UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
#IBelong Campaign Update, April 2021 - June 2021
9 July 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
Campaign Update, January 2021 - March 2021
15 April 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
Turdikhojaev v. Ukraine (no. 72510/12)
The Court found violations of articles 3, 5§1, and 5§5, when the applicant was kept in a cell measuring only 1.4 meters in pre-trial detention, placed in a metal cage during appellate proceedings, was not released immediately despite being granted refugee status in Sweden, and when the applicant had no available compensation under domestic law. 18 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Immigration Detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Ukraine - Uzbekistan |
Campaign Update, October 2020 - December 2020
11 January 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
Campaign Update, July 2020 - September 2020
14 October 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
Campaign Update, January 2020 - March 2020
22 April 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |
Uzbekistan: On Citizenship of the Republic of Uzbekistan
28 February 2020 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Legislation |
CASE OF N.M. v. RUSSIA (Application no. 29343/18)
The Court applied the relevant general principles established in its jurisprudence in the case of F.G. v. Sweden (no. 43611/11) and in the context of removals from Russia to Central Asian States in Mamazhonov v. Russia (no. 17239/13): a) When examining the existence of substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faces a real risk of ill-treatment, the Court recalled that individuals whose extradition was sought by the Uzbek authorities on charges of religiously or politically motivated crimes constituted vulnerable groups facing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to Uzbekistan. The Court found that the applicant was accused of religiously motivated crimes on the basis of documents from the Uzbek authorities. It further considered that the Russian authorities had at their disposal sufficiently substantiated complaints pointing to a real risk of ill-treatment (§15-18). b) With respect to the duty to assess claims of a real risk of ill-treatment through reliance on sufficient relevant material, the Court concluded that the Russian authorities failed to assess the applicant’s claim adequately. The Court paid particular attention to the fact that domestic authorities did not carry out a rigorous scrutiny of the applicant’s and to the national courts’ simplistic rejections of the applicant’s claims (§19-21). c) On the existence of a real risk of ill-treatment or danger to life in their countries of origin, the Court reiterated that it has consistently concluded that the removal of an applicant charged with religiously motivated crimes in Uzbekistan exposes that applicant to a real risk of ill-treatment there (see for example: T.M. and Others v. Russia, no. 31189/15) (§22-23). 3 December 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Kazakhstan - Russian Federation - Uzbekistan |
Joint Conclusions of the 2nd Regional Conference on the Right to Legal Identity and Prevention of Statelessness: Leaving No One Behind at Birth
6 September 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Conference Reports |
Campaign Update, April - June 2019
July 2019 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Country News |