Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 102
November 2007
Hummatov v. Azerbaijan - 9852/03
Judgment 29.11.2007 [Section I]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Public hearing
Authorities' failure to provide regular transportation and information to the public at a trial held in a remote prison: violation
Facts: In 1996 the applicant was convicted of high treason and use of armed forces against the State and sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Given Azerbaijan's undertaking to the Council of Europe to either release or retry political prisoners, the court of appeal decided to grant the applicant's request for a new investigation and a public hearing. The hearings took place in a high security prison where the applicant was detained. Access to hearings was severely restricted as permission had to be obtained first from the presiding judge and then the prison authorities. Observers who were granted access were subjected to a body search before entering the prison courtroom. In 2003 a court of appeal upheld the applicant's conviction and sentenced him to life imprisonment. His cassation appeal was rejected. In 2004 he was issued with a presidential pardon and released.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – The general public had not formally been excluded from the trial and various hearings had been attended by a number of people, although it was not clear if this was the case at each hearing. The Government had not provided evidence to prove that the public and media had been informed about the time and place of the hearings and adjourned hearings or been given instructions on how to reach the prison and on the conditions of access. The prison was located far from the capital and any inhabited area and was not easily accessible. There was no regular public transport or shuttle bus service to the prison. The fact that it had been necessary to arrange costly means of transport to a remote destination, as opposed to attending the court of appeal's courtroom in Baku, had clearly been a disincentive for those wishing to attend the applicant's trial. Moreover, the Government had not proved that free access to all members of the public was guaranteed at all hearings in the prison. In sum, the court of appeal had failed to adopt adequate compensatory measures to counterbalance the detrimental effect of the closed area of the prison on the public character of the applicant's trial. The authorities had given no justification, such as a security risk, for such a lack of publicity. Therefore, the applicant had not had a public hearing.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 3 – The applicant had contracted tuberculosis and other serious diseases in prison. The medical care provided to him had been inadequate.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
The Court also found a violation of Article 13 (no effective remedy for his Article 3 grievance).
Article 41 – EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy