CAT/C/70/D/915/2019 4.9 The State party emphasizes that the asylum issues division of the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons carefully examined the complainant’s personal circumstances and the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation but concluded that his asylum application lacked substance concerning the claimed risk of persecution or illtreatment. The Ministry concluded that the complainant’s account was inconsistent and incoherent, including with respect to the questions of whether he had committed any crime in the Russian Federation and what his anti-corruption activities entailed. He was unable to name the individuals who threatened his families or to describe their motives, the incidents or the content of the threats. The complainant’s spouse showed a picture of a damaged restaurant, but neither the complainant nor his spouse proved that the restaurant was in their possession or that it was damaged because of his activities. No measures of restraint were used in the criminal proceedings and he was given a lower than maximum sentence, which the Court of Appeal later reduced. The complainant could not substantiate his claim of ethnic and religious discrimination with reference to any incident. The Tbilisi City Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia reaffirmed the conclusion of a lack of evidence in the extradition proceedings. 4.10 The State party refers to a number of removal or extradition complaints which the Committee has declared manifestly unfounded, which are, in its view, similar to the present complaint.12 State party’s observations on the merits 5.1 The State party presented its observations on the merits of the case by note verbale of 4 September 2019. It notes that the complainant has not been extradited, as his appeal in the asylum proceedings remains pending before the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. The State party submits that the complainant’s extradition to the Russian Federation would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 5.2 First, the complainant did not present any evidence to substantiate his claim of a risk of ill-treatment in the Russian Federation. In this regard, the State party reiterates that the complaint is manifestly unfounded (see paras. 4.7–4.9 above). It adds that the Russian court that sentenced the complainant to four years’ imprisonment considered his health, the pregnancy of his wife, his work experience, his support in the identification of other criminals and his active cooperation with the investigation as mitigating factors. The Court of Appeal thereafter reduced the sentence to three years and six months with a fine of 8 million roubles. The State party concludes that the complainant was not persecuted in the Russian Federation and that there is no real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment upon his extradition. 5.3 Second, the State party reiterates that the reference to the human rights situation in the Russian Federation is insufficient to show that the complainant would be exposed to a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon his extradition (see para. 4.8 above). The State party adds that it cannot be argued that any extradition to the Russian Federation and subsequent detention would automatically entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. It notes that in Chankayev v. Azerbaijan and Tershyev v. Azerbaijan, the European Court of Human Rights examined detention conditions in relation to extradition to the Russian Federation and concluded, in the former case, that “no serious structural problems have yet been identified in respect of conditions of detention in post-conviction facilities such as correctional colonies or prisons”.13 Problems are reported in remand prisons, but these only accommodate remand prisoners, and the complainant would serve his sentence in a post-conviction correctional facility. 5.4 Third, the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation has provided the Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia with assurances to the effect that the complainant will not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment during his detention, and that the competent authorities will take all necessary measures to ensure his security. His defence rights will be guaranteed and the authorities will provide him with medical treatment 12 13 See S.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/715/2015), para. 6.5; R.T. v. Switzerland, para. 6.2; H.I.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/30/D/216/2002), para. 6.2; H.S.V. v. Sweden, para. 8.3; R.S. v. Denmark, para. 6.2. European Court of Human Rights, Chankayev v. Azerbaijan, Application No. 56688/12, Judgment, 14 February 2014, para. 73; Tershiyev v. Azerbaijan, Application No. 10226/13, Judgment, 31 July 2014. 5