The High Court struck out an application to extradite Igor Yurievich Khatlamadzhiyev to the Russian Federation after Russian authorities failed to respond to questions about fair trial protections. The court did not decide whether extradition would breach his rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The application concerned allegations of an assault with intent to rob in November 1997. Khatlamadzhiyev denied the allegations. He also objected to extradition on grounds of delay and the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Russian detention.
The court said the formal requirements for extradition had been met, as had the requirements concerning correspondence of offences and minimum gravity. It rejected the delay argument, finding that although the lapse of more than 21 years was exceptional, the respondent had not explained his responsibility for the delay or established other exceptional circumstances required to refuse extradition on that basis.
On prison conditions, the court considered Russian assurances that the respondent would receive legal assistance, be protected from ill-treatment and be held in a facility meeting stated standards. The judgment reviewed prior cases in which courts accepted assurances about specified facilities. The material before this court did not identify a particular facility for Khatlamadzhiyev.
The court’s principal remaining concern was whether he would receive a fair trial in Russia. In 2019, it adjourned the proceedings so the applicant could seek information from Russia about developments since a 2015 High Court decision that had found a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice in another extradition case. The court approved questions to the Russian Federation, and the matter was adjourned five more times while awaiting a response.
The respondent remained in custody from his arrest on 1 August 2018. After receiving no response by 1 April 2020, the court struck out the application, following an earlier warning that it would do so if the information was not provided. The judge expressly stated that the court had reached no determination on whether extradition would violate Article 6. The judgment records the strike-out; it makes no order surrendering the respondent.