Communicated on 9 April 2018
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 31793/10
Elchin HASANOV against Azerbaijan
and 13 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Further details about the applicants and the facts of the cases are set out in the appendix.
A. Alleged ill-treatment of the applicants
In applications nos. 46419/16, 25054/17, 27247/17, 29896/17, 43608/17, 64510/17, 69510/17, 70443/17, 70521/17, 70535/17 and 75035/17 the applicants were allegedly ill-treated and threatened by law-enforcement officers during arrest and (or) in police custody with a view of extracting confessions from them. The applicants sustained various bodily injuries. Once in police custody the applicants were denied access, inter alia, to lawyers of their own choice and were not able to inform their families about their arrest. The applicants made confession statements and later denied them, claiming that they had been extracted under duress.
The applicant, a journalist, in application no. 31793/10 was allegedly beaten up by police officers when he was recording the events in the wake of the dispersal of a peaceful assembly.
The applicant in application no. 64510/17 was shot during arrest and taken to hospital. He was shackled to bed for a period of forty-three days during his stay in hospital. After transfer from hospital to the Baku Pre-trial Detention Centre, the applicant was denied medical care.
B. The remedies used by the applicants
The applicants lodged criminal complaints with the prosecuting authorities, requesting opening of a criminal case into their claims.
The applicants underwent forensic medical examination. The injuries they sustained were confirmed by the relevant medical documents mentioned in the appendix, save in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 31793/10, 25054/17, 34133/17 and 43608/17. The applicants in applications nos. 25054/17 and 43608/17 complained to the domestic authorities, inter alia, of the failure of the forensic experts to document the signs of injuries sustained by them. The applicants in applications nos. 31793/10 and 34133/17 complained that the forensic medical examination was held belatedly.
The applicants in applications nos. 46419/16, 25054/17, 27247/17, 29896/17, 43608/17, 69510/17, 70443/17, 70521/17, 70535/17 and 75035/17 also complained that they had been held in the temporary pre-trial detention facility of the Organised Crime Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan (“the OCU”) for periods in excess of the statutory time-limit.
The applicants in applications nos. 31793/10, 46419/16, 29896/17 and 34133/17 complained of a violation of their freedom of expression.
In application no. 75035/17 the applicant has not received reply to his criminal complaint and lodged a complaint with the domestic courts. In all other cases the prosecuting authorities refused to open criminal cases into the applicants’ complaints. The prosecuting authorities rejected the applicants’ complaints of ill-treatment as unjustified. They also held in applications nos. 27247/17, 29896/17, 64510/17, 69510/17, 70443/17, 70521/17, 70535/17 and 75035/17 that the bodily injuries the applicants had sustained were caused during their arrest in response to their resistance to law-enforcement officers.
In all cases the domestic courts dismissed the applicants’ complaints of the lack of an effective investigation into their complaints.
C. Conditions of transport
Following their arrest outdoors the applicants in applications nos. 25054/17, 27247/17, 29896/17, 69510/17, 70443/17, 70521/17, 70535/17 and 75035/17 were transported to the pre-trial detention facility by the furniture-moving vans.
D. The right of individual application
On 8 August 2014 the lawyer of the applicants in applications nos. 31793/10 and 15996/12, Mr I. Aliyev, was arrested on charges of tax evasion, illegal entrepreneurship and abuse of authority. During the search of his office, a number of documents were seized by the State authorities, including all the case files relating to applications before the Court that were in the possession of Mr I. Aliyev, as a representative. On 25 October 2014 some of the seized documents were returned to Javad Javadov, Mr. I. Aliyev’s counsel. By a fax dated 28 August 2014, Mr I. Aliyev informed the Court of the seizure of the case files claiming a breach of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of all the applications affected. In his letters sent to the Court in September 2014 Mr I. Aliyev reiterated the complaint concerning the seizure of the case files.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention of being subjected to ill-treatment and absence of an effective investigation in this connection.
2. The applicants in applications nos. 25054/17, 27247/17, 29896/17, 69510/17, 70443/17, 70521/17, 70535/17 and 75035/17 complain under Article 3 of the Convention of the conditions of their transport to the pre-trial detention facilities after their arrest.
3. The applicant in application no. 64510/17 complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the lack of medical treatment at the pre-trial detention facility.
4. The applicants in applications 31793/10, 29896/17, 34133/17 and 43608/17 complain under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of their right to freedom of expression.
5. The applicants in applications nos. 24247/17, 64510/17, 69510/17, 70443/17, 70521/17, 70535/17 and 75035/17 complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
6. The applicants in applications nos. 31793/10 and 15996/12 complain under Article 34 of the Convention that by seizure of their case files from the office of their representative, Mr I. Aliyev, on 8 and 9 August 2014 the State hindered the effective exercise of their right of individual application.
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Were the applicants subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000‑IV)?
The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents concerning the applicants’ cases.
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
1. Applications nos. 46419/16, 25054/17, 27247/17, 29896/17, 64510/17, 69510/17, 70443/17, 70521/17, 70535/17 and 75035/17
1. Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicants’ 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 particular,
- did the State agents plan the arrest operations 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 applicants’ own conduct (see Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, § 49, 17 April 2012)?
- 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 applicants’ arrest, including the use of force against them?
- Were the applicants given access to a doctor and, if so, when? In particular, were the applicants taken without delay before a medical professional, notably with a view to record the injuries sustained by them during the arrest (Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 65, 11 January 2007) and to provide an appropriate medical care?
2. The Government are requested to address, inter alia, the following points concerning the circumstances surrounding the applicants’ alleged ill‑treatment:
- Were they given the possibility of informing their families about their apprehension and, if so, when?
- Were they given access to a lawyer and, if so, when? Was a lawyer on duty invited by authorities or a lawyer of the applicants’ own choice? If given initially a State-appointed lawyer, when did the applicants receive access to a lawyer of their choice?
- How long were the applicants held at the temporary pre-trial detention facility of the OCU? On which legal grounds (the national legislation and (or) court orders) were the applicants held at the OCU? In this connection, what is the difference between the OCU’s temporary pre-trial detention facility and the Baku Pre-Trial Detention Facility in terms of the conditions of detention, in particular, the regime applicable to the detainees?
2. Applications nos. 25054/17, 27247/17, 29896/17, 69510/17, 70443/17, 70521/17, 70535/17 and 75035/17
What were the conditions of transport of the applicants to the OCU after their apprehension by the authorities?
3. Applications nos. 24247/17, 64510/17, 69510/17, 70443/17, 70521/17, 70535/17 and 75035/17
Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
4. Application no. 64510/17
Was the applicant provided with adequate medical care in the pre-trial detention centre?
5. Applications nos. 31793/10, 29896/17, 34133/17 and 43608/17
Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?
6. Applications nos. 31793/10 and 15996/12
In view of the seizure of the applicants’ case files from Mr I. Aliyev’s office on 8 and 9 August 2014, has the State hindered the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no. Lodged on
Applicant name,
date of birth and place of residence
Represented by
Date of arrest,
location of the detention facility
Date(s) of medical examination
Applicants’ complaints about ill‑treatment to the domestic authorities (first complaint, latest refusal to open a criminal case, the latest domestic courts’ decision)
31793/10
09/06/2010
Elchin HASANOV
Baku
Intigam ALIYEV
N/a
17/07/2009
10/05/2009
First complaint to the prosecuting authority
17/07/2009
Refusal to open a criminal case
09/12/2009
Baku Court of Appeal
15996/12
11/02/2012
Bakhtiyar HAJIYEV
28/03/1982
Ganja
Intigam ALIYEV
04/03/11
Ganja city Nizami district police office
07/03/11
Unspecified
First complaint to the prosecuting authority
17/03/2011
Refusal to open a criminal case
01/09/2011
Baku Court of Appeal
46419/16
03/08/2016
Vugar ABISHOV
10/08/1978
Sumgayit
Sirajaddin KARIMOV
23/10/15
The OCU;
Baku Pre-trial Detention Centre
03/11/2015
23/11/15
26/10/2015
First complaint to the judge ordering his remand in custody
29/10/15 – 20/11/15
Complaint to the prosecuting authorities
05/12/2015
Refusal to open a criminal case
05/02/2016
Baku Court of Appeal
25054/17
07/03/2017
Zakir MUSTAFAYEV
12/01/1977
Baku
Yalchin IMANOV
25/12/2015
The OCU
27/05/2016
Unspecified
First complaint to the prosecuting authority
27/05/2016
Refusal to open a criminal case
16/09/2016
Baku Court of Appeal
27247/17
29/03/2017
Abbas HUSEYNOV
03/03/1987
Baku
Fariz NAMAZLI
26/11/2015
The OCU;
Baku Pre-trial detention centre
30/11/2015
Unspecified
First complaint to the prosecuting authority
16/06/2016
Refusal to open a criminal case
20/09/16
Baku Court of Appeal
29896/17
13/04/2017
Taleh BAGIROV
23/06/1984
Baku
Elchin SADIQOV
26/11/2015
The OCU
14/12/2015
25/01/2010
First complaint to the judge (judicial supervision procedure)
25/01/2010
First complaint to the prosecuting authority
27/05/2016
Refusal to open a criminal case
13/10/2016
Baku Court of Appeal
34133/17
01/05/2017
Aslan ISMAYILOV
20/02/1958
Baku
N/a
12/06/2013
30/05/2013
First complaint to the prosecuting authority
28/06/2013
Refusal to open a criminal case
16/12/2009
Baku Court of Appeal
43608/17
06/06/2017
Fikrat IBISHBEYLI
17/09/1976
Baku
Elchin SADIQOV
30/06/16
The OCU;
Baku Pre-trial Detention Centre
11/10/2016
20/09/2016
Criminal complaint to the prosecuting authority
17/10/2016
Refusal to open a criminal case
05/12/2016
Baku Court of Appeal
64510/17
21/08/2017
Shamil ABDULLAYEV
23/01/1985
Baku
Elchin SADIQOV
08/01/16
Baku Pre-trial Detention Centre
27/11/2015
14/11/2016
Unspecified
First complaint to the prosecuting authority
31/10/2016
Refusal to open a criminal case
21/02/2017
Baku Court of Appeal
69510/17
08/09/2017
Alibala VALIYEV
27/05/1980
Baku
Nemat KARIMLI
26/11/15
The OCU;
Baku Pre-trial Detention Centre
30/11/2015
20/10/2016-14/11/2016
Unspecified time
First complaint to the court
02/12/2016
Refusal to open a criminal case
11/08/2017
Baku Court of Appeal
70443/17
11/09/2017
Abbas GULIYEV
27/03/1995
Baku
Nemat KARIMLI
26/11/15
The OCU;
Baku Pre-trial Detention Centre
30/11/2015
20/10/2016
Unspecified time
First complaint to the prosecutor office
02/12/2016
Refusal to open a criminal
10/08/2017
Baku Court of Appeal
70521/17
14/09/2017
Rasim JABRAYILOV
15/04/1982
Baku
Zibeyda SADIQOVA
26/11/15
The OCU;
Baku Pre-trial Detention Centre
27/11/2015
03/10/2016
05/09/2016
First complaint to the prosecutor office
01/11/2016
Refusal to open a criminal case
14/03/2017
Baku Court of Appeal
70535/17
17/09/2017
Ramin YARIYEV
17/02/1998
Baku
Elchin SADIQOV
26/11/15
The OCU;
Baku Pre-trial Detention Centre
08/12/15
20/10/2016
05/09/2016
First complaint to the prosecutor office
31/10/2016
Refusal to open a criminal case
09/03/2017
Baku Court of Appeal
75035/17
11/10/2017
Ali NURIYEV
13/09/1991
Baku
Nemat KARIMLI
30/11/2015
20/10/2016
Unspecified time
First complaint to the prosecutor office
23/08/2017
Baku Court of Appeal
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy