CAT/C/64/D/727/2016
custody. After his release, the complainant alleges that his house was searched several
times by the police since he was suspected of transporting flyers from Poland to Belarus.
Following one of his trips to Poland, the police interrogated him and showed him a video in
which he crossed the Polish-Belarusian border; they alleged that he was bringing flyers to
Belarus. The complainant claims that the police threatened to arrest him for drugs-related
crimes. The complainant states that he was subsequently convicted in absentia for
smuggling.5
2.2
The complainant arrived in the Czech Republic and applied for asylum there on 28
October 2006. His application was rejected by the Ministry of the Interior due to a
discrepancy in the complainant’s statements concerning his conviction.6
2.3
In 2010, the European Court of Human Rights issued an interim measure against the
Czech Republic and suspended the complainant’s extradition to Belarus.7 As a consequence,
on 23 April 2010, the District Court of Pilsen ruled that the extradition of the complainant
was not permissible. It also noted that, based on the facts and evidence submitted, that there
was good reason to fear that the criminal proceedings against the complainant in Belarus
would not be in accordance with articles 3 and 6 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). The
Czech authorities granted the complainant a subsidiary protection status for a period of one
year, which was subsequently extended every two years,8 noting that the risk of torture or
inhuman or degrading treatment could not be excluded.
2.4
On 17 October 2013, the European Court found that the Czech Republic would
violate article 13, in conjunction with article 3, of the European Convention on Human
Rights by extraditing the complainant to Belarus.9
2.5
On 17 October 2015, the complainant was arrested by the German border police
when he was crossing the Czech-German border. The arrest was based on an extradition
request issued by the Belarusian authorities for a drug-related crime he had allegedly
committed in 2006. On 23 November 2015, the Senate of the Higher Regional Court of
Dresden decided to allow the complainant’s extradition, relying on diplomatic assurances
issued by the Belarusian authorities to the effect that the complainant would not be
subjected to torture or ill-treatment. On 22 January 2016, the Regional Court dismissed an
appeal filed by the complainant against the extradition. On 10 February 2016, the Federal
Constitutional Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision.10
2.6
The complainant indicates that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that his deportation to Belarus would violate his rights
under article 3 of the Convention because he would be at personal risk of being persecuted
and tortured.
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
No additional information is available on his conviction. However, the extradition request of the
Belarusian Government refers to charges of unlawfully obtaining, possessing, transferring and selling
addictive substances in September 2006.
According to the State party’s submission, in total four asylum requests were rejected by the Czech
authorities.
As provided for under rule 39 of the European Court of Human Rights’ Rules of Court.
In accordance with the Czech Asylum Act, subsidiary protection shall be granted to a foreign national
who does not satisfy the criteria for asylum if it has been established in the procedure for granting
international protection that a legitimate concern exists in his or her case that if the foreign national is
returned to the country of which he or she is a citizen or, if the foreign national is a stateless person,
to the country of his or her last permanent residence, he or she would face a genuine risk of serious
harm and that he or she is unable or unwilling, due to such risk, to avail himself or herself of the
protection of the country of which he or she is a citizen or the country of his or her last permanent
residence.
Reference is made to the judgment of 17 October 2013 of the European Court of Human Rights in the
case Budrevich v. the Czech Republic (application No. 65303/10).
At the time of the first submission of the complaint, the State party argued that it was inadmissible
due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pending the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court.