Dzgoev v Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation (Rev 1)

In an extradition case involving a Council of Europe state, the presumption that the requesting state will comply with article 3 of the ECHR is rebuttable by clear, cogent and compelling evidence of a real risk of prohibited treatment.

An ECtHR pilot judgment concerning overcrowding in Russian remand prisons displaces that presumption within its scope. The requesting state must then provide convincing evidence or sufficiently specific, reliable and objectively verifiable assurances addressing the individual’s detention conditions. General evidence about poor prison conditions, medical risks or post-trial facilities does not itself establish an article 3 bar where no relevant systemic problem has been identified.

Mr Dzgoev appealed under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Grant’s decision of 16 May 2016 sending his case to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State subsequently ordered his extradition to Russia.

He had been convicted of two robberies and was wanted for trial on a further alleged robbery. He relied on article 3 of the ECHR, referring to overcrowding and other prison conditions in Russia, the risk of ill-treatment, and inadequate medical facilities for HIV and hepatitis C. He also sought permission to raise section 91 of the 2003 Act. The central issue was whether the District Judge had been wrong to conclude that extradition was compatible with article 3.

1. The court held that its task under section 104 of the Extradition Act 2003 was to decide whether the District Judge had made the wrong decision. The appeal was not a rehearing, although the court could assess documentary material and submissions for itself.

2. Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe supported a presumption that it would comply with the ECHR. That presumption was rebuttable by clear, cogent and compelling evidence establishing a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3.

3. The pilot judgment in Ananyev v Russia (2012) 55 EHRR 1 8 concerned the structural problem of overcrowding in Russian remand prisons. It displaced the presumption in that field. It did not establish a general article 3 risk for all Russian detention, or for matters other than overcrowding.

4. Russia had shown that the appellant was likely to be held in SIZO-1 and that the facility’s general occupancy was below its stated capacity. The assurances were nevertheless insufficient. They did not guarantee that the appellant himself would have an individual sleeping place, at least 3 square metres of floor space, and adequate freedom of movement. They also lacked a satisfactory mechanism for independent verification. Further assurances addressing those matters were required.

5. Evidence of poor conditions in Russian prisons did not establish a systemic post-trial article 3 risk. The appellant’s previous detention without ill-treatment, Russia’s Convention obligations and incentives to honour assurances, and the absence of a relevant ECtHR pilot judgment were significant. The medical evidence likewise did not meet the high article 3 threshold, even if treatment might be interrupted or his condition might deteriorate.

6. The court refused permission to amend the appeal under section 91. It stayed the overcrowding ground pending further assurances and invited the CPS to obtain assurances in the terms set out in the annex. The appeal would likely be dismissed if satisfactory assurances were obtained, but would likely succeed on that ground if they were not.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The court stayed the pre-trial overcrowding ground pending further assurances and rejected the challenges based on post-trial conditions and medical facilities.
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court — District Judge Grant ordered the case to be sent to the Secretary of State on 16 May 2016.
3. Secretary of State — Extradition to Russia was ordered on 11 July 2016.