CCPR/C/123/D/2189/2012
not be considered as a sufficient guarantee against the risk of torture if the requesting State
resorts to torture widely and systematically. On 13 August 2012, on appeal, the Supreme
Court upheld the decision of the city court.
2.4
On 29 December 2011, the author applied for refugee status in the Russian
Federation. On 16 March 2012, the Department of the Federal Migration Board in Moscow
rejected his application, inter alia, on the grounds that he had not justified his claim that he
would be subjected to torture in Uzbekistan and that he had applied for refugee status only
after his arrest pending extradition and not within 24 hours of crossing the border of the
Russian Federation, as required by the federal law on refugees. The author appealed on 3
May 2012, claiming that the diplomatic assurances provided by the Uzbek authorities did
not offer sufficient protection against the risk of his being subjected to torture. On 7 June
2012, the Federal Migration Board rejected his appeal. On 13 July 2012, the author
submitted another appeal before the Basmanny district court in Moscow. Proceedings were
still pending at the time of the submission.
2.5
On 19 August 2012, in a separate submission, the author referred to the Protocol to
the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and
Criminal Matters. Article 62 (1) of the Minsk Convention provides that a person detained
pending extradition must be released if the extradition request is not received within one
month of the detention. The Protocol in question amended that provision, extending the
period for up to 40 days. As Uzbekistan has not ratified the Protocol, in the author’s view it
is subject to the requirements of the initial edition of article 62 (1) of the Minsk Convention.
In the present case, the extradition request was received on 9 December 2011, more than
one month after the author was detained on 7 November 2011. The author should therefore
have been released on 7 December 2011. However, the author was continuously detained
and his detention was extended by six months on two occasions.
2.6
On 1 October 2012, the author was extradited to Uzbekistan, while the proceedings
relating to his application for refugee status were still pending.
The complaint
3.1
In his initial submission, the author claims that his extradition from the Russian
Federation to Uzbekistan would expose him to the risk of torture, contrary to article 7 of the
Covenant as he would be forced to confess guilt for a crime he did not commit. He alleges
that he is being persecuted for political reasons. The false accusations against him, his
brother’s experience, the reported widespread use of torture in Uzbekistan and the fact that
he had reached his majority, would increase the risk of him being subjected to torture.
Furthermore, he would be arrested immediately upon arrival in Uzbekistan in the light of
the decision of 23 February 2011 to have him detained.
3.2
The author further emphasizes the limited scope, and hence ineffectiveness, of ruling
No. 11 of the plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 14 June 2012,
according to which submitting an appeal against a decision to deny refugee status should
have a suspensive effect on extradition. He claims that the ruling is binding only for the
courts of general jurisdiction while extradition is implemented by the Office of the
Prosecutor General and the Federal Penitentiary Service. He maintains that extradition may
be postponed while his refugee status is determined only if a request for interim measures
of protection is issued by the Committee.
3.3
In his submission of 19 August 2012, the author also claims a violation of article 9
of the Covenant, as he was continuously detained between his arrest on 5 November 2011
and his extradition on 1 October 2012, despite the failure of Uzbekistan to file an
extradition request within one month of his detention, as provided for under article 62 (1) of
the Minsk Convention.
State party’s observations
4.1
By note verbale of 19 December 2013, the State party submitted its observations on
the merits of the communication. It refutes the author’s allegations as unsubstantiated. It
notes that, pursuant to article 464 (1) (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the extradition
is precluded if the person, in respect of whom an extradition request was received from a
3