FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 55091/13 Ibragim Khasan Ogly MUSAYEV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 September 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President, Elisabeth Steiner, Khanlar Hajiyev, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, Erik Møse, Ksenija Turković, Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 August 2013, Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Having regard to the submissions of the Governments of the Russian Federation and Azerbaijan submitted in reply to the request of factual information under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Ibragim Khasan Ogly Musayev, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1992 and lived in Shopsha, Yaroslavl Region. He was represented before the Court by Ms O.A. Sadovskaya, a lawyer practising in Nizhniy Novgorod. The Russian Government were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the 2 MUSAYEV v. RUSSIA DECISION European Court of Human Rights. The Azerbaijani Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov. 2. On 11 September 2013 the President of the Section decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to the Government of the Russian Federation, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited to Azerbaijan until further notice. The President of the Section also decided to request the Governments of the Russian Federation and Azerbaijan, under Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, to submit factual information regarding the extradition proceedings, the criminal prosecution of the applicant in Azerbaijan and his alleged employment by the Ministry of National Security of the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan (“the MNS”). 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and the Governments of the Russian Federation and Azerbaijan, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 2 September 2012 the applicant left Azerbaijan and travelled to the Russian Federation to live with his father in the village of Shopsha, Yaroslavl Region. 5. On 26 November 2012 notification was sent to the applicant in Azerbaijan that he was being drafted into the armed forces. His relatives informed the authorities that he had moved to Russia. In response, on 3 December 2012 the Nakhchivan city department of the State Service for Mobilisation and Military Draft of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic requested the police and prosecution authorities to search for the applicant. 6. On 14 December 2012 the Nakhchivan City Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of fraud and misappropriation. According to the investigation, the crimes had been committed in July 2012 against a restaurant and a private individual. The proceeds of the crime totalled some 2,000 euros (EUR). 7. On the same day an investigator at the Nakhchivan City Prosecutor’s Office ordered the applicant’s search and arrest for the purpose of serving an indictment on him. 8. On 25 December 2012, at the request of the Nakhchivan City Prosecutor, the Nakhchivan City Court ordered the applicant’s arrest and two months’ detention from the date of his apprehension. 9. On an unspecified date in December 2012 the applicant told the Azerbaijani media that he was a former agent of the MNS, that he had witnessed the torture of Mr T.Z. on the premises of the MNS in Nakhchivan from 24 to 27 August 2011, and that Mr T.Z. had died as a result of torture. In this connection, he gave the names of the senior officials of the MNS who had allegedly tortured that person. 10. On 8 January 2013 the criminal case against the applicant was suspended pending his arrest. MUSAYEV v. RUSSIA DECISION 3 A. Asylum proceedings 11. In December 2012 the applicant moved from the Yaroslavl Region to Moscow for the purpose of requesting asylum. 12. On 16 January 2013 the applicant applied for asylum to the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service (“the MD FMS”). His statements to the immigration authorities and the media contained the following allegations: (a) He was a former employee of the MNS and a key witness to Mr T.Z.’s death. He had witnessed security officers of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic torturing Mr T.Z. and hanging him; (b) After Mr T.Z.’s death, the wife of the deceased, Mrs A., started to complain to various authorities about the killing of her husband. The applicant was instructed by his employer to contact her and use blackmail to make her withdraw her complaints. In one of his interviews he stated that he had videotaped himself and Mrs A. having sexual intercourse. In another interview he stated that he had asked her to go with him to deliver drugs to someone and on their way they had been stopped by undercover police officers who had “found drugs” in their car; Mrs A. had been warned that if she did not withdraw her complaints, she would be charged with drug trafficking. (c) When Mrs A. refused to withdraw her complaints the MNS ordered the applicant to kill her. He refused and fled to Russia. 13. On 21 January 2013 the applicant received notification from the MD FMS that his asylum request had been accepted for consideration. Subsequently, he left Moscow and went to the Yaroslavl Region without notifying the immigration authorities. The Moscow address which he had provided to the MD FMS was later discovered to be false. 14. On 6 February 2013 the applicant was arrested by the law-enforcement authorities in the Yaroslavl Region on the basis of the search-and-arrest warrant issued in Azerbaijan. 15. On 21 April 2013, having considered the merits of the applicant’s asylum request, the MD FMS decided to refuse it. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows: “Musayev Ibragim substantiated his request by claiming that his life had been threatened by the MNS of Azerbaijan. He confirmed his identity by [presenting his Azerbaijani passport] ... He refused to provide his military service identification card, stating that it was ‘a state secret’... Musayev I.G. reasoned the existence of a threat to his life ... by the fact that he had refused to comply with an order issued by the MNS to kill a person ... 4 MUSAYEV v. RUSSIA DECISION [He stated that] between 2010 and 2012 he had worked as a secret agent for the MNS. He refused to answer the question whether he had followed any secret service training in the MNS, since it was ‘a state secret’. Musayev Ibragim stated that ... as a result of his failure to comply with an order to ‘kill a person’ he had started to receive threats personally from the Minister of National Security ... [and] that to save his life he had fled to Russia ... [In Russia] he had started receiving further threats ... and four to five times he had been offered a monetary reward of [EUR 95,000 to EUR 380,000] for his ‘silence’ and keeping the state secret. ... The analysis of Musayev Ibragim’s personal file demonstrates that the reason which triggered his departure from his home country and his unwillingness to return was not a threat to his life from the MNS, but a real fear of arrest for fraud. The statements of the applicant are contradictory. Musayev Ibragim ... was not a member of any political, civic or religious association in Azerbaijan, and was never persecuted on ethnic grounds. His employment by the MNS is not proven by any documents. During the check of his declared place of residence in Moscow ... [it had proven to be non-existent] and this fact demonstrates the lack of sincerity in the applicant’s statements ... The circumstances mentioned above prove that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that Musayev Ibragim would be a victim of persecution in Azerbaijan ...”. The decision also contained an extensive section analysing the international human-rights obligations of Azerbaijan, its human-rights record as reported by NGOs and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, reports on the ethnic, social and economic situation in the country, as well as migration dynamics. 16. The applicant’s representative, Mr S., complained against the decision to the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”). The complaint stated that the regional immigration authorities had failed to consider two facts: first, that the applicant had left Azerbaijan before the institution of criminal proceedings against him; and secondly, that given the reports of human-rights organisations about the practice of torture and other human- rights violations in Azerbaijan, the applicant would be exposed to those risks, especially in view of the political nature of his prosecution. 17. On 4 July 2013 the FMS issued decision No. 1198 upholding the decision of the regional authorities. The relevant parts read as follows: “It must be observed that the applicant’s statement that the reason for his presence in Russia is to seek asylum is not corroborated by the facts ... After arriving on 2 September 2013 he did not lodge his request until January 2013 after the period of his lawful stay [in Russia] had expired. Publications on the internet signed by him started to appear only in November 2012 (after leaving Azerbaijan and at the end of the period of lawful stay in Russia).