Communicated on 3 March 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 65583/13
Mammad AZIZOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 27 September 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mammad Azizov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1992 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Namazli, 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 was a student at the Baku State University at the time of the events. He was also a member 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 February 2013 to protest against death of soldiers in the Azerbaijani Army.
On 7 March 2013 the applicant was arrested by plain-clothes police officers in the city centre. The police officers took him to the flat where he lived and carried out a search in the flat. Following the search, 174 grams of narcotic substances and twenty-eight leaflets worded “Democracy urgently needed, tel: + 994, address: Azerbaijan” were found in the flat.
On 9 March 2013 the applicant was charged with the criminal offence of illegal possession of a quantity of narcotic substances exceeding that necessary for personal use without intent to sell under Article 234.1 of the Criminal Code.
On the same day the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of two 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.
The applicant did not appeal against the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 9 March 2013.
B. Extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention
On 15 March 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 18 March 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of remand in custody.
On 27 March 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.
On 2 May 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by two months, until 7 July 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, the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions, as well as his way of life and his links with foreign States.
On 4 May 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that the Nasimi District Court had failed to justify the extension of his pre‑trial detention.
On 13 May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.
On 2 July and 29 August 2013 the Nasimi District Court again extended the applicant’s detention pending trial, respectively, for a period of two and three months. The court relied on the same grounds, such as the gravity of the charges, the complexity of the case, the existence of the risk of absconding and the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions.
The Nasimi District Court’s extension decisions were upheld on appeal by the Baku Court of Appeal, respectively, on 10 July and on 6 September 2013.
It appears from the case file that on 14 September 2013 the applicant was charged with the new criminal offences under Articles 28 (preparation for committing a criminal offence), 220.1 (mass disorder) and 228.3 (illegal possession of weapons, committed by an organised group) of the Criminal Code.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant 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. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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