CCPR/C/130/D/3786/2020
he alleges that the conditions of transportation to prison, as well as the conditions of detention
and the treatment of prisoners in prisons in the Russian Federation, amount to a violation of
article 7 of the Covenant. He claims that the Lithuanian authorities did not properly assess
his claims of inadequate conditions of detention and thus did not comply with their procedural
obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. The author claims that the diplomatic assurances
provided by the Russian Federation should not be accepted by the State party as a guarantee
against inhuman and degrading treatment in detention.
3.2
The author further claims that if extradited, he will be denied fair trial guarantees, in
violation of article 14 of the Covenant. He claims that the criminal case against him was
fabricated, and that the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation supervising the
criminal case against him agreed with the investigator that he had committed the crimes in
question. It is likely that the prosecutor would always support the position of the investigating
authority and hamper exercise of the author’s rights in legal proceedings. The author also
claims that since his former business partners were found guilty, and he was mentioned as an
accomplice in judgments in their cases, the court will be able to use those judgments to find
him guilty. It would not be possible for him to prove his innocence. He further claims that
the acquittal figure in the Russian system is 0.24 per cent, which would further contribute to
the risk associated with his being found guilty.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Considerations of admissibility
4.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is
admissible under the Optional Protocol.
4.2
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional
Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
4.3
The Committee notes the author’s claim that he exhausted all available and effective
domestic remedies. The Committee notes, however, that from the information on file, it
seems that the author did not raise before domestic courts his claims concerning the
conditions of transportation to prison, raised under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee
also notes that the author did not raise before domestic courts his claims under article 14 of
the Covenant, raised before the Committee, that is, the alleged bias of the Deputy Prosecutor
General of the Russian Federation and the lack of possibility of proving his innocence in
courts of the Russian Federation. Neither did the author raise before domestic courts concerns
about the insufficiency of the diplomatic assurances offered by the Russian Federation.
Accordingly, in the absence of any information or explanation of pertinence on file, the
Committee declares these parts of the author’s claim under articles 7 and 14 of the Covenant
inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.
4.4
The Committee notes the author’s claim that article 7 of the Covenant will be violated
should he be extradited to the Russian Federation, in view of the conditions of detention in
the country’s detention facilities, particularly those in the Rostov region. The Committee also
notes the author’s claim that the Lithuanian courts have not properly considered these
allegations. However, the Committee notes that the author’s claim concerning conditions of
detention was considered by the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, which found the author’s
allegations to be of a very general nature and to be insufficient to conclude that his rights
would be violated merely on account of the general conditions of detention. The Committee
notes that the author disagrees with the conclusion of the Court of Appeal, without however
having provided concrete arguments to support his claim of inadequate assessment by the
courts. In the light of this, the Committee finds the author’s claim under article 7 of the
Covenant insufficiently substantiated and inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional
Protocol.
4.5
The author’s remaining argument under article 14 of the Covenant concerning the low
rate of acquittals by courts in the Russian Federation cannot in itself be considered a sufficient
substantiation of the author’s allegation of lack of fair trial upon extradition. Accordingly,
GE.21-03981
3