issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 155 (2013)
23.05.2013
Judgments concerning Russia
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two
Chamber judgments1, none of which is final. The judgments are available only in English.
E. A. v. Russia (application no. 44187/04)
The applicant, E.A., is an Uzbek national who was born in 1966. In August 2003, he was
arrested in Perm (Russia) and placed in pre-trial detention. In April 2004, he was
convicted of, in particular, causing fatal injuries to a person and sentenced to six years
and one month’s imprisonment. After having served his sentence, he was released in
September 2008. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading
treatment), he alleged that from 2003 to 2006 he had not received appropriate medical
care in detention. Having been diagnosed with HIV, he complained in particular that an
immunological assessment - being an indispensable element of the medical care for HIV
patients - should have been, but had not been, carried out on a regular basis.
Violation of Article 3 (inappropriate medical care in detention)
Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage)
K. v. Russia (no. 69235/11)
The applicant, K., is a Belarusian national who was born in 1966. Having moved to
Russia in 2008, he was arrested in Moscow in May 2011 on the basis of an international
arrest warrant issued by the authorities in Belarus, where he was wanted on a number of
charges, including aggravated robbery and kidnapping. His detention pending extradition
was subsequently extended on several occasions. A decision by the Russian Prosecutor
General to extradite Mr K. to Belarus was upheld by the Russian Supreme Court in
November 2011. However, the decision was not enforced, pursuant to an interim
measure granted by the European Court of Human Rights (under Rule 39 of its Rules of
Court) indicating to the Russian Government that Mr K. should not be extradited to
Belarus until further notice. An asylum request by Mr K., who maintains that he would
risk political persecution, torture and unfair criminal conviction in Belarus given his active
involvement in the opposition movement there, was dismissed by the Russian authorities
in December 2011. In May 2012, he was granted temporary asylum for one year and
was released from custody. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and
of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr K. complained that his extradition to Belarus
would expose him to the risk of ill-treatment. Relying further on Article 5 §§ 1 and 4
(right to liberty and security / right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a
court), he complained that his detention pending extradition from May 2011 to May 2012
had been unlawful and that the detention orders had not been speedily reviewed.
No violation of Article 3 (in the event of the applicants’ being extradited to Belarus)
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month
period following a judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber
of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:
