ECtHR releases decision in Rustamov v. Russia (no. 11209/10) [Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 4, Article 8 and Article 13]

The applicant, Sobir Rustamov, is an Uzbekistani national who was born in 1966 and lived in Uzbekistan until 2005. He has been living in Russia with his wife and three minor children since 2007. On a wanted list in Uzbekistan for attempting to overthrow the constitutional order, he was arrested in February 2010 in Moscow. At the Uzbek authorities’ request, the Russian courts subsequently authorised his detention pending extradition, finding that the Russian Prosecutor General’s decision to extradite him had been lawful. He was released from detention in August 2011, the court noting that he had a case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that his extradition to Uzbekistan would expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment against which he had no means to effectively complain, as well as that his detention pending extradition was unlawful and his removal from Russia would breach respect for his family life.

The Court found:

-Violation of Article 3
Having regard its considerations in paragraphs 104-121, and in particular to the lack of thorough and balanced examination of the general human rights situation in Uzbekistan, the unqualified reliance on the assurances provided by the Uzbek authorities and the failure to give meaningful consideration to the applicant’s personal circumstances, the Court found that the authorities did not carry out a “proper assessment” of the risk of the applicant being subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment if he were extradited to Uzbekistan. [paragraph 121]
-No violation of Articles 5 § 1 and 4.
-Heldthat it is not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 8.
-Heldthat there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3.
-Considered that the indication made to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court must remain in force until the judgment becomes final.

For further information please visit: ECtHR:Rustamov v. Russia (no.11209/10)

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.