The same case-law has been adopted by the Court under Article 3 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsions or extraditions whose execution was no longer possible (see Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X; Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003; Laleh Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008; Bari v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56726/00, 5 March 2002; Hesam Safawi Bayat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7233/02, 8 July 2003; R.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28242/02, 2 September 2003; Q v. Finland (dec.), no. 42640/04, 22 May 2007; Azzedine Chelghoum v. France (dec.), no. 54654/00, 10 October 2000; and Tony Chidobe v. Italy (dec.), no. 30978/04, 9 September 2004).

Consequently, whilst noting the applicant's above-mentioned allegation, the Court still finds it insufficient, in the light of the other relevant circumstances of the case, to cast doubt, at this stage, on the genuineness and effectiveness of the final judicial discontinuation of the extradition proceedings in the applicant's case (cf. Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X).

In the light of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine (see, mutatis mutandis, Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X, and Samiev v. Georgia (dec.), no. 9934/10, 16 November 2010).