Communicated on 4 April 2018
FIFTH SECTION
Applications nos. 1172/12 and 31581/16
Elnur ABBASOV and Idrak ABBASOV against Azerbaijan
and Araz JABBAROV against Azerbaijan
lodged on 7 December 2011 and 26 May 2016 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants in application no. 1172/12, Mr Elnur Akif oglu Mammadov and Mr Idrak Telman oglu Abbasov, are Azerbaijani nationals, who were born in 1984 and 1976 respectively and live in Baku. They are represented before the Court by Mr R. Hacılı and Ms Z. Zakaryayeva (Sadigova), lawyers practising in Azerbaijan.
The applicant in application no. 31581/16, Mr Araz Agabala oglu Jabbarov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Agdash. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Mustafazade and Mr A. Mustafayev, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A. Case of Mammadov and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, application no. 1172/12
At around 7.30 p.m. on 8 October 2009 the applicants, reporters of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety, a non-governmental organisation specialised in the protection of journalists’ rights, arrived at the office of the private media outlet to collect information on an alleged operation led by plain-clothes persons in respect of the mentioned media outlet.
When both applicants were recording the event, the plain-clothes persons swore at them, twisted their arms to stop them recording and seized their equipment for recording, that is, video and photo cameras. Besides, they dragged the applicant Mr Mammadov, who showed his journalist badge to them, into a car and after a ride of approximately an hour dropped him at an unspecified location unknown to the applicant at the material time. The applicant was not allowed to contact anyone during the period of his apprehension.
The third journalist, who had been apprehended by the plain-clothes persons together with the applicant Mr Mammadov and taken to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA), was given the applicants’ equipment for recording when released. However, all video footages and photos, including the ones taken during the alleged operation in respect of the media outlet in question, had been removed from the memory cards of the cameras.
On 3 December 2009 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the MIA, requesting opening of a criminal case into, inter alia, unlawful deprivation of liberty of Mr Mammadov and interference with their journalistic activity. By a decision of 30 December 2009, the MIA refused to open a criminal case.
On 17 June 2010 the Narimanov District Court partly granted the applicants’ complaints and quashed the MIA’s decision to refuse to open a criminal case and ordered it to conduct further investigation into the applicants’ case. The applicants did not receive a response to their enquiries with the prosecuting authorities about the progress in the investigation of their case.
The domestic courts refused to examine the applicants’ complaints of the prosecuting authorities’ failure to investigate their case on the merits.
B. Case of Jabbarov v. Azerbaijan, application no. 31581/16
On 7 September 2014 the applicant was apprehended by police officers of the Agdash district police office in the street in connection with an incident (altercation) with a police officer of the mentioned police office. He was kept at that police office until 9 September 2014. He was not served with any document on his detention.
On 9 September 2014 a criminal case was opened against the applicant in connection with the alleged incident.
On 12 December 2014 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office, requesting opening of a criminal case into his three-day unrecorded detention at a police office between 7 and 9 September 2014. On 30 December 2014 the Agdash district prosecutor office refused to open a criminal case, finding the applicant’s claims unsubstantiated.
By a decision of 2 December 2015, the Agdash District Court upheld the decision to refuse to open a criminal case.
By its decision of 14 December 2015, the Shaki Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the first-instance court’s decision. It held that the applicant might had been kept at the Agdash district police office even for several hours to be questioned in connection with the alleged incident of 7 September 2014, however, it had not been proven that his detention lasted up to three days.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants Mr Mammadov in application no. 1172/12 and Mr Jabbarov in application no. 31581/16 complain, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, of unlawfulness of their unrecorded detention.
2. The applicant Mr Mammadov in application no. 1172/12 complains, under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention, that he was not informed of the reasons for his detention.
3. The applicant Mr Mammadov in application no. 1172/12 complains that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
4. The applicants in application no. 1172/12 complain, under Article 10 of the Convention, of a violation of their freedom of expression. The applicants also complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, of the removal of the video footages and photos from the memory cards of their cameras.
5. The applicants in application no. 1172/12 complain, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they did not have effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 10 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS
In the case of Mammadov and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan (no. 1172/12)
1. Was the applicant Mr Mammadov deprived of his right to liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did his deprivation of liberty fall within the paragraphs of this provision?
2. Was the applicant Mr Mammadov informed of the reasons for his detention, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular, their right to receive and impart information and to protection of journalistic sources, 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?
4. Did the applicant Mr Mammadov have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 10 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents concerning the applicants’ case.
In the case of Jabbarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 31581/16)
Was the applicant deprived of his right to liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did his deprivation of liberty fall within the paragraphs of this provision?
The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents concerning the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy