TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): We cannot rely also on the mere fact and the mere risk of possibility of torture and ill-treatment to prevent extradition between countries, especially when there are international legal obligations and mechanism mitigating such risk as in this case.
GR1 (Government): Now, I would turn with the permission of the court to the analysis of the individual circumstances of the applicants, also answering on my opponents' counsel's allegations.
GR1 (Government): According to these courts' case law, the mere belongings of the applicants to the vulnerable minority group due to their ethnicity is not in itself indicative that the applicants run a risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan.
GR1 (Government): Another important issue is the nature of the charges brought against the extradited persons, and I'm not sure that my opponents have spent enough time to describe that.
GR1 (Government): General criminal nature of the charges related to violent and economic crimes normally does not lead to the conclusion that the extradited persons face a risk of ill-treatment in the request-making state as opposite to religious or political charges, which is not the case here.
GR1 (Government): In light of applicable case law, Mr. Khasanov and Mr. Rahmanov
GR1 (Government): cannot be considered as being exposed to ill-treatment in the event of their extradition to Kyrgyzstan merely because they belong to a vulnerable minority group or due to the charges brought against them.
GR1 (Government): Mr. Khasanov did allege on several occasions that criminal proceedings
GR1 (Government): against him were ethnically biased.
GR1 (Government): However, the national authorities held that these claims were unfounded due to the following.
GR1 (Government): Firstly, the information provided by the applicant to the Russian authorities on his alleged participation in inter-ethnic clashes in 2010 was controversial.
GR1 (Government): The applicant failed to describe the extent of his participation and made only general submissions about the situation in the region and that time, and that information did not contain any specific facts demonstrating his active involvement in the events or showing that Kyrgyz authorities prosecute the applicant on respective grounds.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, during the refugee-seeking procedure, the applicant initially confirmed that before he left Kyrgyzstan, he had been interrogated as a witness in the criminal case initiated in relation to his business activities.
GR1 (Government): And the nature of the charges, there had been no issue of political or ethnic persecution as such, since they were of purely economic nature.
GR1 (Government): The only reason advanced by the applicant, which allegedly ties his criminal prosecution in Kyrgyzstan to the inter-ethnic tension in 2010, was that it was initiated, as he said, in the wake of the clashes.
GR1 (Government): This, however, does not demonstrate either the ethnical bias of the prosecution or its relation to these specific political events.
GR1 (Government): As for the facts of extortion of the applicant's property, they seem to be triggered by his financial situation and professional activities rather than his ethnicity, and the applicant failed to prove that the people involved in the extortion were acting on behalf or with knowledge of the state officials.
GR1 (Government): Finally, the applicant and his relatives had never been subjected in Kyrgyzstan to any form of cruel or derogating treatment of any ground, and we have no evidence of the contrary today.
GR1 (Government): As for Mr. Rahmanov, the following facts of his case were taken into
GR1 (Government): account at the domestic level in Russia during the assessment of the risks of ill treatment he could possibly face in Kyrgyzstan.
GR1 (Government): First, the applicant indicated that he left Kyrgyzstan in the early 2011 in order to work in Russia.
GR1 (Government): Consequently, it was the employment issues rather than the fear of prosecution that forced the applicant to move from Kyrgyzstan to Russia.
GR1 (Government): Second, during 2011, the applicant humorously entered Russian Federation for working purposes. During the period from 2011 to 2014,
GR1 (Government): the applicant returned to Kyrgyzstan at least on two occasions.
GR1 (Government): He had no obstacles whatsoever in entering and leaving Kyrgyzstan both times freely.
GR1 (Government): Meanwhile, Mr. Rahmanov's family, including his wife, his children,
GR1 (Government): his grandchildren, had been residing in Kyrgyzstan, and according to the applicant, did not experience any form of discrimination or mistreatment by the authorities due to their ethnicity.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, during the whole period of his presence in Russia, the applicant had never applied for refugee status in the country.
GR1 (Government): Finally, according to the applicant's submissions, he has not participated in inter-ethnic clashes in 2010 and has never been prosecuted on political grounds.
GR1 (Government): He is not a social activist or a participant to any political or religious movement either.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, neither the personal circumstances of the applicant's case nor the nature of their charges prove the existence of a particular risk of ill-treatment on ethnic grounds.
GR1 (Government): Now, I would turn to the assessment of the quality and reliability of the legal assurances given by the Kyrgyzstan authorities and the complementing monitoring mechanism ensuring the effective application, as I have promised in the beginning of my presentation.
GR1 (Government): And first, I would respectfully submit that the legal assurances given in the applicant's respect meet all requirements of this court case law.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, special attention should be paid to the following features.
GR1 (Government): First, the assurances given by the Kyrgyzstan authorities in the present case were not just diplomatic assurances, but rather confirmation of the firm legal obligations and the various legal instruments in the sphere of human rights protection.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, the assurances were provided by the Kyrgyz prosecutor general office, which is authorized to supervise law enforcement in the country.
GR1 (Government): In other words, these assurances are legal in nature, and they are not only formally abiding on the Kyrgyzstan authorities, but also practically enforceable.
GR1 (Government): Then the assurances are supplemented by additional guarantees, allowing Russian diplomatic staff to carry out monitoring visits to the places of an applicant's detention after they are transferred to Kyrgyzstan.
GR1 (Government): Under these guarantees, Russian embassy in Kyrgyzstan monitors regularly the situation with the persons transferred to Kyrgyzstan for the purpose of criminal prosecution, including minorities, and the manner in which the rights of such persons are protected.
GR1 (Government): And I would like to mention that the special monitoring mechanism is a special mechanism.
GR1 (Government): It could not work to protect all Kyrgyzstan population, including minorities, from ill treatment.
GR1 (Government): It is specially designed to protect people extradited from Russia to Kyrgyzstan and to ensure that their rights are protected.
GR1 (Government): In carrying out this mission, Russian embassy in Kyrgyzstan and its diplomatic staff are being governed by so-called methodological instructions, which was mentioned by my learned opponents.
GR1 (Government): And these detailed instructions have been prepared by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, as it was mentioned, with cooperation of Russian Prosecutor General Office.
GR1 (Government): And they established a legal framework for performing monitoring visits of the Russian diplomatic staff to penal institutions in Kyrgyzstan, where the persons extradited from Russia are detained, awaiting criminal trial or serving criminal sentences.
GR1 (Government): These instructions are supplemented by compilation of this court practice on the prohibition of ill treatment.
GR1 (Government): And these materials have been regularly and officially conveyed to the Russian diplomatic staff involved in the monitoring mission, and the last occasion being in November 2020.
GR1 (Government): Diplomatic visits always involve private conversations with the detainees, performed in accessible language or with the assistance of the interpreter.
GR1 (Government): Those conversations concern their possible mistreatment, conditions of their detention, medical assistance, or any other irregularities visited persons could possibly face.
GR1 (Government): Particular attention is paid to possible complaints filed by the visited persons to local administration and the results of the examination, and any possible obstacles in communicating with diplomatic staff, the enjoyment of the rights to visits and the legal aid.
GR1 (Government): As for the applicants' concerns of the non-binding nature of the monitoring mechanism, they are unsubstantiated.
GR1 (Government): And any suspicions on mistreatment of the visited persons or the Russian authorities are requested to resolve them through diplomatic channels.
GR1 (Government): And also such information will be taken into account in the future extradition proceedings.
GR1 (Government): And for sure, that's really the legal nature of that assurances, since they are checked during the new extradited proceedings in Russia.
GR1 (Government): And if it will work bad, and if they will not be insured, then nobody will be extradited to Kyrgyzstan under the decisions of Russian authorities.
GR1 (Government): And however, therefore, the modalities of diplomatic cooperation based on the principle of reciprocity, and that's also the legal ground on the international law, that the reciprocity additionally contribute to the parties' adherence to the assurances as requested by these courts' case law.
GR1 (Government): Besides, the respondent state could not be reasonably expected to exercise any kind of direct control over the observance by Kyrgyzstan of the given assurances and human rights law in general.
GR1 (Government): This would be contrary to the basic principles of international law prohibiting interference in sovereign states' affairs, and only monitoring is possible, and it follows from the Baffet that this has been effectively conducted by the Russian government.
GR1 (Government): Monitoring missions show that in the majority of cases, the prisoners were satisfied with their treatment by the Kyrgyz authorities.
GR1 (Government): And only on one occasion after the visit to the temporary detention facility number 5 in the city of Osh in 2015, the mission has recommended improving the provision of detainee mister imaminov with necessary medications.
GR1 (Government): Detainees themselves consider this monitoring mechanism as an effective remedy capable of protecting their rights.
GR1 (Government): Thus, there are several examples of cases where a Kyrgyz national extradited from Russia to Kyrgyzstan, applied to the Russian authorities, applied to the Russian embassy, and the Russian embassy have received, really received these applications, and where they asked and requested their visit under the diplomatic monitoring mechanism.
GR1 (Government): Therefore, the monitoring mechanism provides an effective avenue for ensuring the compliance of the requesting state with the assurances.
GR1 (Government): As for the third party's assertion that the monitoring would only be effective if conducted by an independent human rights protection organization, and my learned opponents also have mentioned that today, it doesn't follow from the court's case law, really.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, the effectiveness of the state diplomatic monitoring mission could not in principle be made conditional on the assistance of some non-governmental organization, especially those registered in another state, and which state, again, is not a member state of the Council of Europe, and where these courts' power and is not belong to.
GR1 (Government): In any case, the applicants fail to indicate in what way the existing mechanism of visit is deficient in the absence of such assistance of non-governmental organization in Kyrgyzstan.
GR1 (Government): The same goes to the allegation that the visiting officials need special psychological and other relevant training.
GR1 (Government): I would say that our diplomats are properly trained and instructed.
GR1 (Government): These additional requirements also doesn't fall from this court's case law again.
GR1 (Government): For example, in the case of Mamak Tuluf and Askarov versus Turkey, which was mentioned today, the court was satisfied with the monitoring conducted via diplomatic channels by the members of the Turkish embassy.
GR1 (Government): Finally, I would like to respectfully address dissenting opinion to the Chamber's judgment in the present case, being possible reasons for its referral to the Grand Chamber after the positive for the government, the positive decision of the Chamber.
GR1 (Government): And in particular, both judges proposed that the Chamber should have examined the facts of the applicants' criminal cases to decide whether there was a violation of the applicants' rights.
GR1 (Government): And I believe that such an approach is inappropriate with all respect.
GR1 (Government): It obliged this court, the Supreme Court of Human Rights, to re-evaluate not only the findings of the Russian courts and Russian authorities, which could be contrary to the principle of subsidiarity, but also those of the Kyrgyz authorities, which falls outside the court's jurisdiction at all.
GR1 (Government): The concept of extradition is limited in international law and always limited in international law and practiced by the strict legal conditions.
GR1 (Government): They do not require the requesting state to go into deep, substantive analysis of the charges brought against the extradited person or to evaluate their validity, except for the clear and confirmed cases of prosecution with improper hidden motive, which is not in this case.
GR1 (Government): The questions raised by the applicants in these proceedings have been numerously addressed in the court's jurisprudence.
GR1 (Government): Despite these facts, the present case is different from those already resolved by this court in one important aspect.
GR1 (Government): And for the first time, the court has positively assessed the government's efforts to ensure compatibility of the extradition proceedings with the court's case law.
GR1 (Government): And I sincerely hope that the Grand Chamber will support these conclusions to give governments more willingness and desire to develop this success and to develop these legal instruments.
GR1 (Government): And we ask to uphold Chamber's judgment and dismiss all the applicants' complaints.
GR1 (Government): And I'm grateful for your attention.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Galperin.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I also confirm that both audio and video of your intervention was clear and satisfactory.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I now turn to my fellow judges of the Grand Chamber who wish to pose questions to the parties.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Anja, and then Judge Sabato.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): I would also like to thank the parties for their submissions.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): My first question is directed to the applicants' representatives and concerns the relationship between the alleged crimes and the events of June 2010.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): First of all, with respect to the misappropriation charges brought against the first applicant, is there any factual evidence in support of the allegation that they are based on ethnic bias?
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): I would think that everyone accused of this kind of crime would claim insufficient evidence, but does this prove that the charges are ethnically motivated?
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): With respect to the second applicant, I would like to hear more about the complaint that the murder and other charges were, in fact, fabricated.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): Is it enough nowadays to claim that the charges related to the inter-ethnic clashes of 2010 in order to find a real risk of ill treatment?
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): And I would like to emphasize that we are taking a current perspective, excellent perspective here.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): Now, assuming that the charges were indeed ethnically motivated, one might ask, why then did the applicants apply for a refugee status, one of the applicants, only several years after coming to Russia?
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): Moreover, I would like to know from both parties whether and why ethnic Uzbeks are at a heightened risk of ill treatment in detention in Kyrgyzstan nowadays compared to in the years after the clashes of 2010.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): I understood the applicant's representative to making this kind of claim, but I would like to have a little bit more of a clarification because so far what we've heard are allegations about the commission of torture, and this is somewhat related to the ethnic Uzbeks, but I haven't heard anything supporting this kind of allegation brought forward by the applicants.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): And then, in this respect, the question is also asked, who has to prove this kind of aspect?
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): Turning now to the government representative, I would like to ask as follows.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): Did the domestic courts sufficiently evaluate the individual risks in light of the court's jurisprudence at the relevant time, including with respect to the assurances?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Judge Sabato.
Raffaele Sabato (Judge): The court asked already within the framework of the general questions to the parties in preparation of today's hearing whether the assurances provided by the Kyrgyz authorities in respect of the applicants had legal effects, were binding and reliable, and met with all the other requirements set out in the court's case law.
Raffaele Sabato (Judge): Replying to the above concerning the binding character, the government in their observations before the grand chamber, I think this is in paragraph 68, qualified the assurances as being a sort of statement of confirmation of the obligations undertaken by Kyrgyzstan under the Minsk Convention of 1993.
Raffaele Sabato (Judge): Also other instruments are mentioned, but they are not specifically indicated.
Raffaele Sabato (Judge): The applicants, on the contrary, in general denied such binding effect.
Raffaele Sabato (Judge): My question is, can the parties, and in particular the government, clarify in which way this Minsk Convention or any other international instrument is relevant in order for the court to assess the binding effect, and especially under which specific provision?
Raffaele Sabato (Judge): Is this provision also relied upon explicitly or implicitly in the documents we have?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much indeed, Judge Yudkivska.
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): I would also like to ask the government to clarify certain issues related to the assurances.
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): In particular, to what extent the assurance mechanism has changed over the past years so that the court could come to a different assessment than in Khamarokulov versus Russia judgment of 2015?
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): More specifically, and also to amend the question put by Judge Sabato, what is the legal basis for monitoring mechanism by the diplomatic staff?
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): We just heard from the applicants that there is no solid legal basis apart from the instructions referred to.
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): Also, are visits scheduled for the early phase of detention, meaning after the transfer?
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): And finally, what about the restrictions that according to the applicants made the mechanism fragile?
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): Why is there is a need for prior authorization for the visits?
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): And we heard this morning from the applicants that there is no guarantee that such a request will be granted.
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): And why should Kyrgyz authorities be allowed to be physically present during the visits, even though they are prevented from listening to what is being said, and you have just confirmed that those visits should be private?
Ganna Yudkivska (Judge): Thank you very much.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much. I turn to Judge Hüseynov.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): I would like to follow up on the question put to my distinguished colleague, Ms. Zeibert,
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): on concerning the vulnerability of ethnic Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): So my question is addressed more to the applicants, but of course the government could also answer to this question.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): So could you give please more details concerning the practical, particular vulnerability of ethnic Uzbeks?
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): Information, more detailed information on to what extent they are persecuted and more particularly, they are subjected to ill treatment because of their ethnic origin.
Lәtif Hüseynov (Judge): And whether this real risk of being subjected to ill treatment is related to their ethnic origin or it's more related to the 2010 events.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Judge Koskelo.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): I would like to pose a factual question which either party might address concerning the situation of the second applicant.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): We learned from the applicant's submissions that both charges and extradition requests against other people have been made in connection with the same events of which the second applicant has been charged with.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): I wonder if we have any information regarding what has happened to these other persons who have been charged with and in respect of whom extradition requests have been made.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): Do we have any information what has happened in those cases?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): No other judges have asked to pose questions.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): We will now suspend the hearing for approximately 25 minutes until 11.30 local time, 1.30 Moscow time.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): So we will be back at 11.30 sharp.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Hearing is suspended.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Good morning again. The hearing is resumed.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): We now turn to the applicants' representatives for their replies to the questions of the judges and their rebuttal arguments.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr. Zharinov.
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. President, Honorable Judges, I would like to thank you for the question and I will try to answer them now.
AP2 (Applicant): As regards the first question of the Honorable Judge Zybert for concerning the relationship between crimes and the events, especially in the case of Tay-K and the factual evidence of ethnic bias.
AP2 (Applicant): Well, the criminal prosecution against the first applicant was initiated in the wake of the ethnic clashes.
AP2 (Applicant): It was initiated shortly after that.
AP2 (Applicant): The clashes were in June 2010 and the criminal prosecution was initiated in September 2010.
AP2 (Applicant): And it concerned the facts that took place a lot earlier in 2008, but only after the clashes, one of the colleagues of the applicant initiated the criminal proceedings against him.
AP2 (Applicant): And this colleague was of Kyrgyz ethnicity.
AP2 (Applicant): So he decided to initiate the criminal proceedings only after the clashes.
AP2 (Applicant): Although he knew about the events, he had known about them for two years, but initiated only after the clashes.
AP2 (Applicant): Hoping that tension, the whole ethnic bias against ethnic Uzbeks maybe will help to somehow oppress the applicant.
AP2 (Applicant): And it was possible only after the clashes to initiate such vague criminal charges.
AP2 (Applicant): Concerning the question that the applicants applied for refugee status only a few years after coming to Russia.
AP2 (Applicant): Well, the applicants resided in Russia perfectly legally.