Communicated on 14 December 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 48653/13
Rashad HASANOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 12 July 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Rashad Hasanov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Mustafazade and Mr A. Mustafayev, lawyers 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 is a well-known civil society activist. He is a board member and one of the co-founders 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 March 2013 to protest against death of soldiers in the Azerbaijani Army.
At around 2 p.m. on 14 March 2013 the applicant was arrested by agents of the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) and was taken to the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office. He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest during his arrest.
According to the applicant, at around 3 p.m. on 14 March 2013 the investigator in charge of the case contacted a lawyer of the applicant’s choosing and invited him to provide the applicant with legal assistance. The lawyer expressed his intention to defend the applicant’s rights, but informed the investigator that he could not assist the applicant at that moment because of his workload. The lawyer noted that he would join the investigator later and asked him not to conduct investigative actions until his arrival.
It appears from the documents in the case file that a few hours after his arrest the applicant was brought before a judge of the Nasimi District Court who ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of three months. The judge justified the applicant’s detention pending trial by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released the applicant might abscond from and obstruct the investigation. She further held that the applicant had absconded from the investigation until his arrest on 14 March 2013. In this connection, the judge noted that the applicant was wanted by the police because he was charged by the investigator’s decision of 10 March 2013 with the criminal offence of illegal possession of weapons (Molotov cocktails) under Article 228.3 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was represented by a State-appointed lawyer at the hearing before the Nasimi District Court.
On 18 March 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that his detention was unlawful. He complained that the first-instance court failed to justify his detention pending trial. As regards the court’s argument that he had been wanted since 10 March 2013, the applicant noted that he had never been informed of the investigator’s decision of 10 March 2013 charging him with the criminal offence of illegal possession of weapons. In this connection, he pointed out that between 10 and 14 March 2013 he had not gone into hiding and had actively participated in the political life of the country, giving an interview to a newspaper and participating in the gathering of a political movement.
On 19 March 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision was justified. The appellate court’s decision was silent as to the applicant’s submissions that he had not absconded from the investigation between 10 and 14 March 2013.
B. Extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention
On 26 April 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 ground for his continued detention pending trial.
On 27 April 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of remand in custody.
On 3 May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.
On 30 May 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial until 3 September 2013. The court substantiated the necessity of the extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial by the complexity of the case, the gravity of the charges, and the likelihood that if released the applicant might abscond from and obstruct the investigation by influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings.
On 3 June 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision. He complained, in particular, that there was no evidence that he had committed any criminal offence and that the first-instance court had failed to justify the extension of his detention pending trial.
On 6 June 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 30 May 2013.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful because there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence.
He further 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. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion? What material was examined by the courts to verify if such reasonable suspicion existed?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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