Dear Ladies and  Gentlemen,


On 11th June 2014 European Court of Human Rights  decided NOT to indicate interim measures  (enclosure 1), in the case of Anzor Chentiev,  a Chechen asylum-seeker, who has been staying  for over 8 years in detention in  Leopoldov prison in Slovakia


APPEAL of Amnesty International


The ECHR  decision was based on the disinformation supplied by the Slovak Government.

Anzor Chentiev has been held in prison on terrorism-related charges initiated against him and Ali Ibragimov by Russian authorities, who demand their extradition. After 8 years in prison with no prospect of any solution to the case and under severe psychological pressure Mr. Chentiev suddenly dropped his asylum request. This was an act of sheer despair and he regretted it very soon. He asked his to submit a new asylum request to Slovak authorities and  a request to ECHR for new interim measures. The lawyer filed both requests, but meanwhile, the Slovak Minister of Justice Mr.Borec signed the decision to extradite  Mr.Chentiev to Russia.

Last week representative of the Slovak Ministry of Interior visited Mr. Chentiev in prison to conduct an asylum interview  - this was the consequence of his fresh asylum application. However, Mr Chentiev’s lawyer, Mr Stanko, was not invited to the interview, despite the earlier promises of the Ministry of the Interior to contact him and inform him of the planned visit. This  was not done.

Mr. Chentiev asked  for the presence of Mr.Stanko at the interview – but the people from the Ministry denied him this  legitimate right. As a result of this –  they did not register his asylum request at all!

Replying to the ECHR questions (enclosure 2) a  Slovak representative in ECHR Mrs. Pirosikova said that  Mr. Chentiev is no longer an asylum seeker in Slovakia!

Mr.Stanko, Mr Chengtiev’s lawyer, explained the situation in his letter sent by fax to ECHR 11.6.2014 in good time (the deadline for answering the questions of ECHR was this date at 17.00 of French time), but ECHR did not acknowledge the receipt of this letter in the letter informing of their decision not to indicate the interim measures.

The case seems shocking. In a similar case last year  Mr. Alexey Torubarov was denied the interim measures by ECHR, although he was an asylum seeker in Czech Republic and NOT A SINGLE decision was taken in his case during the 14 months period. But, this fact was ignored and did not stop his extradition to Russia! He experienced torture while deportation and staying in Russian prison, and managed to escape thanks to  a mere chance only. Now, he is an asylum seeker inHungary:

This happened last year  – in 2014 the lack of legality in Russia has become even more obvious.

Please, do not be indifferent and help to stop the unfair and illegal extradition of Mr. Chentiev! It could happen any time now.



Hana Demeterová, Civic assotiation Help a man, Prague, Czech Rep.





Press release

I firmly oppose the conduct of the Department of Foreign Police in Nitra, including their claim recently used by the Slovakian attorney Mrs. Pirošíková to mislead the European Court of Human Rights. Mrs. Pirošíková falsely claimed that Mr. Anzor Chentiev forfeited his right to asylum in the Czech Republic which I as his attorney made clear both on 2nd February and repeatedly since 9th February this year, upon learning of Russia’s extradition request  –  see

Given that Slovakia has not deliberated on the right of Mr. Chentiev to asylum, the ECHR has refused to grant an injunction that would prevent his forcible deportation to Russia – a measure fully warranted by the failure of the Slovakian judicial system to provide full recourse to my client in defence of his legal rights – see

If the police are acting illegally, I in effect have no influence over the process by which my client may be granted asylum. The application for such was submitted correctly through legal channels, and calls for the recognition of a right Mr. Chentiev never surrendered and still insists upon exercising. Long delays in previous asylum requests reviewed by the Supreme Court have resulted in an ongoing nine-year incarceration of my client in Leopoldov prison, exacting a heavy psychological toll on his health.

This unprecedented amount of time, along with the loss of an eye during the Russian shelling of his home village of Katyr-Yurt in 2000, his loss of sight in the other eye due to lack of adequate medical healthcare, the death of his wife in a car accident during his incarceration and the resultant hardship endured by his 9-year-old daughter, have all compounded to devastate my client Mr. Chentiev. Likewise untreated is his post-traumatic stress disorder, now quite developed many years after a brutal war that started when he was just 11 years old and lasted several years.

After suffering a nervous breakdown, my client came to the conclusion that the safest available option for him would preclude any return to Russia, where torture and inhumane/degrading treatment of political prisoners remains standard practice, and the legal system is not independent. A renewed request for asylum remains the only moral and socially responsible option for my client under the circumstances, and is fully supported by statutory law.

The Department of Foreign Police contacted me shortly after I made the asylum request, demanding that I enclose the original draft request made by my client, which I have done, and promised to confirm the date of their visit to Leopoldov prison that I shall be attending as well.

Without any notification they visited my client on 6.6.2014 in the custody demanding a testimony from him concerning his asylum request. My client has used the statutory law and he was demanding me to be present during the visit. Up to Saturday a member of the foreign police told me that the visit has been made already and he said that Mr.Chentiev has cancelled the asylum request and declared that he wants to be extradicted (released?) to Russia. Mr.Chentiev has refused this claim and he still insist on his asylum request. Basically his words confirms even the report of the department of foreign police in Nitra where it clearly says that my client only demanded my presence during the

The foreign police violated his right for legal aid, and Mrs. Pirošíková sent false and unverified information to ECHR saying that because of the refusal  of Mr.Chentiev the asylum  conduct was not launched. That has not been launched only because of the foreign police. On monday 9.6.2014 I drew attention again, saying that my client insists on the asylum request and that launching operations of administrative proceedings is necessary.

Mr.Chentiev is now standing ahead of a threat of being extradicted to Russia. Another grave violation of statutory law was that neither me nor him has not received a decision of the minister of justice regarding the permission of extradiction to Russia, signed by minister Borec 29.5.2014. I learnt about this from the press and not even after another demand for sending us the conqlusion, neither me nor my client received anything. I received the copy only from ECHR, that demanded the conclusion from the Slovakian goverment. They (ECHR) have received a similar plan for extradiction of Mr.Chentiev. It was impossible for us to put up a new constitutional complaint against the decision of minister Borec alongside the demand for  release of preliminary acquisition, which i could put up only now after receiving the copy from ECHR.

It´s possible  that the extradiction will be carried out sooner than the Constitutional Court will be able to deal with it.

In that case Slovakia will violate international treaties converging against torture and inhumane treatment. Hundreds of decisions of ECHR from recent times is predicating about inhumane treatment with the charged people in Russia, about manipulated trials and so on.

I am appealing to the Slovakian goverment not to commit more unlawfullness and prevent his extradiction and release him from the custody (which lenght is unimaginable in civilized world ) immediatly.

Amnesty interational has  released international urgent appeal for the case of Mr.Chentiev – see

Mgr.Norbert Stanko