European Court: Expulsion of Uzbek Umid Yakubov from Russia would Breach Article 3 of the Convention
19 views
Skip to first unread message
Memorial.Rus
Nov 10, 2011, 8:55:41 AM11/10/11
to hrcmemo...@googlegroups.com
European Court: Expulsion of Uzbek Umid Yakubov from Russia
would Breach Article 3 of the Convention
On November 8, 2011, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Yakubov v Russia (No. 7265/10).
The Court ruled that should Russia carry out the expulsion of Umid Yakubov to Uzbekistan, it would lead to a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights as he would face “a real risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3” (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment). It also found a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
The case was brought by the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), based at London Metropolitan University, and the Human Rights Centre “Memorial”, based in Moscow. At the national level and partly in ECtHR (Rule 39) the case was brought by Elena Ryabinina (Human Rights Institute, Moscow).
Yakubov is an Uzbek national who moved to Russia in May 2009. In October 2009, the Uzbek authorities charged him with participation in the “banned religious extremist, separatist and fundamentalist organisation” Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) and with leaving Uzbekistan unlawfully, and issued an arrest warrant calling for his extradition. He was detained by the Russian authorities at the request of the Uzbek authorities on January 4, 2010, but was released after ten days. Later in January he was detained for disobedience to police officers and sentenced to seven days’ detention. At the Sovetskiy district court of Ryazan on February 1, 2010, he was charged with giving false information during migration registration and his expulsion from Russia was ordered (a decision that was later upheld by the Ryazan Regional Court). Following a request to the European Court for interim measures (Rule 39), the President of the European Court indicated to the Russian authorities on February 5, 2010 that he should not be expelled to Uzbekistan until further notice (the Court can cancel using Rule 39 in this case, then Russia will make a decision on its own).
Yakubov stated that he had been repeatedly ill-treated when serving time in detention between 1999 and 2008 in Uzbekistan for membership in HT (at that time he was charged with administrative offence, in 2009 he was accused as a criminal), resulting in chronic injuries which he suffers from to this day, and that his extradition would lead to a serious risk of further ill treatment.
The Russian government conceded that the situation in Uzbekistan had not improved, and the Court found that the ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners continued unabated despite the Uzbek authorities’ assertions to the contrary. In addition, the Court found evidence that accused members of the banned religious organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir are at risk of a “persisting pattern of persecution...including torture and ill-treatment”, and described the practice of holding incommunicado those extradited from other countries for participation in HT as “disturbing”. In light of this evidence, the Court concluded that there were substantial grounds that a violation of Article 3 would occur if Yakubov was expelled to Uzbekistan.
Although the Government argued that Yakubov failed to provide the necessary evidence to prove a risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, the Court rejected this submission and found that the domestic authorities had “failed to rigorously scrutinise the applicant’s claims that there was a risk that he would be ill-treated in the event of his expulsion to Uzbekistan.” The Court therefore found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, as Yakubov had no effective or accessible remedy in regards to his complaint under Article 3: this article prohibits torture, but the applicant couldn't defend himself from them, because the authorities refused to assist him in it – they were going to expel him from Russia.
The Court also decided to continue the Rule 39 indication to prevent Yakubov’s expulsion until the present judgment becomes final (it will happen in three months if the authorities don't appeal against this judgment to the Grand Chamber).
November 10, 2011
On November 8, 2011, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Yakubov v Russia (No. 7265/10).
The Court ruled that should Russia carry out the expulsion of Umid Yakubov to Uzbekistan, it would lead to a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights as he would face “a real risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3” (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment). It also found a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
The case was brought by the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC), based at London Metropolitan University, and the Human Rights Centre “Memorial”, based in Moscow. At the national level and partly in ECtHR (Rule 39) the case was brought by Elena Ryabinina (Human Rights Institute, Moscow).
Yakubov is an Uzbek national who moved to Russia in May 2009. In October 2009, the Uzbek authorities charged him with participation in the “banned religious extremist, separatist and fundamentalist organisation” Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) and with leaving Uzbekistan unlawfully, and issued an arrest warrant calling for his extradition. He was detained by the Russian authorities at the request of the Uzbek authorities on January 4, 2010, but was released after ten days. Later in January he was detained for disobedience to police officers and sentenced to seven days’ detention. At the Sovetskiy district court of Ryazan on February 1, 2010, he was charged with giving false information during migration registration and his expulsion from Russia was ordered (a decision that was later upheld by the Ryazan Regional Court). Following a request to the European Court for interim measures (Rule 39), the President of the European Court indicated to the Russian authorities on February 5, 2010 that he should not be expelled to Uzbekistan until further notice (the Court can cancel using Rule 39 in this case, then Russia will make a decision on its own).
Yakubov stated that he had been repeatedly ill-treated when serving time in detention between 1999 and 2008 in Uzbekistan for membership in HT (at that time he was charged with administrative offence, in 2009 he was accused as a criminal), resulting in chronic injuries which he suffers from to this day, and that his extradition would lead to a serious risk of further ill treatment.
The Russian government conceded that the situation in Uzbekistan had not improved, and the Court found that the ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners continued unabated despite the Uzbek authorities’ assertions to the contrary. In addition, the Court found evidence that accused members of the banned religious organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir are at risk of a “persisting pattern of persecution...including torture and ill-treatment”, and described the practice of holding incommunicado those extradited from other countries for participation in HT as “disturbing”. In light of this evidence, the Court concluded that there were substantial grounds that a violation of Article 3 would occur if Yakubov was expelled to Uzbekistan.
Although the Government argued that Yakubov failed to provide the necessary evidence to prove a risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, the Court rejected this submission and found that the domestic authorities had “failed to rigorously scrutinise the applicant’s claims that there was a risk that he would be ill-treated in the event of his expulsion to Uzbekistan.” The Court therefore found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, as Yakubov had no effective or accessible remedy in regards to his complaint under Article 3: this article prohibits torture, but the applicant couldn't defend himself from them, because the authorities refused to assist him in it – they were going to expel him from Russia.
The Court also decided to continue the Rule 39 indication to prevent Yakubov’s expulsion until the present judgment becomes final (it will happen in three months if the authorities don't appeal against this judgment to the Grand Chamber).
November 10, 2011
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages