ASKAROV v. AZERBAIJAN and 3 other applications

Published on 27 October 2025

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 39653/18
Bahruz ASKAROV against Azerbaijan
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 8 October 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment by the police or by prison officers, and ineffective investigations into those allegations. The application no. 39653/18 also concerns alleged lack of adequate medical treatment in prison.

The applicants were arrested on different dates in 2015-2017 and charged with various offences under the Code of Administrative Offences (the applicant in application no. 43445/18) and the Criminal Code (the remaining applicants). Later, they all were convicted as charged.

According to the applicants in applications nos. 43445/18 and 14808/20, they were ill-treated (notably, threatened by retaliation, slapped or beaten) by the police during their arrest and/or detention.

According to the applicant in application no. 20764/20, he was ill-treated in prison, when he was serving his imprisonment sentence. In particular, he was subjected to strip search, during which he was made to squat three times in front of people, and then forced to wear some filthy clothes.

According to the applicant in application no. 39653/18, he was shot during his arrest in the course of so-called “Nardaran events”, but the police left him at the scene and later he was taken to a hospital by his co-villager (for more details about the “Nardaran events” see, among other cases, Bagirov and Ibishbeyli v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 29896/17 and 43608/17, §§ 2-5, 15 July 2025). In a hospital he was shackled to bed for a period of four days. While in the hospital, he was made to sigh incriminating statements against himself and others, under psychological pressure by the police. The police also did not let the doctors to remove a bullet from his body. After his transfer from the hospital to the Baku Pre-trial Detention Centre, the applicant was not provided with adequate medical care either. The bullet remained in his body during the whole period he was deprived of his liberty (including during the period he was transferred to a prison following his conviction by the first‑instance court), despite absence of any counter-indications against the removal.

On various dates the applicants lodged criminal complaints with the prosecuting authorities about the alleged ill-treatment. The prosecuting authorities rejected the applicants’ complaints of ill-treatment as unsubstantiated. The applicants’ complaints against the prosecuting authorities lodged before the domestic courts were unsuccessful.

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment by the police or prison officers and that the domestic authorities failed to conduct effective investigations in that regard.

The applicant in application no. 39653/18 further complains under Article 3 that the police officers used excessive force during his arrest during the Nardaran events. The operation in question had not been adequately planned. In particular, the police had not evaluated the possible risks associated with using weapons during the operation and had not taken any measures to prevent or alleviate those risks. The applicant also complains that he was not provided with adequate medical care during his detention and imprisonment and the bullet in his leg was not removed during that period, despite absence of any counterindications against the removal, which caused him severe pain.

Relying on Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 43445/18 also complains that he was subjected to the ill-treatment because of his journalistic work and that there was no effective remedy in respect of his ill-treatment complaint.

The applicant in application no. 20764/20 also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the prison officers violated his right to private life (more precisely, his right to physical and psychological integrity) when they conducted strip search on him.

COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Have the applicants been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Mustafa Hajili v. Azerbaijan, no. 42119/12, §§ 34-37, 24 November 2016)?

2.  Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita, cited above, § 131, and Mustafa Hajili, cited above, §§ 47-48), was the investigation in the present cases in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

In respect of the applicant in application no. 14808/20:

Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicant’s injuries were caused (see Selmouni, v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999‑V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000‑VII; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 and further, ECHR 2015)?

In respect of the applicant in application no. 39653/18:

1.  Did the State agents plan the arrest operation in advance? Did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the arrest? Was the recourse to physical force during the arrest made strictly necessary by the applicant’s own conduct (see Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, § 49, 17 April 2012)?

2.  Did the police officers report to their supervisor about the use of physical force or/and special means during the arrest (see Shamardakov v. Russia, no. 13810/04, § 133, 30 April 2015)? Did the reports provide detailed explanation about the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest, including the use of force against him?

3.  Was the applicant given adequate medical care during his detention and imprisonment? Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaint under Article 3 concerning lack of adequate medical treatment in detention and prison? In particular, what is the effective remedy in the national legal system in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 concerning lack of adequate medical treatment in detention and penal facility?

In respect of the applicant in application no. 43445/18:

1.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (see Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, § 66, 2 October 2012)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?

2.  Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

In respect of the applicant in application no. 20764/20:

Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Dejnek v. Poland, no. 9635/13, §§ 70-72, 1 June 2017)? In particular, was the applicant strip searched? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? Was the applicant forced to squat during the strip search and wear filthy clothes afterwards?

APPENDIX