CAT/C/47/D/428/2010 2.3 On 7 July 2006, the complainant entered Italy on a regular entry visa. Meanwhile, his criminal complaint had been discontinued. In his absence and without his agreement or signature, on 12 August 2006, the complainant’s shares of the Bank24.Ru were transferred to an unknown buyer.2 On 23 August 2006, someone faked the data concerning the shares of the Global Gamin Expo company and registered the complainant as the 100 per cent owner, as well as its sole director in chief. Thereafter, executive officers of the bank reported the complainant to the police for having embezzled the client’s funds from their personal accounts in Global Gamin Expo.3 The police opened an investigation and requested an international arrest warrant for the complainant on charges of fraud, without however providing any specific indications or documents to support the accusation, such as for example the complainant’s personal accounts to which he would have transferred the money of Global Gamin Expo clients or the timing and modalities of the operations carried out on the clients’ accounts. 2.4 In July 2007, the complainant’s business partner Mr. Varaskin disappeared when he entered the prison facilities in Yekaterinburg to testify before the investigative authorities. In August 2008, the complainant’s business partner Mr. Shatov survived a car bomb, but was killed by machine-gun fire in September 2008. 2.5 On 4 June 2008, the complainant was arrested in Italy pursuant to the international arrest warrant, which had been issued on 27 February 2007 for charges of embezzlement to the detriment of over 600 individuals and a total amount of 200 million roubles. However, in a separate decree of committal for trial dated 2 February 2007, the complainant had only been charged for embezzlement to the detriment of 100 individuals, for a total amount of 70 million roubles. On 6 June 2008, the Florence Court of Appeal ordered the complainant’s detention on remand. On 8 June 2008, the complainant was released into home detention. On 5 November 2008 and 23 January 2009, the Florence Court of Appeal requested further information from the Russian authorities, as to the exact number of fraud charges and their substantiation, as well as the conduct imputable to the complainant with regard to his capacity to dispose of the clients’ money. On 24 April 2009, the Florence Appeal Court held that conditions for the complainant’s extradition had not been met, as neither the arrest warrant nor the decree of committal to trial indicated in a sufficiently precise manner the criminal conduct allegedly committed by the complainant. The Court lifted all restriction measures on the complainant. On 27 October 2009, the Supreme Court quashed the Florence Appeal Court judgement and found that the conditions for the complainant’s extradition had been met and ordered the complainant’s detention on remand until further decision by the Ministry of Justice. According to the Supreme Court, the information provided by the Russian authorities was sufficient to overcome the divergent indications as to the number and nature of the charges. The Russian authorities had explained that criminal proceedings had been instituted on charges of fraud to the detriment of 104 persons and the investigating authorities were still establishing the complainant’s involvement in embezzling currency instruments to the detriment of over 2,000 other individuals. The complainant addressed a letter to the Minister of Justice explaining the background of the criminal proceedings for financial fraud, as well as the reasons for his fear of being killed or subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if extradited to the Russian Federation. 2 3 4 The complainant notes that according to the Russian legal system, any share transfer requires the physical presence of the two contractors, the local agent of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and a notary. The complainant underlines that if he had actually embezzled the Global Gaming Expo clients’ money, there would be no logical reason to become sole director and shareholder of that company.