Court Issues Judgment in Kamaliyev v. Russia

June 2010 – Strasbourg

The Court on 3 June 2010 published its judgment in the case Kamaliyev and Kamaliyeva v. Russia. On March 23, 2006, the Deputy Attorney General of Uzbekistan sought the extradition from Russia of the first applicant, a Russian citizen since 2000, who was accused of belonging to the religious extremist organization “Vakhabiï. Applicant complained that his expulsion to Uzbekistan would subject him to a risk of ill-treatment and that he would be tried there in flagrant denial of justice. He further complained, on his own behalf, on behalf of the second applicant, his wife, a Russian national, that his deportation would violate their right to respect for their family life. The first applicant was deported and reportedly is in prison in Uzbekistan. The second applicant died in Russia in 2008.

In their initial 2006 application, applicants referred to Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention, as well as Article 2 of Protocol No. 2.  On 3 December 2007 the Court applied Rule 39, adopting an interim measure for suspension of the extradition, indicating to respondent Government that “it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to expel the first applicant to Uzbekistan pending the Court’s decision.” The first applicant was deported to Uzbekistan two days later.  On 20 May 2008 the President of the First Section gave notice of the application to the Russian government, noting that it would examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility and that in the meantime the interim measure against deportation should remain in force. On May 2010 the Court decided to lift the interim measure. By its judgment of 3 June 2010, the Court declared unanimously that the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible, holding by four votes to three that there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention, holding unanimously that there was a violation of Article 34 of the Convention in regards to the interim measure. Other issues were judged not ready for decision or were reserved pending receipt by the Court of written observations by the Russian Government.