CCPR/C/116/D/2193/2012 extradited to Kyrgyzstan. He was also guaranteed the right to complain about any breach of his rights; no such complaints were received, however. According to the author, he arrived in the State party in March 2010, where he wanted to live permanently, and did not know the reasons for which he was wanted by the Kyrgyz authorities. In addition, he denied any persecution on political or other grounds. The Office of the Prosecutor General carefully assessed the author’s claims concerning the possible risk of being subjected to ill-treatment upon extradition to Kyrgyzstan. During his apprehension (no exact date specified), the author was asked, in the presence of his counsel, whether he was being persecuted for political or any other reason and why he had left Kyrgyzstan. The State party reiterates that the author did not apply for asylum upon arrival to the State party; he applied only after the extradition proceedings had begun. It also notes that the author’s claim that he risks being subjected to torture and other ill-treatment upon extradition was also examined by the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service and later, on appeal, by the Federal Migration Service. The State party submits that the author appealed the decision of the Federal Migration Court, but that the decision was upheld by the Court of Basman District on 2 November 2012. That Court’s judgment was upheld by the Moscow Regional Court. 6.4 The State party notes that, when examining decisions concerning a person’s extradition, the State party’s courts also consider claims concerning the possibility that a person may be subjected to torture by the authorities of the country requesting extradition. It notes that there have been cases when extradition decisions have been quashed, with reference, in particular, to article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights).4 The State party also submits that, when taking a decision concerning the author’s extradition, the Office of the Prosecutor General did not establish grounds for believing that his rights would be breached upon extradition. 6.5 With regard to the counsel’s reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the State party notes the case of Latipov v. Russia,5 on a deportation to Tajikistan. In that case, the Court did not find a violation of the applicant’s rights under article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and concluded that the general human rights situation in a country may not be the sole ground for forbidding the extradition of an individual. The Court also noted the need to obtain guarantees from the State requesting the extradition that would facilitate establishing diplomatic mechanisms, including those permitting access by observers and making it possible to control, in an objective manner, the observance of the extradited individual’s rights. 6.6 The State party submits that the Office of the Prosecutor General, together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have established a mechanism that makes it possible to verify the observance of extradited persons’ rights, inter alia, by allowing diplomatic officials to visit places of deprivation of liberty. Within the framework of that mechanism, the State party notes that its Office of the Prosecutor General has received from its Kyrgyz counterpart further assurances that the State party’s diplomatic officials will be able to visit the author in his place of detention and verify the respect of his rights. Within this verification mechanism, the State party currently receives, on a regular basis, information from the Office of the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan concerning the fate of individuals of Uzbek and other nationalities who have been extradited for criminal prosecution. That information does not demonstrate that the Kyrgyz authorities are violating the rights of those extradited, including those belonging to minorities, to not be subjected to any kind of 4 5 8 The State party refers to a decision dated 23 March 2011 of the Novosibirsk Regional Court and to a decision dated 18 May 2011 of the Supreme Court concerning one Zh.M.A. Latipov v. Russia (application No. 77658/11), European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 12 December 2013.