MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY JUDGMENT – JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION 47 subjected to ill-treatment is not of itself a sufficient safeguard where doubts exist as to its effective implementation (see, for example, Chahal, cited above, p. 1861, § 105). The weight to be attached to assurances emanating from a receiving State must in every case depend on the situation prevailing in that State at the material time. The evidence as to the treatment of political dissidents in Uzbekistan at the time of the applicants' surrender is such, in our view, as to give rise to serious doubts as to the effectiveness of the assurances in providing the applicants with an adequate guarantee of safety. 11. The same applies to the majority's reliance on the fact that Uzbekistan was a party to the Convention against Torture. In this regard we note, in particular, the finding of Amnesty International that Uzbekistan had failed to implement its treaty obligations under that convention and that, despite those obligations, widespread allegations of ill-treatment and torture of members of opposition parties and movements continued to be made at the date of the applicants' arrest and surrender. 12. As to the medical reports from the doctors at Zarafshan and Şayhali Prisons, we would draw attention to the fact that these very brief and unspecific reports followed medical examinations apparently carried out in December 2000 and April 2001 (in the case of the first applicant) and between July and October 2001 (in the case of the second applicant), that is at least twenty-one months after the extradition of the applicants and some eighteen months after their trial and conviction. In so far as any regard may be had to events occurring after the extradition had taken place, we can attach very little weight to these reports which cast no light on the treatment received by the applicants in the intervening period and, more particularly, in the period leading up to their trial. Certainly, evidence as to the applicants' physical integrity so long after the events in question cannot in our view be relied on as refuting the well-foundedness of the applicants' fears at the time of their extradition. 13. For these reasons we consider that substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the applicants faced a real risk of ill-treatment and that, in returning the applicants despite this risk, Article 3 of the Convention has been violated. Article 6 14. While the Court has not to date found that the expulsion or extradition of an individual violated, or would, if carried out, violate Article 6 of the Convention, it has on frequent occasions held that such a possibility cannot be excluded where the person being expelled has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the receiving country (see, for example, Soering, cited above, p. 45, § 113; Drozd and Janousek v. France