CCPR/C/113/D/2192/2012 review of the appeal against a decision not to grant refugee status does not have automatic suspensive effect on deportation and extradition proceedings, despite the fact that such suspensive effect is foreseen by the law. 6.4 The author further contests the State party’s submission regarding the absence of information in the Russian courts about his appeal against the refusal to grant him refugee status (see para. 5.4 above). He submits that information regarding the outcome of his appeal and the text of the decision were posted on the web page of the Basmansky District Court9 and the decision of the Moscow City Court following the appeal of that decision were posted on the website of that court. 10 6.5 The author further maintains that, both during the extradition proceedings and during the refugee status determination proceedings, he had presented sufficient evidence to confirm his fear that in case of forcible return he would be subjected to torture or other prohibited treatment. He submits that the refugee determination procedure was conducted pro forma and that during the extradition proceedings his submissions were not examined at all, since, in the ruling ordering his extradition, there was no mention of any analysis of the above. The author further refers to the judgement of the European Court in Yakubov v. Russia, where, in a similar case, the European Court had ruled that, in holding that the applicant had failed to furnish “indisputable evidence” of the risk of ill-treatment, the Russian Court “had placed on him a disproportionate burden of proving the existence of a future event and had therefore, in practice, deprived him of an opportunity to obtain a meaningful examination of his claim”.11 6.6 The author further refers to the 2012 report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on his mission to Kyrgyzstan (see A/HRC/19/61/Add.2, paras. 27–29, 46–47, 55 and 79), and maintains that in Kyrgyzstan there is no effective system for ensuring protection against torture, no investigations of torture allegations ever take place and perpetrators enjoy impunity. Therefore, he maintains that there are no grounds to expect that the requirements of the Covenant will be respected in his case. State party’s further observations on the admissibility and merits 7.1 On 6 June and 16 July 2014, the State party submits that, on 4 October 2011, the Office of Procurator General of the Russian Federation received from the Office of the Procurator General of Kyrgyzstan an extradition request for the author dated 29 September 2011. The State party details the criminal charges listed in the extradition request. It further submits that the author was arrested on 14 September 2011 on the basis of an inter-State arrest warrant issued by Kyrgyzstan. Upon being arrested, he was advised of his rights. During the initial interrogation, the author stated that he was wanted by the Kyrgyz authorities on criminal charges and was not subjected to persecution related to political 9 10 11 8 The author submits a printout of the decision downloaded from the website of the Bamsansky Regional Court, available from http://basmanny.msk.sudrf.ru/modules.php?name=sud_delo&srv_num=1&name_op=r&delo_id=154 0005&case_type=0&new=0&G1_PARTS__NAMESS=&G1_CASE__CASE_NUMBERSS=23516%2F2012&delo_table=G1_CASE&G1_CASE__ENTRY_DATE1D=&G1_CASE__ENTRY_D ATE2D=&G1_CASE__ORIGIN_DATE1D=&G1_CASE__ORIGIN_DATE2D=&G1_CASE__JUD GE=&G1_CASE__RESULT_DATE1D=&G1_CASE__RESULT_DATE2D=&G1_CASE__RESUL T=&G1_EVENT__EVENT_NAME=&G1_EVENT__EVENT_DATEDD=&G1_PARTS__PARTS_ TYPE=&G1_DOCUMENT__PUBL_DATE1D=&G1_DOCUMENT__PUBL_DATE2D=&G1_CAS E__VALIDITY_DATE1D=&G1_CASE__VALIDITY_DATE2D=&Submit=%CD%E0%E9%F2%E8. Available from http://mos-gorsud.ru/. Yakubov v. Russia (application No. 7265/10), judgement of November 2011, para. 99.