TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): There was no risk of refoulement before they found out that they were internationally wanted persons.
AP2 (Applicant): And only after their arrest, when they found out that there was a risk of refoulement, when they fully realized that they were charged and the underlying reason of these charges, they applied for refugee status.
AP2 (Applicant): And I would like to bring the attention of the court to the fact that the Russian law on refugees does not oblige to apply to refugee status immediately after crossing the border.
AP2 (Applicant): Those people who stay in Russia legally, only those who cross the border illegally must apply immediately.
AP2 (Applicant): But those who stay legally, there is no such obligation for that.
AP2 (Applicant): Next, about the ethnic motives.
AP2 (Applicant): No, I'm sorry. Just one moment.
AP2 (Applicant): Yeah. About the fabrication of the charges against the applicant, especially in respect to the second applicant.
AP2 (Applicant): They are clear indicators of the fabrication of the charges.
AP2 (Applicant): First, the applicants cross the border without any problems.
AP2 (Applicant): The second applicant crossed the Russian and the Russian border and other borders from 2011 to 2014.
AP2 (Applicant): It is stated in our submissions in the government submissions.
AP2 (Applicant): But the criminal case against him was allegedly initiated in 2012, two years before he stopped his travels.
AP2 (Applicant): So if he had really been charged, if he had been an internationally wanted person, he couldn't just freely move and cross the borders.
AP2 (Applicant): It may lead to the conclusion that it was just backdated, that in fact the criminal charges were initiated later, not in 2012.
AP2 (Applicant): So it's one of the indicators of the fabrication of the whole case.
AP2 (Applicant): And another factor is that there are a lot of other people of Uzbek ethnicity who were also charged with absolutely identical charges, not just analogous, but absolutely identical, word by word.
AP2 (Applicant): But they are not mentioned in the applicant's criminal documents.
AP2 (Applicant): But in their documents, they are mentioned only and the applicant is not mentioned.
AP2 (Applicant): So there is one case with identical charges who are just used to charge this or that person.
AP2 (Applicant): And there is allegedly no connection between them, but they are all known for the Kyrgyz authorities.
AP2 (Applicant): So if it was a normal criminal procedure, they would be all mentioned in the criminal documents as accomplices.
AP2 (Applicant): But what do the Kyrgyzstani authorities do?
AP2 (Applicant): They just change the name, change the name and the charges remain the same.
AP2 (Applicant): It is very, very strange.
AP2 (Applicant): And we have in detail described it in our written submissions.
AP2 (Applicant): And I would also like to bring the attention of other, to the situations of other people of ethnic origin.
AP2 (Applicant): What happened to them when they were extradition requests from Kyrgyzstan to have them back?
AP2 (Applicant): What happened to them?
AP2 (Applicant): Most of these people, they are also charged with identical crimes.
AP2 (Applicant): And most of them, they are in Russia legally staying and having temporary asylum.
AP2 (Applicant): In most cases, the Russian courts, without even any interference from the European court in the recent years, the Russian court have themselves annulled the extradition requests, the extradition orders to Kyrgyzstan, expressly referring to the risk of ill treatment.
AP2 (Applicant): For example, in the cases of Mr. Hassan Bayev, also the alleged accomplice of the applicant,
AP2 (Applicant): Mr. Sarimshakov, Mr. Talibayev, annulled, extradition orders annulled here.
AP2 (Applicant): And the general prosecutor's office also denied extradition itself in some cases.
AP2 (Applicant): For example, in the case of Mr. Akbarov, also an ethnic Uzbek, charged with absolutely identical crimes.
AP2 (Applicant): They were all granted asylum in Russia.
AP2 (Applicant): So that is one of the explanations why the statistics of the government concerning the extradited persons to Kyrgyzstan is not very representative.
AP2 (Applicant): Just three or eight cases of monitoring, because they are not extradited usually due to the risk of ill treatment.
AP2 (Applicant): Our case is just some unfortunate example where the applicants were just not lucky.
AP2 (Applicant): And is more an exclusion from the general practice of the Russian courts and migration authorities.
AP2 (Applicant): I would also like to answer the, to say a few words in respect to the question of the Honorable Judge Sabat concerning the binding effect and on which provision does the binding effect is based relating to the diplomatic monitoring mechanism.
AP2 (Applicant): Is there any provision in the means convention or not?
AP2 (Applicant): No, there are no provisions in the means convention concerning such diplomatic assurances at all, let alone their binding effect.
AP2 (Applicant): And we would also like to underline that we don't understand the value of such assurances at all.
AP2 (Applicant): Because what source of international law gives them a binding effect?
AP2 (Applicant): There is no treaty, as we know, there is no international custom or something.
AP2 (Applicant): What are these assurances?
AP2 (Applicant): Just some unilateral voluntary acts.
AP2 (Applicant): We don't understand how they can be enforced as our learned colleague from the government emphasized.
AP2 (Applicant): What is that?
AP2 (Applicant): But there are already treaties, there are already international customs that bind Kyrgyzstan and that obliged Kyrgyzstan not to torture people.
AP2 (Applicant): It is already guaranteed by other, by the international law.
AP2 (Applicant): So what is the value of some additional guarantees of some unclear legal nature to again emphasize that we will not torture people?
AP2 (Applicant): Maybe it doesn't give any more trustworthiness to such assurances, maybe even more doubts.
AP2 (Applicant): There are already international treaties, why again guaranteeing that we will not torture people?
AP2 (Applicant): But the potential value of the assurances may be found only in the diplomatic monitoring mechanism.
AP2 (Applicant): But the diplomatic monitoring mechanism is very weakly developed.
AP2 (Applicant): And we have already elaborated on this issue in detail in our submissions and in our today's speech.
AP2 (Applicant): The government surprisingly stated that the visits are always confidential.
AP2 (Applicant): But this is refuted by the letter of the Russian Ministry of the Interior.
AP2 (Applicant): I'm sorry, Russian Ministry for the Internal, for Foreign Affairs of 2020.
AP2 (Applicant): They expressly state that not all visits were confidential.
AP2 (Applicant): There were problems with that.
AP2 (Applicant): Next, I'd like to say just a few words about the vulnerability of ethnic Uzbeks.
AP2 (Applicant): Is vulnerability more concerned with the criminal charges or with the ethnic ethnicity itself?
AP2 (Applicant): Well, the conflict between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks have a very long history.
AP2 (Applicant): And these roots are deeply in the history.
AP2 (Applicant): This is not the first conflict in 2010.
AP2 (Applicant): There is high tension between those nationalities.
AP2 (Applicant): And after the conflict, just one of the conflict of 2010, it was just one of the forms of oppression of ethnic Uzbeks to criminally prosecute them with participation in the conflict.
AP2 (Applicant): But there were other forms of oppression not related to the conflict itself, but to a long history of tension.
AP2 (Applicant): The conflict was just one of the starting points and one of the way to oppress them.
AP2 (Applicant): Other criminal charges like charges of misappropriation are also a way of persecuting one of our applicants because of his ethnicity.
AP2 (Applicant): So I suppose that's all I wanted to say.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr Galperin, you have the floor.
GR1 (Government): Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President, judges.
GR1 (Government): Thank you for your questions, which gives us opportunity to clarify our position.
GR1 (Government): First, I would just to mention several things which my learned opponents have mentioned.
GR1 (Government): First, about some repetitive cases of the prosecution, criminal prosecution, I would say that in the Rahmanov case, it was a group crime.
GR1 (Government): So it was several persons which were involved.
GR1 (Government): That is why the factual grounds for that could be the same, because that's a group crime and a group murder and a destroyment of the assets.
GR1 (Government): Also, my opponent answering the honorable judge's question mentioned that it's not all cases when the Uzbeks extradited from Russia to Kyrgyzstan.
GR1 (Government): In a lot of cases, there is a refusal to do that, which really means that there is a differentiated practice which is based on the European Court of Human Rights practice and human rights considerations, which are accurately considered in each case.
GR1 (Government): And I would say that in these two cases here, they are not just surprising or it's made by case, because both cases went through the Russian Supreme Court.
GR1 (Government): And Russian Supreme Court in both cases have confirmed that there is the grounds for extradition or there is no grounds not to extradite.
GR1 (Government): Also, I would object on the proposal of the opponent saying that Uzbek-Kyrgyz conflict was just started in 2010 and now it's continuing.
GR1 (Government): There is no evidence of that.
GR1 (Government): And also, we see in international organization reports that there could be discrimination of Uzbeks, but it's not.
GR1 (Government): It goes to some political sphere, but there is no anything which is connected with the criminal convictions, illegal criminal convictions, and ill-treatment in prisons, especially on ethnic origin.
GR1 (Government): Now, I would like to respectfully answer on the questions.
GR1 (Government): And as we understood from the judges' questions that maybe we should tell a little bit about just the scale of the problem.
GR1 (Government): So how many people extradited?
GR1 (Government): And I would say that it's not thousands.
GR1 (Government): It's just 12 extradited, non-ethnic original extradited from Russia to Kyrgyzstan and now in detention in Kyrgyzstan.
GR1 (Government): Only 12 people which extradited from Russia.
GR1 (Government): Each of them, for sure, is under special control of Russian embassy.
GR1 (Government): And also, in his speech, my opponent mentioned about the Askarov case as showing the discrimination and ill-treatment of Uzbeks.
GR1 (Government): But Askarov has never been extradited from Russia to Kyrgyzstan.
GR1 (Government): He lived in Kyrgyzstan, so it's not really have any connection with this case and the problem we are discussing.
GR1 (Government): About and answering on the question of Judge Shabat, about what are the judges about the legal framework.
GR1 (Government): And I would say this Article 66 of the Minsk Convention would provide for the limitation of the criminal prosecution of people extradited.
GR1 (Government): And which is also more important in Article 3 of UN Convention against Torture.
GR1 (Government): And I would say that Article 3 is also referred in the decisions of the Russian courts, including the Russian court's decision on these two cases, which is in the case file, which also refer on Article 3 of UN Convention against Torture, which provides for the different measures which the country should make to make sure that extradited people should not be ill-treated.
GR1 (Government): And for sure, as I mentioned, it is the well-established principle of reciprocity international law.
GR1 (Government): And for sure, as I mentioned in my speech, it is European Convention of Human Rights.
GR1 (Government): And this court practice, which really developed and forced us to develop this practice and have legal grounds in European Court of Human Rights practice.
GR1 (Government): Regarding the questions of Judge Yudkivsky about the changing of this mechanism's development, I would say that's 2017.
GR1 (Government): It was the year when these detailed methodological instructions were issued and developed.
GR1 (Government): And also, they are obligatory for all Russian embassies in the respective countries.
GR1 (Government): And they were sent to them, so it's development there.
GR1 (Government): Also, I would just inform that last year in 2020, it was a new agreement between the Department of Consulate of Kyrgyzstan and General Prosecution Office of Kyrgyzstan and Russian authorities about making the move fast over them, receiving and receiving the access of the diplomatic authorities to the detainees.
GR1 (Government): So it's in the development.
GR1 (Government): Also, as it was mentioned in the question of Judge Yudkivsky about that we were rejected in several times, and I think it also was mentioned by the applicants councils about rejection about the access of diplomatic staff to meet these detainees.
GR1 (Government): That was not true.
GR1 (Government): So we were never rejected for that.
GR1 (Government): However, the procedure is long.
GR1 (Government): The procedure could be long because it considers Minister of Foreign Affairs and General Prosecutor Office, but there was no any rejection.
GR1 (Government): We have always success if Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs ask for that.
GR1 (Government): And as I said, we are now working with Kyrgyz authorities.
GR1 (Government): And there are now any practical step to make this process faster to receive the access.
GR1 (Government): Also, as I said about the confidentiality of meetings, and it was mentioned in the question, that's for sure that's really that we work on to be as confidential.
GR1 (Government): However, for sure in several occasions, that couldn't be ensured because of reconstruction, really the construction of these buildings, of old buildings of prisons in Kyrgyzstan.
GR1 (Government): So for sure, it could be not.
GR1 (Government): It could in some occasions could not be 100% confidential.
GR1 (Government): However, as we understand, in most cases, that really the conversation between Russian diplomat and the detainees in Russian, which is not the case, that's all these people know Russian, I mean the administration of the prison authorities.
GR1 (Government): So in most cases, the confidentiality is secure.
GR1 (Government): Also, I would say, and I would like to respectfully answer the Judge Hussainov question about the prosecution and really connection between the OSH events and that prosecution.
GR1 (Government): I would like, and we have this information from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and General Prosecution Office of Kyrgyzstan, that not only Uzbeks for sure, that the people of other nationalities, including mostly the Kyrgyz nationals were prosecuted for these events.
GR1 (Government): So it was not really focused, this prosecution was only focused on Uzbek authorities, which mostly Uzbek nationalities, which mostly live in this region, in OSH region.
GR1 (Government): So it's Kyrgyz, and we have real cases of Kyrgyz nationals to be prosecuted for their murders and other crimes in that field.
GR1 (Government): Also, I would like to answer the first question of the Judge Saibit-Fur, who kindly also addressed it to the government, not only to applicant, regarding really how courts has developed and examined how they examined these cases.
GR1 (Government): And I would say that if you will see the decision of 2015 of Belgorod District Court on the applicant's case, it is a several pages decision which also referring and examining manifest that the practice of amnesty international, and there was a referral at the court to that, Human Rights Watch and UN Committee Against Torture.
GR1 (Government): So there's all these referrals in the decision of Russian courts, they examined the situation in complex, including their human rights consideration.
GR1 (Government): And I once again, thank you for your attention and this hearing, thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Do any of the judges want to follow up with any of the questions posed?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I do not see so.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): We have now come to the end of the hearing.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I want to thank the parties both for their cooperation in the organization of the hearing due to the crisis.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The judgment will be delivered at a later date, and the court will inform the parties accordingly of the delivery.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): S'il vous plaît.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Je déclare ouverte l'audience publique sur le front de l'affaire Dubská et Krejzová contre la République tchèque.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Les affaires ont été introduites devant la Cour le 4 mai 2011, le 7 mai 2012, respectivement, par deux ressortissantes tchèques, Mme Šárka Dubská et Mme Alexandra Krejzová, en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Elles ont été attribuées à la 5e section de la Cour, conformément à l'article 52, paragraphe 1 du règlement de la Cour.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Le 11 décembre 2014, une chambre de la 5e section a rendu un arrêt sur la recevabilité et le fonds de l'affaire, concluant notamment à la non-violation de l'article 8 de la Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Le 10 mars 2015, les requérants ont demandé le renvoi de l'affaire devant la Grande Chambre, conformément à l'article 43 de la Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Cette demande a été acceptée par le Collège de la Grande Chambre le 1er juin 2015.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Le 15 juillet et 17 septembre 2015, les gouvernements croates et slovaks, le Collège Royal des Sages-Femmes, le groupe international d'études de l'Association mondiale de la médecine périnatale, l'Union des Sages-Femmes et le défenseur public des droits, Mme Anna Shabatova, ont été autorisés, en vertu de l'article 44, paragraphe 3 du règlement, à soumettre des observations écrites comme tierce partie.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Le gouvernement défendeur est représenté par son agent, M. Vít Alexander Schorm, assisté de M. Petr Velebil,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): chef du centre périnatal de l'Institut du soin pour la mère et l'enfant, et conseiller scientifique de la Société tchèque de gynécologie et d'obstétrique, de M. Ota Hlinomaz et Mme Jana Martinková,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): du bureau de l'agent du gouvernement, de Mme Denisa Kopková et Irena Köhlerová, conseillères au ministère de la Santé, et de M. Jaroslav Feyereisl,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): chef de l'Institut du soin pour la mère et l'enfant et président de la Société tchèque de gynécologie et d'obstétrique.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): La première, requérante, Mme Dubská, est représentée par M. Zuzana Candigliota,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): avocate à Brno, assistée de Mme Patricia Janssen, conseillère, professeure à l'Université de la Colombie-Britannique, et de Mme Stanislava Sládeková,, conseillère.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): La seconde, requérante, Mme Krejzová, est représentée par M. Richard Hořejší, avocat à Prague,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): assisté de Mme Adéla Hořejší, juriste, et de Mme Marketa Pavlikova, conseillère.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): La récurrente est également présente.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Je salue également les juges et procureurs du réseau européen de formation judiciaire, ainsi que les magistrats stagiaires à la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, présents dans la salle.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Ayant consulté l'agent du gouvernement et les représentants des récurrentes, j'ai fixé ainsi l'ordre des paroles.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Nous entendrons successivement M. Candigliota
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): pour la première requérante, puis M. Hořejší pour la seconde récurrente,
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): et enfin M. Schorm et M. Velebil pour le gouvernement.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Je dois expliquer qu'en sus de l'interprétation dans les deux langues officielles de la Cour, l'anglais et le français, l'interprétation en géorgien a été autorisée à profit d'un groupe de visiteurs de la haute école georgienne de droit qui assistent à cette audience.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): La parole est à M. Candigliota.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. President, honorable members of the court,
AP3 (Applicant): ladies and gentlemen, I'm honored to present my statement on this case that greatly influences women's right to make a free and informed choice in such an intimate field as childbirth.
AP3 (Applicant): To start with, I would like to clarify that the heart of the matter is whether women can arrange at their own costs the service of a qualified and registered midwife that would assist with their planned home birth and increase their own as well as their baby's safety during the birth.
AP3 (Applicant): Or on the contrary, whether the state can deter healthcare workers from providing this care by a threat of penalty under the false pretext of women and children's protection and put them at the risk of non-assisted birth.
AP3 (Applicant): Now I would like to highlight also with regard to the court's questions the following three fields.
AP3 (Applicant): First, the safety of home birth.
AP3 (Applicant): Second, women's motivation for home birth.
AP3 (Applicant): And third, international obligations of the state.
AP3 (Applicant): As far as the safety of home birth is concerned, this issue has been scientifically clarified.
AP3 (Applicant): The leading international professional authorities such as the World Health Organization, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and the International Confederation of Midwives consider midwife-assisted home birth a safe option that should be available to women.
AP3 (Applicant): The Czech government has no documentation supporting its statement that home births are not safe.
AP3 (Applicant): The government has not made a single analysis.
AP3 (Applicant): There are no statistics of planned home birth in the Czech Republic.
AP3 (Applicant): The government has no idea about various types of health care.
AP3 (Applicant): As for women's motivation for home births, their motivation can be negative, to avoid poor conditions in hospitals, as well as positive.
AP3 (Applicant): Women believe that home is the best place to give birth to their children.
AP3 (Applicant): Mrs. Dubska's choice was influenced
AP3 (Applicant): by her bad experience in a maternity hospital.
AP3 (Applicant): However, Mrs. Krejzova wanted to give birth at home
AP3 (Applicant): from the very beginning, without any negative experience from a maternity hospital.
AP3 (Applicant): Czech private surveys focusing on women's motivation for home birth show that only for a minority of women, the main motive is the effort to avoid traumatizing experience during hospital birth.
AP3 (Applicant): For the vast majority of women, home is the best place to give birth, regardless of hospital conditions.
AP3 (Applicant): Therefore, it needs to be stressed that a certain part of women will always give birth at home, regardless of the national policy, the type of hospital care, or other hypothetical possibilities, such as midwife-led birth centers.
AP3 (Applicant): The denial of health care during home birth has no legitimate aim, as it does not force all women considering home birth to go to the hospital.
AP3 (Applicant): It only makes home birth risky for both women and children.
AP3 (Applicant): In the end, Mrs. Dubska gave birth at home,
AP3 (Applicant): even without the assistance of a health care professional.
AP3 (Applicant): In what way did the national restrictive policy protect the health of Mrs. Dubska and her child
AP3 (Applicant): in their specific case?
AP3 (Applicant): In fact, the state punished her by denying care for her refusal of institutionalized birth.
AP3 (Applicant): Mrs. Krajzova, on the other hand,
AP3 (Applicant): had to give birth in the hospital against her will, as she didn't want to give birth without health care.
AP3 (Applicant): However, the state forced her into circumstances where she and her son became the victims of several harmful practices.