CCPR/C/130/D/3786/2020 Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 Starting in 2003, the author set up a business partnership with E. and Sh. The author was a guarantor for the bank loans of their joint companies. In 2014, when the author asked his partners, who allegedly had wasted the companies’ resources, to return the loans, they threatened him with violence and abuse. On 9 January 2017, a criminal case was opened against the author and his business partners under article 159 (4) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (on the commission of large-scale fraud). It concerned two instances of allegedly illegal recovery of value added tax by two private companies operated by the author’s former business partners. 2.2 On 12 March 2017, the author sought asylum in Lithuania. He claimed that the criminal case against him was fabricated and had been initiated unlawfully, using the power of corrupt officials and his former business partners. He feared retribution from his business partners should he be returned to the Russian Federation. On 30 March 2018, the Migration Department refused to grant him asylum. It found the author’s allegations of persecution hypothetical in nature, and based on low and uncertain probability. The author’s application for subsidiary protection was also rejected. The Migration Department found that the available data was insufficient to prove that his criminal case had been fabricated. It also noted that the author had been prosecuted on suspicion of having committed a crime, and that there was no evidence that such prosecution was based on discriminatory reasons or was disproportionate. The Migration Department pointed out, among other things, that there were no reports indicating a risk of arbitrary detention and false charges in the Russian Federation except on political grounds. 2.3 On 9 April 2018, the author was charged with two counts of large-scale fraud in the Russian Federation. On 30 April 2018, he lodged an appeal against the Migration Department’s decision to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court. He claimed that his family was receiving threats against him from private individuals. On 5 June 2018, the Court rejected his appeal, finding the evidence concerning possible persecution in the Russian Federation to be insufficient and the decision of the Migration Department to be lawful and justified. On 18 June 2018, the author appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. His appeal was rejected on 22 August 2018. 2.4 On 16 November 2018, a court in the Russian Federation authorized the author’s preliminary detention for two months after his return. On 26 December 2018, the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation requested the author’s extradition. The Office of the Prosecutor General provided diplomatic assurances that the author would be prosecuted only for crimes for which his extradition was sought and would not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. On 29 November 2019, Vilnius District Court authorized the author’s extradition. On 6 December 2019, the author appealed to the Court of Appeal of Lithuania. At this point in time, he raised claims concerning inadequate conditions in detention facilities of the Russian Federation. He referred, among other things, to data showing that there were numerous instances of torture and inhuman treatment in the detention centres in the Rostov region (to which the author was to be extradited), as well as overall poor and unhygienic conditions of detention. He alleged a failure by Vilnius District Court to request additional documents connected to the criminal investigation against him from the Russian Federation. He claimed that if extradited, he would not have a fair trial, referring to international reports about politically motivated criminal prosecution in the Russian Federation, lack of judicial independence and a low percentage of acquittals in criminal cases. On 20 December 2019, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania authorized the author’s extradition. The Court of Appeal considered the claims raised by the author concerning inadequate conditions of detention and found them to be of a very general nature. The Court of Appeal did not find any flaws in the proceedings of Vilnius District Court, or any evidence that the author would be denied a fair trial upon extradition. Complaint 3.1 The author claims that the conditions in detention facilities in the Russian Federation amount to degrading treatment and will violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, he points to overcrowding, and lack of sanitary standards and heating, among other things. He also refers to reports about incidents of torture in detention facilities. Furthermore, 2 GE.21-03981

Select target paragraph3