Communicated on 3 March 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 52464/13
Zaur GURBANLI
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 23 July 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Zaur Gurbanli, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1987 and lives in Khirdalan. 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.
A. Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant and his remand in custody
The applicant is a well-known civil society activist. He is a board member and one of the co-founders of NIDA civic movement (“NIDA”), a non-governmental organisation established in 2011. The applicant and other members of NIDA actively participated in the demonstrations held in Baku in January and March 2013 to protest against death of soldiers in the Azerbaijani Army.
On 1 April 2013 the applicant was arrested by plain-clothes police officers. He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and was taken to the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office.
On the same day the applicant was charged with the criminal offence of illegal possession of weapons under Article 228.3 of the Criminal Code. The specific act attributed to him was that, by creating an organised criminal group with other members of NIDA, he had illegally obtained twenty-two Molotov cocktails and then instructed two other members of NIDA, B.G. and S.N., to keep them in their place of residence.
On 1 April 2013 the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of three months. The court justified the applicant’s detention pending trial by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from and obstruct the investigation.
On 3 April 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that his detention was unlawful. He claimed, in particular, that there was no evidence that he had committed any criminal offence and that there had been no justification for the application of the preventive measure of detention pending trial.
On 9 April 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision was justified.
B. Extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention
On 26 April 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre-trial detention. He claimed, in particular, that there was no risk of his absconding from or obstructing the investigation and that the courts had failed to take into consideration his personal situation.
On 30 April 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of detention pending trial.
On 6 May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.
On an unspecified date the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case lodged a request with the court asking for an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of three months. In this connection, he submitted that more time was needed to complete the investigation.
On 24 June 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by three months, until 1 October 2013. The court substantiated the necessity of the extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial by the complexity of the case, the possibility of his absconding from the investigation and the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions.
On 27 June 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, reiterating that there was no evidence that he had committed any criminal offence and that the Nasimi District Court had failed to justify his continued detention.
On 1 July 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial had been justified.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful because there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence.
He further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 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 compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion? What material was examined by the courts to verify if such reasonable suspicion existed?
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 his 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 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