Extradition to the Russian Federation

Facts

The author of the communication is A. A., a Sunni Muslim and national of the Russian Federation of Chechen origin. He left Chechnya due to alleged persecution and threats received from authorities. In 2015, a criminal case was opened against the author in the Russian Federation. At the time, the author resided in Türkiye. He traveled to Bosnia and Herzegovina, but upon his arrival, he was arrested based on the charges pending in the Russian Federation and detained. The Russian Federation requested his extradition. He applied for asylum, but the court concluded that because he applied for asylum after the extradition request, it was not an obstacle to his extradition. The author appealed but his appeal was denied. Thereafter, the Ministry of Security examined the author’s asylum claim and found that there was no real risk for the author to be subjected to persecution or disproportionate or discriminatory punishment and that parts of the author’s argument were not credible. The extradition request was granted. He claims that, in the event of his extradition, the State party would violate his Covenant rights under article 6 regarding the right to life, and article 7 prohibiting torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Admissibility

After receiving the present communication, the Committee requested the State party not to extradite the author to the Russian Federation pending consideration of his communication. The State party nonetheless extradited the author shortly thereafter. The Committee found that by failing to respect the request for interim measures the State party failed in its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. Although the author filed a request for interim measures before the European Court of Human Rights, that was not an impediment to admissibility before the Committee because he did not pursue those claims on the merits. Similarly, his decision not to challenge the Ministry of Justice rejection of his asylum claim did not constitute a failure to exhaust domestic remedies because any such appeal would not have suspended the extradition. In short, the author failed to substantiate that he would be exposed to a real and personal risk of death or torture in the event of his extradition to the Russian Federation. Although the author also mentioned a fear that his right to a fair trial would not be respected in the event of extradition, that claim was not substantiated. As a result, the Committee found the communication inadmissible.