According to the decision, Russian authorities dealing with an extradition must assess whether there are “reasons to believe that the person concerned might be sentenced to the death penalty, subjected to ill-treatment or persecuted because of his or her race, religious beliefs, nationality, ethnic or social origin or political opinions.”21 Courts must assess both “the general situation in the requesting country and the personal circumstances of the person whose extradition is sought. They should take into account the testimony of the person concerned and that of any witnesses, any assurances given by the requesting country, and information about the country provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by competent United Nations institutions and by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”22 The above notwithstanding, this Court has repeatedly found violations of the ECHR in cases arising from transfers from Russia to Kyrgyzstan.23 Moreover, in two recent cases, this Court found that both the lower courts of the Russian Federation and law enforcement authorities had disregarded the above-mentioned Supreme Court guidance.24 IV. The use of diplomatic assurances in extraditions to CIS States International human rights authorities, including, UN Treaty Bodies, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and independent expert mechanisms (special procedures) of the UN Human Rights Council have stated that diplomatic assurances purporting to ensure protection from torture or other ill-treatment cannot relieve States of their non-refoulement obligations, and thus cannot be presumed to permit a transfer that would otherwise be prohibited.25 As this Court has repeatedly held, such assurances are highly unlikely to provide a sufficient guarantee that the individuals concerned would be protected against the risk of prohibited treatment to allow a transfer to those countries where there are reliable reports that the authorities resort to or tolerate torture or other ill-treatment; or when they are not given by an authority of the destination State empowered to provide them; or where the destination State does not have an effective system of torture prevention.26 the issues related to extradition of persons for criminal prosecution or execution of sentence, as well as the transfer of persons to serve their sentence". 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 With respect to return of ethnic Uzbeks to Kyrgyzstan in the aftermath of the June 2010 events in Southern Kyrgyzstan, the main authority on ECtHR position are the cases of Khamrakulov v Russia, no.68894/13 § 65-66, 16 April 2015, and Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia (no. 49747/11, § 72, 16 October 2012). More recently, Tadzhibayev v. Russia, Application no. 17724/14, 1 December 2015; U.N. v Russia, Application no. 4348/15, 26 July 2016; and R. v Russia, Application no. R. v Russia, Application no. 11916/15, 26 January 2016. See, for other Central Asia States, cases of Abdulkhanov v. Russia, op cit, §141-142; Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 9396, 11 December 2008 and Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011). Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 100, 29 July 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 72, 4 November 2010; and Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, § 113, 20 December 2011. 24 See, Mukhitdinov v. Russia, Application no. 20999/14, 21 May 2015, paras. 50 ; Mamazhonov v. Russia, Application no. 17239/13, para. 157 and following. 25 Concluding Observations on France, CCPR, CCPR, UN Doc. CCPR/C/FRA/CO/4, 31 July 2008, para. 20; Concluding Observations on Russia, CCPR, UN Doc. CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, 24 November 2009, para. 17. The Committee against Torture has categorically stated that “under no circumstances must diplomatic guarantees be used as a safeguard against torture or ill-treatment where there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment upon return”, Concluding Observations on Spain, CAT, UN Doc. CAT/C/ESP/CO/5, 9 December 2009,para. 13; Saadi v. Italy, ECtHR, GC, Application No. 37201/06, Judgment of 28 February 2008,paras.147-148; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, ECtHR, ECtHR, GC, Application No. 30696/09, Judgment of 21 January 2011,paras. 353-354; Sidikovy v. Russia, ECtHR, Application No. 73455/11, Judgment of 20 June 2013, para. 150. 26 Saadi v. Italy, ECtHR, op. cit., paras.147-148; Ryabikin v. Russia, ECtHR, Application No. 8320/04, Judgment of 19 June 2008, para. 119; Gafarov v. Russia, ECtHR, Application No. 25404/2009, Judgment of 21 October 2010; Ben Khemais v. Italy, ECtHR, Application No. 246/07, Judgment of 24 February 2009, para. 61; Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, ECtHR, Application No. 2947/06, Judgment of 24 April 2008, para.127; Soldatenko v. Ukraine, ECtHR, Application No. 2440/07, 3