Published on 22 June 2026
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 39527/23 and 41959/23
Elnur HASANOV against Azerbaijan
and Gulnara RAHIMOVA against Azerbaijan
lodged on 4 October 2023 and 16 November 2023 respectively
communicated on 2 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment and unlawful deprivation of liberty for their participation in a peaceful assembly.
According to the applicants, they were arrested on 30 September 2022 and 30 March 2023, respectively, while participating in peaceful assemblies, detained for several hours at police stations and subsequently released. They further allege that they were also subjected to ill-treatment by the police during their arrest and/or detention.
On various dates the applicants lodged criminal complaints with the prosecuting authorities concerning the alleged violations of their rights. As regards the applicant in application no. 39527/23, the prosecuting authorities refused to institute the criminal proceedings on the basis of his complaints. The applicant in application no. 41959/23, however, did not receive any response to her complaints. Subsequent challenges before the domestic courts were unsuccessful: in the former case, the courts upheld the prosecuting authorities’ decision, while in the latter, they declared the applicant’s complaint about the inaction of the prosecuting authorities inadmissible.
The applicants complain under Articles 3, 5 and 11 of the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention that they were unlawfully deprived of their liberty, that their right to freedom of peaceful assembly was violated, that they were subjected to ill‑treatment by the police and the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in that regard, and that there was no effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
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), were the investigations in the present cases in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Were the applicants arrested and deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did their deprivation of liberty fall within one of the sub-paragraphs of this provision? Were the applicants’ arrests and detentions in accordance with a procedure “prescribed by law” (see Mammadov and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 1172/12, §§ 42-54, 8 July 2021)?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was this interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 50-68, 15 October 2015)?
5. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention as required by Article 13 of the Convention?