European Court of Human Rights

Communicated on 29 July 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no 34387/16
M.M.

against Russia
lodged on 16 June 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an ethnic Uzbek, a Kyrgyzstani national.

On unspecified date in 2011 he arrived to Russia from Kyrgyzstan.

In July 2011 the applicant was charged in absentia with participation in an extremist religious group and attempting to overthrow the State’s constitutional order, as well as with storage of prohibited religious publications in Kyrgyzstan.

In October 2015 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody in Russia under the search warrant issued by Kyrgyzstani authorities.

In November 2015 Kyrgyzstani authorities requested the applicant’s extradition. The extradition request was allowed in March 2016.

The applicant was also found guilty of breach of rules on entry and stay of foreign nationals in Russia and his administrative removal was ordered by a final court decision rendered in June 2016.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his removal to Kyrgyzstan would lead to his ill-treatment.

QUESTIONS

1.  Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in case of his removal to Kyrgyzstan?

2.  Do ethnic Uzbeks charged with crimes which are not directly related to mass disorders and interethnic clashes in Osh and the Jalal-Abad Region in June 2010 face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in case of removal to Kyrgyzstan (see, by way of comparison, R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, 26 January 2016; Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, 1 December 2015; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, 17 July 2014; Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, 16 October 2012)?

3.  In the domestic proceedings, did the competent national authorities assess adequately the applicant’s claim that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to Kyrgyzstan?

4.  Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective administrative or judicial domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Did this remedy in principle and in the applicant’s case afford for the due consideration of these complaints? Did it provide for an automatic suspensive effect in respect of the applicant’s transfer to Kyrgyzstan?