5.  The applicant, who is an Uzbek national, was born in 1989. On an unspecified date in June 2012 he arrived in Russia from Uzbekistan.
6.  On 13 June 2013 the applicant was indicted for religious and politically motivated crimes in Uzbekistan, namely for the participation in an extremist religious organisation Islamic Movement of Turkistan. A search warrant in respect of him was issued and his pre-trial detention was ordered in absentia.
7.  On 24 November 2014 the Moscow Regional Court convicted the applicant of participating in an extremist organisation, forging official documents, and attempting an illegal crossing of the State border. He was transferred to a penal colony to serve his sentence, and his release date was set for 30 June 2016.
8.  On 13 May 2016 the applicant lodged a request for refugee status, referring to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 by the Uzbek authorities in the event of his transfer to Uzbekistan. On 27 May 2016 the migration authorities dismissed his request, referring to the fact that a crime had been committed in Russia. At the same time they informed him of the possibility to apply for temporary asylum. There is no information in the case file on whether the applicant lodged such a request or whether he appealed against the decision of 27 May 2016.
9.  On 2 October 2015, having regard to the applicant’s conviction, the Ministry of Justice declared his presence in Russia undesirable. The applicant was notified of the decision on 13 November 2015.
10.  On 16 May 2016 the migration authorities in the Arkhangelsk Region ordered the applicant’s deportation, referring to the above decision on the undesirability of his stay in Russia. The applicant lodged an objection to a higher administrative authority, without success.
11.  The applicant also challenged the decision of 16 May 2016 in court. In his submissions, he stated that he belonged to a vulnerable group and ran a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 by the Uzbek authorities and he also requested an interim measure that the removal be stayed.
12.  On 21 June 2016 by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk denied the interim measure, stating that it would “disturb the balance of public and private interests”.
13.  On 4 July 2016 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk upheld the deportation decision. The court referred to: the applicant’s conviction in Russia, negative character references from the penal colony, the charges against him in Uzbekistan, the international search warrant, the fact that the applicant had arrived in Russia in 2007 seeking employment, and the absence of any history of persecution or ill-treatment in Uzbekistan. The court dismissed references to reports on Uzbekistan as general and lacking a connection to the applicant’s situation. It concluded that the claims concerning the above risks were speculative.
14.  On 13 October 2016 the above judgment was upheld on appeal by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court.
15.  On 28 June 2016 the applicant’s request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was granted by the Court, and his removal was stayed for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The Russian Government were immediately informed about the measure. They were also informed that failure by a Contracting State to comply with a measure indicated under Rule 39 might entail a breach of Article 34 of the Convention.
16.  On 30 June 2016, the day the applicant finished serving his sentence and was released from the penal colony in the Arkhangelsk Region, he was immediately arrested by the authorities without having had the chance to contact his lawyer, who was present outside the penal colony at that time. The applicant’s representatives submit that they immediately verified with the Representative of the Russian Federation that the relevant authorities had been duly informed about the applied interim measure. The representatives also contacted the Prosecutor General’s Office, the local police and the migration authorities, informing them about the above interim measure and requesting compliance with it.
17.  On the same day the applicant was taken to Arkhangelsk Airport, and he arrived at Moscow Domodedovo Airport on the morning of 1 July 2016. Between 9.49 a.m. and 12.28 p.m. the applicant’s representative sent faxes to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Domodedovo Airport police station, informing them of the events and the fact that the interim measure had been indicated by the Court.
18.  According to the applicant’s representatives, police officers at Domodedovo Airport informed them at 12.45 p.m. that they did not know where the applicant was or which flight he would be deported on.
19.  At 1.54 p.m. on 1 July 2016 the applicant was deported to Uzbekistan.
20.  On 13 July 2016, by letter, the Domodedovo Airport police station informed the applicant’s representative of the deportation. The letter stated that the police officers had been unable to prevent it, since when “the police officers arrived at the parking position... the airplane was closed and was preparing for the take-off to the destination airport”.
21.  On 14 July 2016 the applicant’s representative asked the Investigative Committee to institute a criminal inquiry against the law‑enforcement agents who had enforced the deportation order, as well as the agents who had failed to prevent it.
22.  On 22 July and 7 October 2016 the Investigative Committee informed the applicant’s representative that the request fell outside of its competence, and it was transferred to the Prosecutor General’s Office.
23.  On 26 July and 2 September 2016 the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant’s representative that no extradition decision had been issued because the prosecution in respect of the charges in Uzbekistan was time-barred; and that they had been informed about the interim measure indicated by the Court only on 1 July 2016, after the deportation had taken place.
24.  Complaints against the decisions of 22 July and 7 October 2016 of the Investigative Committee were dismissed by the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow several times in 2016-2017, but each time, the lower court’s judgments were annulled by the Moscow City Court and it ordered that the complaints should be reconsidered. On 27 October 2017 the district court dismissed the complaints once again. The applicant’s representative appealed on 7 November 2017. The Court has not been informed about the outcome of those proceedings.
25.  Upon his arrival in Uzbekistan on 1 July 2016 the applicant was immediately arrested. On 7 January 2017 he was convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment by the Qashqardarya Region Criminal Court. He is currently serving his sentence in penal colony 64/6 in Chirchiq.
26.  On 5 September 2017 the Court asked the applicant’s representatives to provide information on whether they were still in contact with him and whether he wished to maintain his application.
27.  On 24 October 2017 the applicant’s representative, Ms Trenina, informed the Court that she was still in contact with the applicant through his relatives and the lawyer representing him in Uzbekistan, and that he wished to maintain his application. In support of that assertion, she provided the following evidence:
(a) a handwritten note (in Uzbek with a Russian translation) from the applicant’s mother dated 28 September 2017 and addressed to Ms Trenina, which stated that the applicant had expressed his wish to maintain the application during a meeting which he had had with her in the penal colony;
(b) a handwritten affidavit from the applicant dated 12 October 2017 and addressed to Ms Trenina, which stated that he wished to maintain his application, that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during the investigation in Uzbekistan, that he was being detained in inhuman conditions, that he had almost lost his eyesight, and that he had attempted to commit suicide while in detention;
(c) a handwritten affidavit from the applicant dated 12 October 2017 and addressed to Ms Trenina, which described his deportation from Russia and specifically mentioned that he had been in contact with his representatives via telephone throughout the deportation procedure on 30 June and 1 July 2016, and that the law-enforcement agents carrying out the deportation had been repeatedly informed of the indication of the interim measure by the Court, but had chosen to ignore this information;
(d) a report from Ms Rakhmatullayeva, the applicant’s lawyer in Uzbekistan, dated 18 October 2017 and addressed to Ms Trenina, which stated that during a meeting in the penal colony – in the presence of an Uzbek law-enforcement agent – the applicant had confirmed both his wish to maintain his application, despite his apparent fear of reprisal from the Uzbek authorities, and the facts stated in the above-mentioned handwritten affidavits of 12 October 2017.