CCPR/C/123/D/2189/2012 foreign State, has been granted asylum in the Russian Federation owing to possible persecution in that State on account of his race, religion, citizenship, nationality, affiliation with a certain social group or his political views. According to paragraph 10 of the Supreme Court ruling No. 11 of 14 June 2012, conditions and grounds for extradition are provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, relevant laws and international treaties ratified by the State party. Pursuant to articles 10 (1) and 12 (4) of the federal law on refugees and articles 32 and 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the person in respect of whom refugee status or asylum was granted and an extradition request was received by the Russian Federation cannot be extradited to a country where the circumstances underlying the decision to grant refugee status or asylum took place. According to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Supreme Court ruling, the person shall not be extradited if extradition is sought for a crime punishable by death under the law of the requesting State and it has not provided guarantees, which should be deemed sufficient by the State party, that the death penalty would not be carried out, in line with article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 11 of the European Convention on Extradition. Such guarantees include legal provisions prohibiting the death penalty and assurances by competent authorities. Courts should take into account the non-refoulement principle enshrined in article 7 of the Covenant and article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The State party’s prosecuting authorities should verify the absence of possible grounds for torture, the death penalty, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or persecution in the requesting State. In that assessment, both the general human rights situation in the requesting State and individual circumstances should be taken into account. 4.2 The Moscow city court examined and dismissed the author’s appeal against the decision of the Office of the Prosecutor General to grant the extradition request. It established that the author was accused of two crimes under article 168 (3) (a) of the Uzbek Criminal Code, which is equivalent to the crime under article 159 (4) of the Russian Criminal Code, punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment. Under article 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and article 56 of the Minsk Convention, the contracting parties should extradite to each other, upon request, people who are on their territories, in order to “bring them to criminal responsibility” or execute a sentence. The State party and Uzbekistan are parties to the Minsk Convention. The period of limitation for the institution of criminal proceedings against the author has not elapsed under Russian or Uzbek law. The author is an Uzbek citizen and has not applied for Russian citizenship. His application for refugee status was rejected. Russian courts examined his allegations of torture and persecution if returned to Uzbekistan and dismissed them as unsubstantiated. The author is being prosecuted for a common law crime that is not politically motivated. He has not been subjected to discrimination on any grounds. 4.3 When requesting the author’s extradition, the Office of the Uzbek Prosecutor stated that he would be prosecuted in line with national legislation and the international treaties ratified by Uzbekistan. He would not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and his right to defend himself, including through the assistance of a lawyer, would be guaranteed. He would not be extradited to a third country, prosecuted or sentenced for having committed a crime before his extradition without the consent of the State party. He would be able to leave the country freely after the court proceedings were finished and the sentence served. There is no reason to doubt those assurances. Uzbekistan is a party to a number of international treaties, including the Covenant and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Furthermore, the Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan provided additional assurances that the author would not be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion; that he would not be subjected to torture, violence or any other kind of inhuman or degrading treatment; that his right to defend himself would be ensured, including through the assistance of a lawyer; and that he would be prosecuted in line with Uzbek legislation. 4.4 The State party refuted the author’s argument that he would be subjected to torture and persecution because it is commonly practised in Uzbekistan, according to international reports. The Moscow city court established that those allegations were not supported by evidence and were in contradiction to the assurances provided by Uzbekistan. On 13 August 2012, the Supreme Court upheld those findings. The Supreme Court established 4