Case of klean

Solo disponible en BuenasTareas
  • Páginas : 38 (9453 palabras )
  • Descarga(s) : 0
  • Publicado : 29 de febrero de 2012
Leer documento completo
Vista previa del texto

CASE OF KLEIN v. RUSSIA (Application no. 24268/08)


STRASBOURG 1 April 2010

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.



In the case of Klein v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chambercomposed of: Christos Rozakis, President, Nina Vajić, Anatoly Kovler, Elisabeth Steiner, Khanlar Hajiyev, Dean Spielmann, Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 March 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

1. The case originated in an application (no. 24268/08) against the RussianFederation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Israeli national, Mr Gal Yair Klein (“the applicant”), on 26 May 2008. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr D. Yampolskiy, a lawyer practicing in Moscow, and by Mr M. Tzivin, Mr M. Levin and Mr N. Tzivin, lawyers practising in Tel-Aviv. The RussianGovernment (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3. On 27 May 2008 the President of the Chamber decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Government that the applicant should not be extradited to Colombia until further notice. 4. On 3 July 2008 the Court decided to apply Rule 41 ofthe Rules of Court and to grant priority treatment to the application. 5. On 4 September 2008 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3). 6. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Havingconsidered the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.



I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Tel-Aviv. He is currently detained in remand prison IZ-77/4 in Moscow. 8. On 23 February 2001 the Criminal Court of the Manizales District, Colombia (“Juzgado Penal del Circuito de Manizales”) convicted theapplicant of a crime provided for by Article 15 of Decree no. 180 (1988), acknowledged as permanent law of Colombia by Extraordinary Decree no. 2266 (1991), (“instruction in and teaching of military and terrorist tactics, techniques and methods, committed with mercenaries and accomplices”) and sentenced him to fourteen years' imprisonment. 9. On 22 June 2001 the Superior Court of the Manizales District,Colombia (“Tribunal Superior de Manizales”) reduced the applicant's sentence on appeal to ten years and eight months' imprisonment, combined with a fine. 10. On 28 February 2001 the Criminal Court of the Manizales District issued an arrest warrant against the applicant on the basis of his conviction. 11. On 28 March 2007 Interpol issued Red Notice No. A-666/3-2007 for the applicant's provisionalarrest with a view to extradition. 12. At 6.40 p.m. on 27 August 2007 a group of servicemen of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, assisted by Interpol officers, arrested the applicant in Domodedovo Airport, Moscow. 13. On 28 August 2007 the Moscow prosecutor's office with responsibility for supervision of the implementation of laws on marine and air-borne transport ordered the applicant'splacement in custody, pursuant to Article 466 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”), until his transfer to the country which had requested extradition. The decision gave the following reasons for application of a measure of restraint:
“Gal Klein Yair is a national of a third State, has no permanent place of residence and employment on the territory of the Russian Federation, and his...
tracking img