ECtHR decision in Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, Application No. 31890/11 [Articles 3, 5, 34 and 38], 3 October 2013

The applicant, a former Tajik politician and businessman allegedly experienced state interferences with his business and survived an assassination attempt. He fled to Russia in 2010, where he was detained for the purpose of extradition to Tajikistan on charges of misappropriation, embezzlement and money laundering. The applicant originally complained to the ECtHR that his extradition to Tajikistan would put him at risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3, and obtained a Rule 39 Interim Measure halting his extradition. The Russian authorities allege that the applicant was then released from detention, went to Tajikistan voluntarily to surrender to custody, and was arrested by the Tajik authorities. Russia relies on a broadcast made by the applicant that was aired on Tajik television. Before the ECtHR, the applicant  contended, on top of his original complaint, that the Russian authorities forcibly transferred him to Tajikistan. In addition, the applicant claimed that the delays in examining his appeals against detention constitute a violation of Article 5(4) (right to have lawfulness of detention speedily decided by a court).

The Court ruled that the Russian Government's version of events was not credible for several reasons, including the fact that the applicant was under the total control of the Tajik authorities when he made the broadcasted statement. The applicant’s personal circumstances, coupled with the general situation in Tajikistan, were sufficient to infer that the risk of ill-treatment faced by him in Tajikistan was real and not capable of exclusion by the diplomatic assurances of the Tajik authorities.  Consequently, his forcible return to Tajikistan exposed him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. Furthermore, the Court attributed responsibility to the Russian authorities for the forced repatriation, which constitutes additional violations of both Article 3 and Article 34 (for the breach of the interim measure). The Court also ruled that the Russian Federation’s failure to provide it with the relevant information and documents amounted to a disregard for its duty to cooperate with the Court under Article 38. Regarding detention, the Court determined that the 23 day delay in hearing the applicant's appeal against his detention constituted a violation of the speediness requirement in Article 5(4). The Court awarded the applicant 30,000 Euros in non-pecuriary damages and 13,900 Euros in costs and expenses.

Read the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

This item was reproduced with the permission of ECRE from the weekly ELENA legal update supported by the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Funding Programme and distributed by email. The purpose of these updates is to inform asylum lawyers and legal organizations supporting asylum seekers and refugees of recent developments in the field of asylum law. Please note that the information provided is taken from publicly available information on the internet. Every reasonable effort is made to make the content accurate and up to date at the time each item is published but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by ECRE, the IRC or its partners.