I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in B.Z. v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2012-06-12
  • Communication date: 2016-03-30
  • Application number(s): 10583/16
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 2, 2-1, 3, 5, 5-1, 5-4, 13, 34
  • Conclusion:
    Remainder inadmissible
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention
    Procedure prescribed by law)
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Prompt information)
    Non-pecuniary damage - award
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.532578
  • Prediction: No violation

  • Inconsistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Application no 10583/16B.Z.against Russialodged on 24 February 2016 The applicant is a Syrian national born in Aleppo.
He arrived in Russia in October 2011 in search of work.
In June 2013 the applicant was convicted of illegal residence in Russia and ordered that he should leave Russia.
In June 2015 the applicant was convicted of the failure to comply with the order of June 2013 and sentenced to a fine and administrative removal from Russia.
On the same day he was placed in custody where he remains to date.
In December 2015 the migration authorities rejected the applicant’s application for temporary asylum, finding that there was no evidence that he was persecuted or personally targeted in any other way.
The only reason for his application for temporary asylum was the ongoing military conflict and the ensuing humanitarian crisis in Syria.
His situation was not any worse than the situation of the general Syrian population.
Moreover, the applicant would be removed to Damascus which was controlled by the Government forces and was therefore safe.
There were no grounds for temporary asylum.
In February 2016 the applicant’s representative lodged an appeal against the administrative removal order of.
He asked for an extension of the time-limit for appeal, claiming that it had been missed because the applicant had not been represented at the time and had insufficient command of Russian to understand the procedure.
In March 2016 the appeal court rejected the request for an extension of the time-limit.
The administrative removal order is enforceable.
In February 2016 the applicant lodged a new application for asylum.
The proceedings are pending.
In March 2016 the applicant challenged the decision refusing temporary asylum before the higher-level migration authority.
Relying on the UN reports, he claimed that in case of his deportation to Syria he would run a high risk of death due the generalised violence prevailing in all Syrian regions because of the ongoing military conflict there.
COMPLAINTS 1.
The applicant complains under Articles 2, 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No.
4 that in case of his removal to Syria he will face a risk of death and/or torture there and that the domestic authorities did not examine his claims about the existence of such risk with the requisite thoroughness.
2.
The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 that his detention pending administrative removal has been unlawful and arbitrary and that there is no effective procedure by which he can challenge his continued detention.
3.
The applicant complains that his representative is not allowed to visit him in detention and has had difficulties passing him documents, including the power of authority and the application form, for signature.

Judgment