Source: https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/ecthr-baysakov-and-others-v-ukraine-application-no-5413108-18-may-2010
Timestamp: 2019-12-14 10:47:35
Document Index: 301998148

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 54131', 'Application no. 54131', 'art. 3', 'art. 13', 'art. 13', 'art. 13', 'Art. 2', 'art. 6', 'Application no. 39042', 'Application nos 33210', 'Application no 2929', 'Art. 55', 'Art. 92', 'Art. 26', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 96', 'Art. 237', 'Art. 193', 'Art. 222', 'Art. 307', 'Art. 308']

ECtHR - Baysakov and others v. Ukraine, Application no. 54131/08, 18 may 2010 | European Database of Asylum Law
Baysakov and others v. Ukraine, Application no. 54131/08, 18 may 2010
Given the irreversible and particular serious nature of the harm which might occur if risks relevant under art. 3 of the Convention materialise, an effective remedy to avoid such a harm within the meaning of art. 13 of the Convention requires both an independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim, and a remedy with automatic suspensive effect.
Four Kazakhstani citizens left their country of origin allegedly because of political persecution by the authorities.
They arrived in Ukraine in 2005.
On 28 March 2006, the Ukrainian State Committee on Nationalities and Migration granted the applicants’ requests for refugee status, finding that there were legitimate grounds to fear that the applicants would risk political persecution in Kazakhstan for their activities in 2001-02.
By four separate requests issued in September 2007, and April and May 2008, the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Republic of Kazakhstan requested the applicants’ extradition with a view to criminal prosecution for organised crime and conspiracy to murder (first applicant), tax evasion and money laundering (second and third applicants), and abuse of power (fourth applicant)
Pursuant to Article 96 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, murder could be punishable by detention (up to life imprisonment) or by death penalty. As to the other crimes which the applicants were accused of, the Criminal Code provided for punishment not exceeding ten years’ imprisonment.
The Kazakh prosecutors provided assurances that the criminal prosecution of the applicants was not related to their political views, that they would not be ill-treated, and that he would not request the domestic courts to sentence the first applicant to death for the crimes for which he was wanted.
The Deputy Prosecutor General sought annulment of the Committee’s decision granting asylum firstly before the Committee itself, and then before the Kyiv Administrative District Court and Court of Appeal, also requesting the provisional suspension of the contested decision. The Deputy Prosecutor’s objections were dismissed.
On 11 February 2009 the Office of the General Prosecutor of Ukraine lodged an appeal in Cassation with the Higher Administrative Court . The General Prosecutor of Ukraine ensured that no decision on the applicants’ extradition would be taken before the Court had considered the case.
The Court held that applicants had not lost their victim status insomuch as they were still under threat of extradition, notwithstanding their refugee status.
Indeed the Court firstly observed that the extradition proceedings against the applicants had not been discontinued.
Secondly the Court noted that, given the relevant provisions of the Prosecution Service Act and the position of the Plenary Higher Administrative Court, it could not be excluded that the introduction of an administrative claim by the prosecutors had a suspensive effect on any contested decision, in particular with regards to the refugee status of the applicants.
Thirdly, the Court recognised that the refugee status did not exclude the possibility to be extradited, as demonstrated in Kuznetsov v. Ukraine, no. 35502/07 pending before the Court at that time.
1) The Court concluded that the applicants’ fears of possible ill-treatment in Kazakhstan were well-founded and held that their extradition to that country would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
To argue its conclusion, the Court highlighted that, according to reliable information obtained from the UN Committee Against Torture, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International , torture and ill-treatment of detainees also committed in order to obtain confessions, and very poor prison conditions characterised detention in Kazakhstan.
Moreover, the Court acknowledged that people associated with the political opposition in Kazakhstan were and continue to be subjected to various forms of pressure and punishments, as confirmed by the Ukrainian authorities in the decision whereby the applicants had been granted refugee status. In this respect, the assurances that the applicants would not be ill-treated given by the Kazakh prosecutors could not be relied on because it was not established that the First Deputy Prosecutor General of Kazakhstan was empowered to provide legally binding assurances on behalf of the State (see also Soldatenko v. Ukraine no. 2440/07, 23 October 2008). Moreover, given the lack of an effective system preventing torture, it would be difficult to see whether such assurances would have been respected.
2) The Court held that the applicants were not afforded an effective and accessible remedy within the meaning of Article 13 in relation to their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court recalled that, given the irreversible and particular serious nature of the harm which might occur if the alleged risk of torture or ill-treatment materialises, an effective remedy to avoid such harm under art. 13 requires both an independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim, and a remedy with automatic suspensive effect (see for instance Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06; and Gebremedhin v. France, no. 25389/05).
Nevertheless, as to the case under analysis, the Court firstly noted that the procedure in Ukraine for considering extradition requests to be followed by prosecution bodies, did not specifically provide for a thorough and independent assessment of any complaints of a risk of ill-treatment in case of extradition; neither did the prosecutor have the possibility of suspending extradition in the event of a judicial complaint against such a decision.
Secondly, as regards the possibility under Ukraine law of challenging extradition decisions before the administrative courts, on the one hand the Court observed that judicial review proceedings can constitute, in principle, an effective remedy within the meaning of art. 13. It also acknowledged that unlike in Soldatenko v. Ukraine (no. 2440/07), in the present case the Government had supported its claim of the existence of an effective remedy by submitting proof of previous successful judicial challenges of an extradition decision. On the other hand, the Court highlighted that an application to the administrative courts seeking the annulment of an extradition decision did not automatically suspend the decision of extradition. Instead this was contingent on the discretion of the appeal Court. .
3) The Court rejected as manifestly ill-founded the first applicant’s allegation of a potential violation of Art. 2 of the Convention..
Indeed the Court observed that the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan reduced the application of the capital punishment to serious crimes of terrorism and “exceptionally grave” crimes committed during times of war, that a moratorium on executions were in force, and that in fact no death penalty had been executed for almost 2 years between 2007 and 2008. 4) Finally, the Court declared admissible the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 of the Convention however found that it was not necessary to examine the merit of this complaint as their extradition had already been held to be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court held that the applicants’ extradition to Kazakhstan would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention; and that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy) in relation to their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court held that there was no reason to examine the complaint under art. 6.
Novik v. Ukraine, no. 48068/06, 13 March 2007
Kuznetsov v. Ukraine (Application no. 39042/97), 29 April 2003
Sellem v. Italy, no. 12584/08, 5 May 2009
ECtHR - Dubovik v. Ukraine, Application nos 33210/07 and 41866/08
ECtHR - Svetlorusov v. Ukraine, Application no 2929/05
BAYSAKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE.pdf
- Council of Europe, European Convention on Extradition, 13 December 1957, ETS 24, Arts. 1, 3
-The CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters 1993, amended by the Protocol to that Convention of 28 March 1997 (“the Minsk Convention”), Arts. 56, 57, 58, 59.
- Concluding observations of the United Nations Committee against Torture (“the CAT”) of 12 December 2008
- “Political Freedoms in Kazakhstan”- Human Rights Watch
- ‘Concerns in Europe and Central Asia: January - June 2002’ ; “Concerns in Europe and Central Asia: July - December 2002”, ‘Kazakhstan: Summary of Concerns on Torture and Ill-treatment’ - Amnesty International
- Ukraine - Resolution no. 16 of the Plenary Supreme Court of 8 October 2004 on certain issues relating to the application of legislation governing the procedure and length of detention (arrest) of persons awaiting extradition
- Ukraine - Resolution no. 1 of the Plenary Higher Administrative Court of 25 June 2009 on the judicial practice of consideration of disputes concerning refugee status, removal of a foreigner or a stateless person from Ukraine, and disputes connected with a foreigner’s or stateless person’s stay in Ukraine
- Ukraine - Instruction on the procedure of consideration of extradition requests by prosecution bodies, approved by the Prosecutor General on 23 May 2007
Ukraine - 996 Constitution - Art. 55
Ukraine - 996 Constitution - Art. 92
Ukraine - 996 Constitution - Art. 26
Ukraine - 99 Prosecution Service Act - Art. 2
Ukraine - 99 Refugee Act - Section
Ukraine - 99 Refugee Act - Section 2
Ukraine - 99 Refugee Act - Section 3
Kazakhstan - Criminal Code
Kazakhstan - Criminal Code - Art. 96
Kazakhstan - Criminal Code - Art. 237
Kazakhstan - Criminal Code - Art. 193
Kazakhstan - Criminal Code - Art. 222
Kazakhstan - Criminal Code - Art. 307
Kazakhstan - Criminal Code - Art. 308