CCPR/C/123/D/2189/2012 that the extradition request and the decision to extradite were both in compliance with the Minsk Convention and the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4.5 Furthermore, the migration authorities and the Basmannyy district court in Moscow rejected the author’s application for refugee status. The court found that the author had filed his application only after his arrest by law enforcement officials, whereas according to article 4 (1) (2) of the federal law on refugees, such an application should have been submitted upon crossing the border of the Russian Federation. The court also found that the author had failed to substantiate the risk of persecution should he be returned to Uzbekistan. It also considered that Uzbekistan had ratified six United Nations human rights treaties, including the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and regularly submitted periodic reports on their implementation. In the circumstances, the court found that the author’s extradition to Uzbekistan would not put his life at risk. On 6 February 2013, the Moscow city court upheld that decision on appeal. 4.6 In the light of the above, the State party submits that the findings of the domestic courts refute the author’s allegations of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 2 April 2015, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations. He reiterated his submission that in the course of the extradition and refugee proceedings he had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his extradition to Uzbekistan would expose him to a risk of torture. He notes that the refugee proceedings and the court review of the decision to extradite him were conducted in a purely formalistic manner and that his claim that he would be subjected to torture in Uzbekistan was not considered at all. 5.2 Furthermore, the author claims that the diplomatic assurances provided by Uzbekistan should have been discarded as unreliable because of the widespread and systematic use of torture there, which has been reported by United Nations bodies since 20034 and by the European Court of Human Rights.5 5.3 The author claims that he should be considered a refugee “sur place”.6 He explains that he submitted his application for asylum when he learned that a criminal case had been fabricated against him in Uzbekistan. As he indicated in his appeal to the Basmannyy district court, there was evidence that he had travelled to the Russian Federation on 14 January 2011, which was also indicated in the decision to decline his application. He was accused of having committed a crime in Uzbekistan between 18 and 22 February 2011, that is at a time when he was residing in the Russian Federation. The charges had therefore been fabricated against him in Uzbekistan and he feared that the investigation would be incomplete and biased. The State party disregarded those circumstances. 5.4 The author refers to paragraph 26 of the Supreme Court ruling of 14 June 2012, according to which the legality and substantiation of a decision to extradite within the meaning of article 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are established in the light of the circumstances that existed when such a decision was adopted. Although the author was extradited on 1 October 2012, a court hearing on his appeal against the decision to reject his application for refugee status only took place on 2 November 2012. He was therefore extradited to Uzbekistan while the proceedings on refugee status determination were pending against him in the Russian Federation. 4 5 6 Reference is made to E/CN.4/2003/68/Add.2, CCPR/C/UZB/CO/3 and CAT/C/48/D/444/2010, para. 13.6. Reference is made to Yakubov v. Russia, application No. 7265/10, judgment of 8 November 2011, para. 99, and Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, application No. 31890/11, judgment of 3 October 2013, paras. 132–133. Reference is made to Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, 2011, paras. 94–95. 5