Communicated on 21 April 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 41105/14
Abdul ABILOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 17 May 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Abdul Abilov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Bagirov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was a blogger. He was active on social media and published various articles criticising the Government. In particular, he was the administrator of a famous Facebook page entitled “Let’s say stop to bootlickers” (“Yaltaqlara dur deyək”).
At around 3 p.m. on 22 November 2013, when the applicant was near his place of residence in Baku, plain-clothes police officers arrested him. They dragged the applicant into a Hyundai Sonata and took him to his flat in order to carry out a search.
At their arrival at the building where the flat was situated, they also arrested the applicant’s brother-in-law. The search was carried out in the presence of the applicant’s mother and wife. According to the applicant, when the police officers tried to plant narcotic substances into the pocket of his jacket which was in the living room, his mother prevented them from doing so. However, one of the police officers showed the narcotic substances in question, saying that he had found it in the jacket pocket. The police officers also took the applicant’s personal computer.
Following the search the applicant and his brother-in-law were taken to the Organised Crime Department (“the OCD”) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs where he was told that he had been arrested because of his activities on social media. A search of the applicant was also carried out at the OCD during which narcotic substances were found in his trouser pocket.
On the same day a record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect was compiled and criminal proceedings were instituted against him.
On 23 November 2013 the applicant was charged under Article 234.4.3 (illegal preparation, possession, purchase, transportation and sale of narcotic substances in large quantities) of the Criminal Code.
On the same day the Narimanov District Court, relying on the official charge brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial for a period of three months. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the gravity of the charge and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from and obstruct the investigation.
On 26 November 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that the court had failed to substantiate his detention pending trial.
On 29 November 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision was justified.
On 19 February 2014 the Narimanov District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by one month, until 22 March 2014. The court substantiated its decision by the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions. It also found that the grounds on which the applicant’s pre-trial detention was based had not changed.
On 24 February 2014 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that the first-instance court had failed to substantiate his continued detention.
On 28 February 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 19 February 2014.
On 7 March 2014 the applicant lodged a request with the court asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre-trial detention or to be released on bail. He submitted in support of his request that there was no need for his continued detention.
On 12 March 2014 the Narimanov District Court dismissed the request.
On 19 March 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.
On 28 March 2014 the applicant lodged a request with the court asking for his release. In particular, he complained that despite the fact that his pre‑trial detention period had expired on 22 March 2014 he had not been released from detention.
On 14 April 2014 the Sabunchu District Court dismissed the request, holding that the applicant’s continued detention was lawful because the bill of indictment had been filed with the trial court on 19 March 2014.
On 16 April 2014 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that his detention after 22 March 2014 in the absence of any court order had been unlawful.
It appears from the case file that on 17 April 2014 the Baku Court of Serious Crimes held a preliminary hearing and decided, inter alia, that the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant should be left “unchanged”.
On 1 May 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Sabunchu District Court’s decision of 14 April 2014.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention after 22 March 2014 was unlawful, as it was not based on any court order.
Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts failed to justify his detention pending trial and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention during the period between 22 March and 17 April 2014 in compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to the applicant’s continued detention?
3. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?
4. The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings concerning the applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention, including all documents and decisions relating to extensions (if any) of the applicant’s pre-trial detention which have taken place after the lodging of the present application.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy