Communicated on 7 June 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 48255/11
Nemat PANAHLI against Azerbaijan
lodged on 25 July 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Nemat Panahli, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Isayev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was the Chairman of the Azerbaijan National Statehood Party.
On 8 January 2011 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant by the Nasimi District Police Office under Article 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. It appears from the investigator’s decision that at around 8.30 p.m. on 7 January 2011 the applicant together with a certain C. insulted and beat E.R. on the street in Baku.
On 8 January 2011 a record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect was compiled by the police.
On 10 January 2011 the applicant was charged under Articles 127.2.3 (deliberate infliction of less serious injury to health) and 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code.
On the same day the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charge brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial for a period of two months. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the gravity of the charge and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from and obstruct the investigation.
On 12 January 2011 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that the court had failed to substantiate his detention pending trial.
On 17 January 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision was justified.
On 3 March 2011 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by one month, until 8 April 2011. The court justified its decision by the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions, as well as by the complexity of the criminal case and the likelihood that if released the applicant might abscond from and obstruct the investigation.
On 4 March 2011 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that the first-instance court had failed to substantiate his continued detention.
On 9 March 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 3 March 2011.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains 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 the applicant’s continued detention?
2. 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