CCPR/C/123/D/2232/2013
an instance when a person was “boiled alive”. 4 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Russian Federation also concluded in 2009 that the criminal justice system was based on
forced confessions and that the defendants who had been prosecuted for politically
motivated charges had been mistreated. The author therefore claims that if he is extradited
to Uzbekistan, the authorities there will detain and torture him.
3.2
The author further claims that his detention has been excessively prolonged and
violates his rights under articles 9 and 14 (3) of the Covenant. The Constitutional Court of
the Russian Federation has indicated in its rulings that detention must only be used when
strictly necessary. Furthermore, the author claims that he should have been present during
the detention hearings, in accordance with article 108 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code
of the Russian Federation.
3.3
The author further claims that the maximum detention prescribed by the law is 12
months and that since he was arrested on 13 January 2012, he should have been released on
13 January 2013. Instead, the author was kept in unlawful detention until he was extradited
on 15 January 2013. The author complained about this fact to the Babushkinsky district
court.
State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
4.1
In its observations dated 18 April and 23 May 2013, the State party confirms that the
author arrived in the Russian Federation on 4 November 2010 and received a temporary
residence permit on 14 June 2011. In January 2012, the Prosecutor General’s Office of
Uzbekistan requested the author’s extradition, alleging that he had committed crimes while
in Uzbekistan. The Uzbek authorities assured the State party that all criminal proceedings
would be carried out in accordance with the laws and international obligations of
Uzbekistan, that the author would not face the risk of torture and that he would be able to
exercise his right to a lawyer and other procedural rights. 5
4.2
The author was detained on 13 January 2012 by the 5th branch of the Moscow
subway police. On 21 February 2012, he requested that the Russian migration authorities
grant him refugee status, but his request was rejected. According to article 1 (1) of the
federal law on refugees, which gives a definition of a refugee, a person must have a “wellfounded fear” of persecution based on race, religion, citizenship, nationality, belonging to a
specific social group or due to political views, and that person must be outside his country
of residence and unable to return owing to the concerns mentioned above. The author
appealed the decision, but his appeal was rejected on 26 December 2012. That decision was
further appealed to the Moscow City Court and was pending at the time of submission of
the present observations.
4.3
On 21 September 2012, the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation
issued a decision to grant the extradition request. The author appealed this decision at the
Moscow City Court, which rejected the author’s appeal on 12 November 2012. The court
stated that the author was not a citizen of the Russian Federation, had not been granted
refugee status and was being prosecuted in Uzbekistan for a crime of a general nature,
which was not based on discrimination on the basis of race, gender, nationality and so on.
The State party has no grounds for not believing the assurances provided by the Uzbek
authorities that the author will not be tortured if returned. The author failed to provide any
information that would lead the State party to believe that he would be persecuted based on
his ethnicity, race, political views and so on.
4.4
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, on appeal, came to the same
conclusion. On 10 January 2013, the court found that the author was wanted in Uzbekistan
for crimes he had allegedly committed in 2008. The author had not filed a supervisory
appeal in the Supreme Court and therefore his claims should be considered inadmissible.
4.5
On 14 January 2013, the author filed a complaint to the Babushkinsky district court
to the effect that he had been detained for longer than the permissible detention limit of 12
4
5
The author refers to a 2009 report by Amnesty International.
The State party does not provide a copy of these documents.
3