database.51 VI. Judicial review of the extradition request As highlighted above, in extradition cases, Contracting Parties remain bound by their non-refoulement obligations, and by their obligation to secure the right to an effective remedy for human rights violations (Article 13 ECHR). To ensure compliance with the latter, people threatened with extradition in circumstances where a real risk of violation of Convention rights is arguable must have: a) access to relevant documents and accessible information on the domestic legal procedures governing conduct of their case; b) where necessary, translated material and interpretation; c) effective access to quality legal advice, if necessary by provision of legal aid;52 d) the right to participate in adversarial proceedings; a reasoned extradition decision; and e) a fair and reasonable opportunity to dispute the factual basis for the extradition. 53 The right to an effective remedy also requires review of the extradition decision by an independent and impartial appeals authority, which has competence to assess the human rights issues raised by the case, to review the extradition decision on both substantive and procedural grounds, and to quash the decision, when the protection of human rights so requires. 54 To provide an effective remedy, the appeal must have suspensive effect on the extradition from the moment the appeal is filed.55 Stays of execution of the extradition order at the discretion of a court or other body are not sufficient to guarantee the right to an effective remedy.56 In particular, when the non-refoulement principle is engaged, this Court has ruled that in all phases of the extradition proceedings, from their very beginning to the last judicial instance, the authorities must carry out an “independent and rigorous scrutiny”57 of the risk of arbitrary refoulement.58 Indeed, the Court stressed that, in cases of extradition, “the Court must be satisfied that the assessment made by the authorities of the Contracting State is adequate and sufficiently supported by domestic materials as well as by materials originating from other reliable and objective sources” in respect of the situation existing at the time of the extradition.59 In the Russian Federation, the person concerned, directly or through his or her legal representative, can challenge the extradition decision made by the Prosecutor General of Interior on information exchange of 3 August 1992 (Соглашение о взаимоотношениях министерств внутренних дел в сфере обмена информацией от 3 августа 1992 года) and CIS Agreement on information exchange in the field of countering crime of 22 May 2009 (Соглашение об обмене информацией в сфере борьбы с преступностью от 22 мая 2009 года) The official text of the Rules is available at the website of the and available at http://bkbopcis.ru/assets/files/vsyo.pdf 51 The Rules provide that the Main Information and Analytics Centre of the Ministry of Interior of the Russian Federation which is responsible for establishing and running the centralized register of wanted persons should run an annual review and update of the list, however, no provisions for striking out persons sought on political grounds or checks whether prosecution in fact amounts to persecution are provided. The only authority envisaged for withdrawing persons from the wanted list are the requesting states. 52 M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, ECtHR, op. cit., para. 301. 53 Ibid., para. 302; C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, ECtHR, ECtHR, Application No. 1365/07, Judgment of 24 April 2008,, paras. 56-65. See also, Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, ECtHR, GC, Application No. 27765, 23 February 2012,, paras. 202-204. 54 Vilvarajah and Others v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, Applications Nos. 13163/87—13164/87—13165/87—13447/87— 13448/87 Judgment of 30 October 1991, para. 99; Isakov v. Russia, ECtHR, Application No. 14049/08, Judgment of 8 July 2010,para. 137; Yuldashev v. Russia, ECtHR, Application No. 1248/09, 8 July 2010,para. 110-111; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, ECtHR, Application No. 53688/08, Judgment of 10 June 2010,, paras. 82 and 84; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, ECtHR, Application No. 50963/99, Judgment of 20 June 2002,, para. 133. See also, C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, ECtHR, op. cit., para. 56. 55 Jabari v. Turkey, ECtHR, Application No. 40035/98, Judgment of 11 July 2000,, para. 50; Conka v. Belgium, ECtHR, Application No. 51564/99, Judgment of 5 February 2002, para. 79; Gebremedhin v. France, ECtHR, Application No. 25389/05, Judgment of 26 April 2007, paras. 58, 66; Muminov v. Russia, ECtHR, Application No. 42502/06, Judgment of 11 December 2008, para. 101. 56 Conka v. Belgium, ECtHR, op. cit., paras. 81-85. 57 Savriddin Dzhurayev v Russia, Application no. 71386/10, para. 165. 58 See, for a practical application, and the finding of a violation in respect to the Russian Federation, Zokhidov v Russia, Application no. 67286/10, para. 129-131. 59 Savriddin Dzhurayev v Russia, Application no. 71386/10, para. 156. 7