The European court of human rights in the second half of November refused Amir Kabulov – a citizen of the RK and who was declared in international search – in extradition from Ukraine to Kazakhstan. Systematic using of tortures and absence of the independent judicial system in Kazakhstan were called as causes of failure. Hereunder, it was emerged from the created by the court precedent that criminals as political refugees who had abandoned Kazakhstan, become unattainable for Kazakhstan justice in 51 countries, where the decisions made by the European court of human rights is obligatory.
In 2003 Amir Kabul was charged with a murder; however his escape on Ukraine was success whereupon Kazakhstan law-enforcement organs declared him in international search. In a year he was detained in Kiev in state of alcoholic intoxication.
Having checked database, he was translated from medicine sobering-up station to investigation insulator, where he is still found.
In the same year, in 2004 by the request of the Kazakhstan General public prosecutor’s office, which guaranteed that Kabulov will not be sentenced to death, the Ukraine authorities complied with arguments of Kazakhstan part and intended to conduct his extradition. However, attorney of Amir Kabulov and his mother had directed large number of appeals to the address of Ukrainian judicial organs, from whom the answer was not received yet. Apropos, this circumstance was also noted by European court. And only an appeal to the last instance of European court of human rights had suspended an inevitable extradition.
All this time Kabulov was in Kiev investigation insulator and waiting for judicial meeting. The Kazakhstan public prosecutor’s office was also caused by “infringement to judicial hearing in responsible time, guaranteed by International Pact about civil and political rights” because by the Kazakhstan legislation a period of person contents under the arrest on the stage of judicial production can not exceed more than twelve months. Additionally, Kazakhstan part was worried, “if the period of waiting for European court decision will be included» at punishment purpose. The Kazakhstan Public prosecutor’s office had also directed an appeal to the European court, petitioning for speedup of the process of making decision on this deal.
In this complaint which was addressed to the European court A. Kabulov indicated that in Kazakhstan he might be meeting with unjust court and that Ukraine authorities rendered pressure on him requiring calling back his complaint.
The Court complied with Kazakhstan side especially where was spoken about the groundlessness misgivings of sentencing A. Kabulov to death, however in the field of possible using the tortures a judicial board had taken the side which had addressed with complaint.
“The court had studied reports written by different international and national organizations, where are described multiple facts of using the tortures and cruel treatment to concluded, systematic beatings and using of violence to achieve from suspected grateful evidences, as well as ineffective investigation procedures”, – written in decision. There are also noted bad conditions of contents in conclusion places and no rendering medical help for concluded.
Together with that Kazakhstan authorities did not present any proofs which can refuse these accusations so the court decided that “Mr. Kabulov is subjected to the serious risk to fall victim by cruel treatment “. And again about the notes made by the court – in such kind of condition can be appeared any suspected person in Kazakhstan.
Aside from the threat turning out to be a victim of tortures, court noted insufficient independence of the Kazakhstan justice and firm breaches of human rights in Kazakhstan.
In the decision of the court is spoken: “It is installed realistically that in Kazakhstan any person who is suspected in completion of the criminal crime and who is being kept in the place of deprivation of the liberty, occasionally, even without any reason and purposes at all, is subjected to the enormous risk to become as the object of the torture and/or treatment, humiliating human value. So the court supports the argument by the declarant about that the fact of detention in the capacity of suspected in completion of criminal crime presents the sufficient basis to suppose that after returning a declarant will be subjected to the treatment which is discordant to the article 3 in the European convention about protection of human rights. Thereby, extradition breaks the article 3 in the European convention about protection of human rights.
The court together with the decision of forbidding an extradition had obliged the Ukraine authorities to pay Kabulov for 5000 euro and cover all law expenses.
Earlier, in the January of this year the extradition of Baysakov brothers from Ukraine to Kazakhstan was forbidden European court. Truly, the Ukrainian court acknowledged legality of the granting them the status of political refugee itself.
Official Astana has not reacted to the decision made by the European court which crosses out all notarizing Kazakhstan authorities about that the tortures in country do not carry mass nature and judicial organs are transparent and impartial. For this reason Kazakhstan refugees (in the search list of Interpol are found more than one hundred people of Kazakhstan) who are living in the countries where the prerogatives of the European court are acknowledging, possible, will not have to prove an existence of the risk after the returning to the nativeland. And, opposite, Kazakhstan should work hard to proof of the absence of the cruel treatment with suspected and concluded in country. To all appearances, Kazakhstan has no changes to disprove multiple messages and reports made by law enforcement organizations until the system in root will not be changed.
Apropos, several months ago Russian Federation department refused in extradition of one of the multiple Uzbek refugees to the Motherland. Reference from the MFA, in which Russian foreign policy department “checked” the breaches of human rights with marked presence of tortures in Uzbekistan seriously, gave an occasion. Herewith, all findings were based in the reports of international and law enforcement organizations, USA State Department and Uzbek lawyers. “As a whole the problem of human rights observance in Uzbekistan remains more ambiguous”, – made a conclusion MFA of Russia.
It is possible to expect that with the standpoint of the European court the situation on human rights in Uzbekistan remains such “ambiguous” beside neighbor of this region too.