issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 395 (2019)

19.11.2019

ECHR reconsiders its approach to extradition of ethnic Uzbeks to Kyrgyzstan

The case T.K. and S.R. v. Russia (application nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15) concerned the applicants’

allegation that they risked ill-treatment if extradited to Kyrgyzstan because they belonged to the

Uzbek ethnic minority, who have been persecuted by the authorities since inter-ethnic clashes in

2010.

In today’s Chamber judgment¹in the case the European Court of Human Rights held, by five votes to

two, that there would be:

no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the

European Convention on Human Rights if the applicants were extradited to Kyrgyzstan.

The Court found in particular that the Russian courts had given the applicants’ allegations careful

consideration and that their reasons for dismissing them had been reasonable. In particular, the

courts had looked at the general human rights’ situation in Kyrgyzstan, the applicants’ individual

circumstances and assurances provided by the Kyrgyz authorities. Those assurances were, moreover,

strengthened by a joint monitoring mechanism, involving visits by Russian diplomatic staff to Kyrgyz

detention centres holding extradited persons.

The Court therefore had no grounds to doubt the Russian courts’ position, and it concluded that

neither the general situation in the country, nor the fact that the applicants belonged to the Uzbek

ethnic minority put them at real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if they were extradited to

Kyrgyzstan.

Previously, in the wake of the 2010 events, the Court had considered that removal of ethnic Uzbeks

to Kyrgyzstan would violate Article 3. However, it had to assess the applicants’ situation as it stood

at present and stressed that, in light of recent international reports, they no longer constituted a

vulnerable group at risk of ill-treatment solely in connection with their ethnic origin.

Principal facts

The applicants, Mr T.K. and Mr S.R., are Kyrgyz nationals. They were born in 1957 and 1986 and live

in Verkhneye Mukhanovo, Oryol Region, and Elektrogorsk, Moscow Region, respectively.

Mr T.K. arrived in Russia in 2010, while Mr S.R. arrived in 2011. They were apprehended,

respectively, in 2013 and 2014 because they were wanted in Kyrgyzstan on charges of aggravated

misappropriation (Mr T.K.) and several counts of aggravated robbery, destruction of property and

murder (Mr S.R.).

In the ensuing proceedings concerning the applicants’ extradition and their requests for refugee

status, they alleged that they were at risk of persecution and ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan because

they belonged to a vulnerable ethnic group. The courts, prosecution and migration authorities

assessed these claims but dismissed them.

In particular, in final decisions of 2015 the courts found that the general human-rights situation in

Kyrgyzstan did not as such preclude extradition. Furthermore, they found that both applicants had

1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its 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.

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: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.

been charged with common crimes which were unrelated to ethnic or political issues. Moreover, Mr

T.K. had been accused of a financial crime which pre-dated the 2010 clashes, and Mr S.R. had

travelled from Russia to Kyrgyzstan between 2011 and 2014 without problem.

The courts also stressed that they were in any case satisfied with the assurances provided by the

Kyrgyz authorities that the applicants would not be ill-treated and that Russian diplomatic staff

would have access to their place of detention to monitor their situation.

The applicants’ extradition was, however, stayed in June and October 2015, respectively, on the

basis of an interim measure granted by the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of its

Rules of Court, which indicated to the Russian Government that they should not be removed for the

duration of the proceedings before it.

The applicants were released from detention in 2014 and 2015.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants

complained that their removal to Kyrgyzstan would put them at real risk of ill-treatment, alleging in

particular that the Kyrgyz authorities’ assurances were unreliable.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 June 2015.

The Court granted a request for third-party intervention lodged by the International Commission of

Jurists in the case of the second applicant.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Paul Lemmens (Belgium), President,

Helen Keller (Switzerland),

Dmitry Dedov (Russia),

Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),

María Elósegui (Spain),

Gilberto Felici (San Marino),

Erik Wennerström (Sweden),

and also Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

The Court first assessed the general human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan.

In the wake of the inter-ethnic clashes in Kyrgyzstan in 2010, the Court had previously considered

that ethnic Uzbeks removed to Kyrgyzstan were at risk of ill-treatment and that their removal would

violate Article 3.

However, at present there was apparently a consensus in international reports that the Kyrgyz

authorities were taking specific and practical steps to eradicate torture, such as the setting up of the

National Centre for the Prevention of Torture staffed by independent experts and dealing exclusively

with reporting and combating torture, and that the situation in the country was improving. Most

importantly, the Court stressed that in recent years neither national and regional, nor international

human rights organisations had reported any specific risk of the ill-treatment of ethnic Uzbeks.

The Court therefore concluded that ethnic Uzbeks facing extradition no longer constituted a

vulnerable group at risk of ill-treatment solely because of their ethnic origin. Furthermore, while it

was aware that incidents of ill-treatment continued to be reported on a general level, the Court did

not find them to be such as to show, on their own, that there would be a violation of the Convention

if the applicants were returned to Kyrgyzstan.

The Russian authorities, notably the courts, had closely considered the applicants’ allegation on the

merits and likewise found that the general situation in Kyrgyzstan had not put them at real risk of

ill-treatment.

They had then also examined the particulars of the applicants’ situations and had found no proof

that their ethnic origin alone could expose them to a risk of ill-treatment. Indeed, the courts had

found that the applicants had been charged with common crimes, unrelated to their ethnicity, and

that there had been no evidence of any ulterior political motive behind their prosecution in

Kyrgyzstan.

The Court was therefore satisfied with the Russian authorities’ assessment, which had been

attentive and reasonable, having not only been based on the general human rights’ situation in

Kyrgyzstan, but also on the applicants’ individual circumstances.

Nor could the Court disagree with the Russian courts’ careful consideration of the Kyrgyz authorities’

assurances.

Moreover, the Russian Government had provided information which addressed previous concerns

about the functioning of the joint monitoring mechanism, involving visits by Russian diplomatic staff

to detention centres holding extradited persons.

In particular, criminal proceedings against extradited individuals of all ethnicities had been

discontinued in up to 45% of cases, while those whose prosecution had been pursued had been

visited by Russian diplomatic staff and questioned about possible duress, ill-treatment and

conditions of detention, but said that they were satisfied with their treatment by the Kyrgyz

authorities.

The applicants and the third party had, in contrast, been sceptical about the assurances. However,

the Court noted that their claims had been general, without providing any specific examples.

Furthermore, although the applicants had alleged that the assurances had been unreliable because

they had been given by the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan, the Court noted that there was

nothing in the available material that would give it grounds to conclude that the local authorities

would not abide by the assurances.

The Court stressed that it was assessing the applicants’ situation as it stood at present and that the

main question was whether the applicants would still face a real risk of persecution if removed to

Kyrgyzstan. It had no grounds to doubt the position of the Russian courts, having found that they

had complied with their duty to adequately assess the applicants’ allegations. The situation and

safeguards had therefore sufficiently evolved for the Court to find that there was no longer a risk of

ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 if the applicants were extradited to Kyrgyzstan.

Interim measures (Rule 39)

The Court further decided, by six votes to one, to continue to indicate to the Russian Government

not to extradite or otherwise involuntarily remove the applicants to Kyrgyzstan until the judgment

had become final or until further order.

Separate opinions

Judges Keller and Elósegui expressed separate opinions, which are annexed to the judgment.

The judgment is available only in English.