It is a very effective measure for persons who are facing extradition to a country where they might face inhuman treatment or torture. They have a good chance not to be extradited, especially if they can present documents to the Court or Committee showing the existence of torture in these circumstances in the relevant country. authorities said they did not know who kidnapped this person. But when Tajikistan reported before the Human Rights Committee in this case, it said that the Russian government handed over Iskandarov to them in an official manner and presented relevant documentation. By presenting this documentation, we were able to prove to the ECtHR that the Russian authorities extradite persons in an undercover manner. Although this measure has great potential in preventing torture and has proven effective in many instances, the practice can also be disappointing at times, as in a recent case from 2012 decided by the [UN Committee against Torture] against Kazakhstan concerning extradition from Kazakhstan to Uzbekistan.15 The Committee actually instructed Kazakhstan not to extradite the person, but the country failed to follow this instruction and finally the Committee found a violation of the right not to be extradited where a person might be tortured. On the other hand, we were successful with applying the interim measures before the European Court. All states carefully follow instructions from the European Court not to extradite a person to another country. Starting from Garabaev v. Russia,16 we have won several cases applying the interim measures and interim procedures according to Rule 39.17 Within this procedure, the European Court communicates the case within 24 hours. And we saved—really saved—some of these lives. This is the way to prevent potential torture. Conclusion In conclusion, I would like to stress that much depends on our activeness. But not everything we do yields results. Something is really wrong with the UN system if so many countries, especially after the Russian Federation, a huge country and a member of the Security Council, sets this bad example saying, “We are not going to comply with these decisions because they are not binding—they are just recommendations.” It is not possible to take the Committee of Ministers to the Council, but at least it is possible to appropriately educate the national authorities and to establish and maintain an effective follow-up mechanism. As much as the UN pushes countries to criminalize torture, it is just as necessary to implement in national legislation norms that ensure the implementation of the decisions. It does make sense to have in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation Articles 413 and 415,19 which oblige the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to quash all the judgments in cases where the European Court finds a violation of fair trial rights, but it does not make sense not to have similar provisions concerning the decisions of UN treaty bodies. It is unacceptable and the UN has to act to promote compliance. But since the Russian authorities now know exactly when they are not allowed to extradite a person, they are doing the following, as is seen in the case of Iskandarov.18 They did not extradite him, but they simply released him, and some unidentified people, acting in the territory of the Russian Federation, as if on their own, took him and brought him to Tajikistan. Then the Russian Remarks of Christian M. De Vos* Introduction As Gerald [Staberock] already noted, the topic of this panel is “Challenges in the Implementation of CAT Decisions,” which is an issue that my organization, the Open Society Justice Initiative, has engaged with quite closely for several years now. The Justice Initiative, for those who are not familiar, engages in litigation around the world before the UN treaty bodies, including the Committee against Torture (CAT), as well as the regional human rights systems and several sub-regional courts. In so doing, we represent applicants, we intervene as a third party, and we also provide technical assistance to local counsel. Like many litigators, we have a specific interest in learning how to make our litigation more effective, including through the full and expeditious implementation of judgments. Indeed, implementation is one of the greatest challenges of our work, as it is for so many other organizations, ranging from international NGOs to local human rights groups, which struggle to ensure that the lofty principles articulated in Geneva or Strasbourg or * Christian M. De Vos is an Advocacy Officer at the Open Society Justice Initiative and author of the new report “From Rights to Remedies: Structures and Strategies for Implementing Human Rights Decisions.” He is an alumnus of the American University Washington College of Law. 26