Report No. 65 (2021) IACHR. Petition No. 354-12 (Costa Rica)

• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

REPORT No. 65/21

PETITION 354-12

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

EVGENY KONSTANTINOVICH OTTO

COSTA RICA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II

D..

31 M. 2021

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on M. 31, 2021.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 65/21, Petition 354-12. A.. Evgeny K.O.. Costa Rica. M. 31, 2021.

www.iachr.org

I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner:	Irina O., T.O.
:	Evgeny K.O.
Respondent S.:	Costa Rica
Rights invoked:	Articles 7 (personal liberty), 8 (fair trial) and 22 (freedom of movement and residence) of the American Convention on Human Rights1

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR2

Filing of the petition:	M. 6, 2012
Additional information received at the stage of initial review:	April 8, 2012, A.9., 2012, October 10, 2012, October 14, 2012, October 27, 2012, November 19, 2012 and December 13, 2012
N. of the petition to the S.:	October 7, 2016
S.’s first response:	February 15, 2017
Additional observations from the petitioner:	September 22, 2017, May 17, 2019, October 7, 2019 and August 7, 2020
Additional observations from the S.:	September 15, 2018, February 4, 2019, May 6, 2020 and October 20, 2020

III. COMPETENCE

Competence Ratione personae:	Y.
Competence Ratione loci:	Y.
Competence Ratione temporis:	Y.
Competence Ratione materiae:	Y., American Convention (instrument of ratification deposited on April 8, 1970)

IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Duplication of procedures and International res judicata:	No
Rights declared admissible	Articles 7 (personal liberty), 8 (fair trial), 22 (freedom of movement and residence) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to its article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights)
Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule:	Y., in the terms of Section VI
Timeliness of the petition:	Y., in the terms of Section VI

V. ALLEGED FACTS

1. The petitioner resorts to the IACHR requesting that the S. of Costa Rica be declared internationally responsible for the violation of the human rights of Mr. E.K.O., a citizen of the Russian Federation, based on (i) the procedure of evaluation and dismissal of his request of political refuge in Costa Rica, (ii) the extradition proceedings developed against him, and (iii) the conditions in which he was detained at a prison in Costa Rica and the damages sustained on his bodily and psychological integrity while he was imprisoned therein. Mr. E.O. was criminally prosecuted and internationally required by the Russian authorities for the crime of fraud, at the same time that he has constantly declared himself to be a victim of political persecution, grounds on which he requested political asylum and refuge in Costa Rica, which was denied. A. the initiation and development of the multiple, simultaneous and successive judicial and administrative Costa Rican proceedings described in the following paragraphs, Mr. O. was effectively extradited to the Russian Federation on September 2, 2015, with the case receiving significant coverage by the media and generating public statements by different Costa Rican S. officials, including the President of the Republic at the time, L.C..

S. of the initial petition and additional information provided by the petitioner

Request for refuge, evaluation and dismissal thereof, and subsequent judicial proceedings

2. In relation to the alleged political persecution, M.O. explains that the origin of the criminal prosecutions against him in the Russian Federation allegedly was a commercial affair, which however took a political tone and a persecutory connotation when he denounced the corruption of S. officials whom, he holds, intended to gain access to a textile company he owned. He indicates that the judicial actions in Russia were not initiated by a prosecutor, but by a deputy of Parliament (Duma); and he reports that he has continued to denounce corrupt Russian officials through the Internet, but that the Russian Federation allegedly shut down the corresponding websites and took the articles down from the web. He also claims that Russian authorities have branded him as “extremist” and “dangerous”; and that the “Young Guards” group of the “United Russia” party included him in a public list of “Enemies of Russia”, which entails a serious risk for his life and personal integrity in such country.

3. In 2005 Mr. O. legally departed Russian territory and legally entered Costa Rica, where he requested refuge on J. 11, 2006 before the General Directorate of Migration and Foreign Nationals, under Law No. 7033, arguing political and economic persecution by different public and private persons of the region of V., in Russia. His request was initially rejected. A. the entry into force of the new Migration and Foreign Nationals Act on J. 30, 2008 he filed a new request for refuge. However, on November 18, 2008 his request was dismissed for a second time. On May 14, 2009 Mr. O. filed a contentious-administrative action against these negative administrative decisions, which was ruled in his favor on J. 8, 2009 by the Contentious Administrative Tribunal (judgment No. 1354-2009), which ordered that the resolutions which rejected his requests for refuge be voided, and decided that “the competent authorities of the General Directorate of Migration (…) are to analyze and assess the evidentiary elements provided and offered by the petitioner”. The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic filed a cassation appeal against this judgment before the First C. of the Supreme C. of Justice, which dismissed it by means of a judgment of J. 9, 2010; upon which the Administration had three months to resolve the refuge request. A. complying with this order, on February 22, 2011 the Restricted Visas and Refuge Commission of the General Directorate of Migration again rejected the request for refuge; the decision was challenged by Mr. O. on April 26, 2011, by means of a motion for revocation and in subsidy for appeal. In this motion, Mr. O. claimed, inter alia, a lack of motivation of the decision and inadequate application of the relevant legal provisions; he also pointed out that the “Young Guards” group, affiliated to the United Russia Party of president V.P., had published on the Internet a list of “enemies of Russia” which included his name and location in San José of Costa Rica, which in his view generated a risk for his life and personal integrity; and he concluded that “there is abundant and more than enough documentary evidence [that] my fundamental rights to personal liberty, physical integrity and even my life are subject to risk”. The motion was dismissed by a resolution of May 20, 2011 of the Commission of Visas and Refuge, and this negative resolution was confirmed on August 31, 2011 by the Administrative Migratory Tribunal; the latter considered that there was insufficient evidence to consider Mr. O. as a political refugee, arguing: “it is not proven in the refuge casefile, that Mr. Evgeny suffered personal persecution by his country’s authorities, insofar as what he provides as evidence, are references to persecution suffered by other Russian nationals, whose link or connection to Mr. O. is not proven, that is to say, it is not considered to have been proven that those apparent persecutions were borne by his partners, friends, neighbors or relatives”. The Tribunal also ruled on the Internet publications mentioned by the petitioner, holding that “it is not undisputedly corroborated, that these are official websites of that country, nor that the alleged phone tapping and email blockings were actually carried out by the Russian Government”.

4. Against these decisions Mr. O. filed a new motion before the Contentious Administrative Tribunal on November 14, 2011, requesting their annulment and claiming lack of motivation, inadequate application of the international legal provisions in force, and incorrect evaluation of evidence. On November 28, 2014 the Fourth Section of the Contentious Administrative Tribunal of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José declared M.O.’s claim inadmissible. On J. 6, 2015 he filed a cassation remedy against this judgment before the First C. of the Supreme C. of Justice; which by means of judgment of J. 18, 2015 declared the remedy inadmissible, basing itself mainly on the existence, as of that date, of a final extradition judgment in force, which would preclude granting the request for asylum. On J. 2, 2015 Mr. O.’s attorney filed a request for addition and clarification of the cassation judgment, which was rejected by the C. through a judgment on J. 9, 2015. On that same J. 2, 2015 the attorney had also filed a request for annulment of the cassation judgment, which was denied by the Supreme C. in a ruling of J. 16, 2015 where it declared it inadmissible. Upon dismissal of the cassation remedy by the Supreme C. of Justice, on August 31, 2015 Mr. O.’s attorney filed a motion for review before the First C. against the cassation judgment issued by such C., questioning the impartiality of some of the judges thereof; this remedy had not yet been decided at the time of M.O.’s extradition on September 2, 2015.

5. Mr. O. has filed criminal complaints against the Minister of Public Security and Government of Costa Rica,...