Communicated on 26 May 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 1459/14
Yadigar SADIGOV against Azerbaijan
lodged on 25 November 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yadigar Sadigov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Lankaran. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Bagirov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was an active member of the Musavat Party in Lankaran. He also worked as an adviser to the Chairman of the Musavat Party.
On 25 June 2013, when the applicant was at a tea house with his friends in Lankaran, a certain R.S. approached him and began insulting the opposition. According to the applicant, he realised that it was a provocation and he left the tea house without disputing with that person.
On 26 June 2013 a news item entitled “the adviser to the Chairman of the Musavat Party beat war veteran R.S.” was published in the media close to the Government, including the State information agency “Azertag”.
Following the publication of this news item, the applicant made a statement on social media noting that he had been set up and criminal proceedings would probably be instituted against him.
On 27 June 2013 police officers came to the applicant’s home and took him to the police office.
On the same day a record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect was compiled by the police.
On 29 June 2013 the applicant was charged under Article 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. He was in particular accused of beating and insulting R.S. on 25 June 2013 in front of a tea house in Lankaran.
On the same day the Lankaran 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.
On 2 July 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that there was no evidence that he had committed a criminal offence and that there had been no justification for the application of the preventive measure of detention pending trial.
On 15 July 2013 the Shirvan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision was justified.
On 7 August 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the Lankaran District Court asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre-trial detention, claiming that there was no ground for his continued detention.
On 13 August 2013 the Lankaran District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of detention pending trial.
On 26 August 2013 the Shirvan Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.
In the meantime, on 24 August 2013 the Lankaran District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by twenty-five days, until 22 September 2013. The court justified the extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial by the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions.
On 27 August 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, reiterating that there was no evidence that he had committed a criminal offence and that the Lankaran District Court had failed to justify the extension of his pre-trial detention.
On 9 September 2013 the Shirvan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial had been justified.
On 22 September 2013 the Lankaran District Court again extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by one month, until 22 October 2013. The court justified the extension by the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions.
On 24 September 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, reiterating his previous complaints.
On 7 October 2013 the Shirvan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
On 24 October 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the Sabunchu District Court asking for his release. In particular, he complained that, although his pre-trial detention period had expired on 22 October 2013, he had not been released from detention.
On 25 October 2013 the Sabunchu District Court dismissed the applicant’s request, finding that his detention was lawful. In this connection, the court held that the bill of indictment had been filed with the trial court on 22 October 2013.
On 28 October 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, complaining that his detention on the ground that the bill of indictment had been filed with the trial court was unlawful.
On 6 November 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Sabunchu District Court’s decision of 25 October 2013. The appellate court held in its decision that on 22 October 2013, the date on which the bill of indictment had been filed with the Lankaran District Court, the latter court also decided to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 15 November 2013. The appellate court’s decision was, however, silent as to the question whether the Lankaran District Court’s hearing of 22 October 2013 was held in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer.
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 also 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.
Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant further complains that his detention after 22 October 2013 was unlawful, as it was not based on any court order. In this connection, he claims that no decision extending his pre-trial detention after 22 October 2013 was duly adopted.
[A1]
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. Was the applicant’s detention after 22 October 2013 based on a court order? If so, were the applicant and his lawyer able to be present at the hearing on the extension of the applicant’s detention after 22 October 2013?
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.
[A1]ITMARKFactsComplaintsEnd
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy