CAT/C/47/D/428/2010
1.3
On 4 January 2011, the Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures acting
on behalf of the Committee decided that the admissibility should be examined together with
the merits. Pursuant to rule 115 (former rule 109), paragraph 9, of the Committee’s rules of
procedure, the State party was requested to give details of the effective remedies available
to the alleged victim in the particular circumstances of the case and in accordance with the
provisions of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention.
1.4
On 15 May 2011, counsel informed the Committee that the complainant had been
extradited to the Russian Federation on 14 May 2011. On 11 June 2011, the State party
confirmed the complainant’s extradition to the Russian Federation.
The facts as presented by the complainant
2.1
In 2002, the complainant opened his own company and worked as a financial
advisor and analyst in Yekaterinburg, the Russian Federation. In 2003, due to a significant
increase in transactions and clients, the complainant associated himself with three wellknown businessmen of the region, Alexander Habarov, Alexander Varaksin (both members
of the Duma) and Andrei Shatov. From 2003 to 2005, the complainant collaborated
professionally with a local bank “Bank24.Ru” and his financial advice and management
significantly increased the banks financial capacity and ranking among regional banks. In
exchange for his services, the complainant was entitled to a “stock option” on 20 per cent of
the share capital if specific results were met. As of 2004, the complainant noticed that the
bank’s economic growth had attracted the interest of local organized crime. A local
organized crime group, in complicity with two members of the bank’s board of directors, a
body the complainant was not part of, managed to gain control over several local
companies, including some which belonged to the complainant’s partners. Such
acquisitions were performed according to the traditional pattern employed by the organized
crime group, notably, small shareholders were compelled to transfer their shares to
companies under the control of the organized crime group until the latter had enough
financial power to gain control of the target company. Having become aware of such
criminal conduct, the complainant informed his partners thereof. The complainant’s
partners reported the facts to the authorities; however their complaints were either
dismissed or never investigated. In December 2004, the complainant’s partner, Mr.
Habarov, was arrested on charges which turned out to be ill-founded. He allegedly
committed suicide in prison.
2.2
In January 2005, the complainant moved to St. Petersburg, fearing that he could be
in serious danger if his relationship to his three dormant partners would become known to
the organized crime group. In St. Petersburg, the complainant founded a trading school and
a charity. He maintained contacts with the bank because he had to exercise control over the
fulfilment of the stock option agreement. In April 2006, the complainant returned to
Yekaterinburg, with the intention to further investigate the financial transactions of the
bank, and discovered that the bank had gained control over Global Gamin Expo, a company
of small and medium investors, for the purpose of collecting the cash flow needed to fund
the unlawful operations of acquisition carried out by the local organized crime group. The
complainant tried to slowly reduce the investment flow of the bank to prevent cash from
flowing into criminal activities; however those officers from the bank involved with the
organized crime group continued their activities by diverting funds from small and medium
investors. The complainant informed his partner, Mr. Varaskin, who decided to report the
facts to the judiciary and to make clear his real relationship with the complainant. After a
few weeks, the complainant received a warning from a high-ranking officer in the bank,
who told him that the organized crime group planned to kill him and his partner, Mr.
Varaskin. The complainant decided to report the facts to the judicial authorities in
Yekaterinburg and set up a website containing a description of the facts and documents.
3