Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 93
January 2007
Mammadov (Jalaloglu) v. Azerbaijan - 34445/04
Judgment 11.1.2007 [Section I]
Article 3
Torture
Torture of opposition leader and lack of effective investigation: violation
Facts: More commonly known as Sardar Jalaloglu in political circles, the applicant was the Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan, one of the opposition parties that considered the presidential elections on 15 October 2003 to be illegitimate. On 18 October 2003 several masked police officers, armed with machine guns, forced their way into the applicant's home, arrested him and took him into custody in order to interrogate him in connection with a demonstration two days earlier. The demonstration had taken place in the centre of Baku to protest against the results of the elections and had turned violent.
On 19 October 2003, the applicant was charged with “organising public disorder” and “use of violence against state officials”. Banned from seeing his lawyer for three days, the applicant finally met with him on 22 October 2003 complaining that he had been ill-treated by police officers. The lawyer filed a petition requesting a medical examination, then on 27 October 2003, having received no reply, filed a complaint. The applicant alleged that he had been ill-treated during his arrest, while being transported to the detention centre and during police custody. He claimed to have been beaten on the soles of his feet (falaka) by two masked policemen with truncheons, tortured and threatened with rape. After the beating, he had temporarily lost the ability to walk unaided and had been placed in a poorly-ventilated cell where the threats of rape had continued and from where he could hear the cries of other detainees being ill‑treated. Following his transfer on 22 October 2003 to a remand facility, the applicant again complained of poor detention conditions and intimidation. Upon arrival at the remand facility, doctors observed two bruises on his right calf and right heel.
On 29 October 2003 a medical examination was ordered, which concluded that the bruising observed on the applicant had been caused by a hard blunt object. The investigation authorities found that the medical report did not establish conclusively that the applicant's injuries had been inflicted while in police custody and, having questioned four police officers who denied all the allegations of ill-treatment, refused to institute criminal proceedings. The several complaints filed by the applicant to local district courts, were finally dismissed as unsubstantiated.
The applicant was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. It was found that, although the applicant had not been present at the demonstration of 16 October 2003, he was one of the organisers. He was, however, released early by way of a presidential pardon.
Law: Article 3 – Ill-treatment in police custody: The Court considered that the applicant could not have sustained injuries during the demonstration in question because he had not taken part in that event. Also, on arrival at the detention facility on 18 October 2003, no injury was found on the applicant's body and no other plausible explanation as to the origin of his subsequent injuries had been provided by the Government. Furthermore, the specific nature of the applicant's injuries were consistent with the application of falaka and were unlikely to have been caused either accidentallyor during street clashes with riot police. The Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture had received reports that falaka was one of the forms of ill-treatment used in Azerbaijani temporary detention centres. Given that accountability lay with the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for injuries to those within their custody, the Court concluded that the applicant's injuries could only be attributable to a form of ill-treatment for which the authorities were responsible. In those circumstances, the violence inflicted on the applicant, administered with the aim of extracting information, was of such a serious and cruel nature that it could be characterised as torture.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Lack of an effective investigation: The authorities had failed to gather forensic evidence in a timely manner. The applicant had not been allowed to see his lawyer for the first three days of his detention and it had taken a further seven days for a medical examination to be carried out. Furthermore, the authorities had limited their investigation to studying the medical report and questioning four police officers. No other witnesses had been interrogated concerning the applicant's injuries, in particular his cellmates who had seen him immediately after the beating, or concerning his alleged presence at the demonstration in question. Notably, the authorities had failed to take into account the key statement of the warden who had testified to the applicant's good health on arrival at the temporary detention facility.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13 – The domestic courts simply had endorsed the criminal investigation, without assessing independently the facts of the case, and so had been insufficiently thorough and ineffective. Therefore, the applicant had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of his ill-treatment by the police.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 14 – The Court declared inadmissible the applicant's complaint under Article 14 on the grounds that he had submitted insufficient evidence that he had been tortured or otherwise ill-treated on account of his political opinions.
Article 41 – EUR 10,000 in compensation for 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