Communicated on 4 April 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 42119/12
Mustafa Mustafa Oglu HAJILI against Azerbaijan
lodged on 20 June 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mustafa Hajili, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Karimli, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The applicant was a journalist and the editor-in-chief of a newspaper named Demokrat.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. The alleged ill-treatment of the applicant
On 2 April 2011 a number of opposition parties held an unauthorised demonstration at “Fountains” Square in Baku. The applicant went to the place where the demonstration would be held with intent to participate in it.
At around 2.15 p.m. on 2 April 2011 upon his arrival at “Fountains” Square, he was arrested by a group of policemen and was taken to the Nasimi District Police Office.
After his arrival at the police office, he was placed in the temporary detention facility with other arrested persons. Few minutes later the Deputy Head of the Nasimi District Police Office, S.N., arrived with two other men at the detention facility. The applicant presented himself as a journalist and asked S.N. the reason for his arrest. At that moment, two men who accompanied S.N. held the applicant’s arms and S.N. physically assaulted him by punching and kicking in different parts of his body. After having beaten the applicant, S.N. and other two men left the detention facility.
At around 11 p.m. on 2 April 2011 the applicant was given a formal warning under Article 298 of the Code of Administrative Offences for participation in an unauthorised demonstration and was released from detention.
B. Remedies used by the applicant
On 4 April 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Nasimi District Prosecutor’s Office. He complained that on 2 April 2011 he had been ill-treated by S.N. in police custody.
On 6 April 2011 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert. The expert noticed bruises on the applicant’s right thigh. He also concluded that these injuries were caused by a hard blunt object and that their time of infliction corresponded to 2 April 2011.
On 25 April 2011 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Nasimi District Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision not to institute criminal proceedings. The prosecutor held that the available evidence did not disclose any appearance of a criminal act. It appears from the decision that the prosecutor examined two witness testimonies, submitted by two persons detained with the applicant, in support of the applicant’s version of events, and the submissions of S.N., who argued that he had not ill-treated the applicant and in any event he had not been on the premises of the Nasimi District Police Office on 2 April 2011 between 1 p.m. and 7 p.m. Three police officers had also testified that the applicant had not been ill-treated in police custody.
The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Nasimi District Court. He argued that the prosecutor’s decision was unsubstantiated. In particular, the prosecutor had not taken into consideration the witness testimonies and the forensic report of 6 April 2011. The applicant also asked the court to examine the video recordings of the security cameras inside the Nasimi District Police Office.
On 24 January 2012 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint and found that the prosecutor’s decision of 25 April 2011 had been lawful and properly substantiated. The court noted that although the expert noticed injuries on the applicant’s body, it was not established that they had been inflicted by S.N. As for the video recordings, the court held that they were not available. In this connection, the court indicated that the Nasimi District Police Office replied to its request in this respect noting that the security cameras in question had not had a memory card and therefore the video recordings had been automatically deleted one month later.
On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the decision, reiterating his previous complaints.
On 6 February 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 24 January 2012.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated in police custody and that the domestic authorities failed to investigate his allegation of ill-treatment.
The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his complaint concerning his ill-treatment in police custody.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents (including forensic report, testimony records, the Nasimi District Court’s request for examination of the video recordings of the security cameras of the Nasimi District Police Office’s temporary detention facility and the police’s reply to that request, minutes of court hearings, the applicant’s complaints and appeals) relating to the proceedings concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy