill-treatment had not been correctly examined by the Russian courts and their refusal to take into account materials originating from reliable sources, such as reports by international NGOs. It noted that Kyrgyzstan is not a Contracting Party to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the applicant would face a real risk of ill-treatment if he were to be extradited to Kyrgyzstan.

II. Article 13 ECHR

The Court found that there was no need to consider Article 13 separately.

Outcome: 

Violation of Article 3 ECHR.

Observations/Comments: 

This case summary was written by Clara Gautrais, GDL student at BPP University, UK. 

Case Law Cited: 

ECtHR - Makhmudov v Russia, no. 35082/04, 26 July 2007

Umirov v. Russia (no. 17455/11)
Attachment(s): 
Other sources cited: 

Kyrgyzstan’s second report on implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, for the period from 1999 to 2011.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considered the fifth to seventh periodic reports of Kyrgyzstan, February 2013.

The UN Committee against Torture report December 2013.

Kyrgyzstan chapter of the 2013 Annual Report by Amnesty International.

Human Rights Watch’s “World Report 2013: Kyrgyzstan”.

Human Rights Watch “Kyrgyzstan: 3 Years After Violence, a Mockery of Justice”, June 2013.

Kyrgyzstan chapter of the 2014 World Report by Human Rights Watch.

Authentic Language: 
English
State Party: 
Russia