and his co-accused had not been sufficiently investigated and “torture and ill-treatment of the defendants allegedly continued up to and during the trial.”82 The report concluded that the trial was “… conducted in an atmosphere of fear, intimidation, tolerance of hatred and nationalistic threats and attacks. … The threats to lawyers, witnesses, judges and the constant use of torture against the defendants, seriously undermined the possibility of the proper administration of justice and the validity of the judgments by the trial and appeals courts.”83 These findings were supported in March 2016 by the UN Human Rights Committee which found in the case of Azimjan Askarov v. Kyrgyzstan that the complainant’s right to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, his right to a fair trial, right to an effective remedy and right to liberty had been violated.84 VIII. Conclusions Analysis of the law and practice on extraditions from the Russian Federation to Central Asian States reveals a number of critical human rights deficits. There is significant divergence between the domestic legal texts and jurisprudence and the practice of the Russian authorities. Several cases have demonstrated that both the lower courts and law enforcement authorities disregard the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the application of the non-refoulement principle. This lack of effective compliance with and respect for the non-refoulement principle makes the judicial review of extraditions to Central Asia States ineffective. Furthermore, it is documented that Russian authorities rely routinely on diplomatic assurances from the authorities of Central Asian States without carrying out scrutiny of their adequacy. This weakness is compounded by the functioning of the CIS Interstate wanted persons database, which provides no remedy against abuse. The ICJ submits that the lack of respect for the procedural aspect of the principle of non-refoulement, the consequent ineffectiveness of domestic remedies in this regard, and the abysmal record of Kyrgyzstan in upholding its obligation to respect and protect the prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment mean that extraditions from the Russian Federation to Kyrgyzstan entail a high risk of violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the principle of non-refoulement. 82 Ibid., para. 265 Ibid., para. 266 84 Azimjan Askarov v. Kyrgyzstan, CCPR, Communication no. 2231/2012, UN Doc. CCPR/C/116/D/2231/2012, 31 March 2016. On 12 July 2016, the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan ordered a re-hearing of the case but refused to release Mr Askarov despite the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee to “take appropriate steps to immediately release [him]”. See, Amnesty International, Kyrgyzstan: Supreme Court leaves 65-year-old Prisoner of Conscience languishing in jail, 12 July 2016, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/07/kyrgyzstan-supreme-court-leaves-prisoner-ofconscience-languishing-in-jail/ 83 10