CAT/C/47/D/428/2010 left the country due to fear of persecution. His parents had to move to another city, as they were being intimidated by anonymous phone calls. Moreover, his lawyer received threats to her life and consequently had to cease representing him. 5.7 With regard to his well-founded fear of torture and irreparable harm in case of extradition to the Russian Federation, the complainant maintains that he is at serious risk of facing arbitrary arrest, torture and denial of a fair and public trial, as he has survived two murder attempts and is in possession of information that could be detrimental to public figures in the Russian Federation, in particular to the General Prosecutor of Yekaterinburg. He further submits that evidence supports his statements about organized crime and impunity, corruption of public officials and politically motivated killings in the Russian Federation.7 Furthermore, it has been reported that judges are often intimidated and constrained by the executive branch to convict persons who are innocent. The complainant further underlines that he is already considered guilty rather than innocent and would experience threats to his life by Russian authorities and persons acting on behalf of the authorities or criminal groups. He further notes that in the light of his complaint to the Prosecutor General of Moscow about the climate of corruption and impunity, his life is at great risk.8 The complainant notes that the detention conditions in the Russian Federation are life threatening due to overcrowding, poor living conditions and poor treatment of detainees. According to figures by the Federal Penal Service, of the 900,000 detainees, 795,000 are suffering from various diseases.9 5.8 The complainant notes that UNHCR considered that the persecution of the complainant, who as a financial trader is apolitical and not associated to any social group, did not relate to one or more of the grounds listed in article 1 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. He however submits that the fact that he does not qualify for refugee status does not mean that he cannot rely on the protection of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as the persecution is not dependent on the existence of a particular ground. Despite refusing the complainant refugee status, UNHCR concluded that he might face arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of his life, arbitrary arrest or detention, and/or denial of a fair and public trial. 5.9 Recalling the Committee’s jurisprudence,10 the complainant submits that neither himself nor the lawyer representing him before the Supreme Court have been officially served with the final decision by the Minister of Justice to authorize the extradition. It is not clear if a formal decision has been adopted, as the State party does not provide a copy of the decree by the Minister of Justice. Therefore, the complainant submits that he cannot be held responsible to file an appeal against an extradition decree which has not been served to him. The complainant further submits that even if the appeal had been formally served to him, an appeal for abuse of power before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court falls 7 8 9 10 8 See United States Department of State, 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Russia (11 March 2010); Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights, report by Thomas Hammarberg following his visit to the Russian Federation on 2-11 September 2009 (24 November 2009); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Home Office, Country of Origin Information Key documents: Russia (19 January 2007). The complainant cites two similar cases, one reported by the World Organisation against Torture (“Violent assault and judicial harassment against Mr. Vadim Karastelev”, 16 March 2010) and one reported by the United States Department of State. See United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Annual Report on Human Rights 2009 (March 2010), pp. 136-141. See communication No. 233/2003, Agiza v. Sweden, decision adopted on 20 May 2005, paras. 13.613.7.