R.R. AND A.R. v. RUSSIA - 67485/17 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2019] ECHR 710 (08 October 2019)

R.R. AND A.R. v. RUSSIA - 67485/17 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2019] ECHR 710 (08 October 2019)

Removal of applicants to Uzbekistan or Tajikistan would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3, as Russian authorities failed to adequately assess substantiated claims. Complaints under Article 5 §§ 1(f) and 4 were inadmissible due to lack of substantiation and valid justification for delays.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ECHR 710
Parties
Applicant: R. R.; Applicant: A. R.; Respondent: Russian Federation
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
08 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Application (ect Hr) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Complaints under Article 3 regarding removal admissible and upheld; remainder inadmissible or dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extradition, Expulsion, Non Refoulement, Prohibition of Torture, Detention, Asylum
Human Rights Law International Law Extradition Expulsion Non Refoulement Prohibition of Torture Detention Asylum

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. R.

Applicant

A. R.

Applicant

Russian Federation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Application (ect Hr) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether removal of applicants to Uzbekistan or Tajikistan would violate Article 3 of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether detention pending removal violated Article 5 §§ 1(f) and 4 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Removal of applicants to Uzbekistan or Tajikistan would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3, as Russian authorities failed to adequately assess substantiated claims. Complaints under Article 5 §§ 1(f) and 4 were inadmissible due to lack of substantiation and valid justification for delays.

Court Disposition

Complaints under Article 3 regarding removal admissible and upheld; remainder inadmissible or dismissed.

Orders

  • Applications joined.
  • Applicants must not be removed to their countries of origin.