SADIGOVA v. AZERBAIJAN and 4 other applications

Published on 27 October 2025

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 21744/20
Sevinj SADIGOVA against Azerbaijan
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 8 October 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment by the police officers, and ineffective investigations into those allegations.

According to the applicants in application no. 27084/21, on 8 June 2020 the police raided their home and arrested two of them (Mr K. Suleymanli and Mr E. Suleymanov) in the presence of the third applicant (Ms G. Suleymanova, their mother) and other family members, including children. During the raid, Ms G. Suleymanova was not arrested or subjected to any physical ill-treatment. However, she suffered fear and anguish as her home had been raided early in the morning and both of her sons had been brutally arrested in front of her eyes and taken away. The arrested applicants (Mr K. Suleymanli and Mr E. Suleymanov) were ill-treated by the police both during their arrest and detention. Later they were charged under the Code of Administrative Offences for “failure to comply with lawful request of the police” (in case of both Mr K. Suleymanli and Mr E. Suleymanov) and for “minor hooliganism” (in case of Mr E. Suleymanov) and convicted as charged.

According to the applicant in application no. 21744/20, she was arrested on 2 April 2019 when she was reporting as a journalist about a peaceful assembly held in Baku. Then, together with some other arrested persons, she was taken to the yard of the Presidential Administration headquarters, detained there for some time and later released. No charges were pressed against her. Both during her arrest and detention she was subjected to ill‑treatment.

According to the remaining applicants, they were also arrested by the police either prior to peaceful assemblies held on different dates in 2019-2020 or during dispersals of those assemblies (the applicants either intended to participate or participated in those assemblies). They were detained in police stations for several hours and later released. These applicants also were ill‑treated by the police during their arrest and/or detention.

On various dates all of the applicants lodged criminal complaints with the prosecuting authorities about the alleged ill-treatment. The prosecuting authorities rejected the applicants’ complaints of ill-treatment as unsubstantiated. The applicants’ complaints against the prosecuting authorities lodged before the domestic courts were unsuccessful.

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment by the police officers and that the domestic authorities failed to conduct effective investigations in that regard.

The applicants in applications nos. 21744/20, 35075/21 and 15247/22 also complain under Article 5 of the Convention that they were unlawfully deprived of their liberty by the police. The applicant in application no. 15247/22 further complains under Article 5 § 4 that he had no opportunity to effectively challenge the lawfulness of his detention.

The applicants in application no. 27084/21 also complain under Article 8 of the Convention that their right to respect for private life, family life and home was violated on account of the police’s entry and raid into their apartment.

Relying on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 21744/20 also complains that she was arrested and subjected to the ill-treatment because of her journalistic work and that her mobile phone was taken from her and the footage made by her of the assembly was deleted.

Relying on Articles 10 or 11 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 35075/21, 39397/21 and 15247/22 complain that their right to freedom of assembly was violated as they were arrested and detained because they had intended to participate or participated in peaceful demonstrations.

The applicants in applications nos. 21744/20, 35075/21 and 39397/21 also complain under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy in respect of their complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Common questions

1.  Have the applicants been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Mustafa Hajili v. Azerbaijan, no. 42119/12, §§ 34-37, 24 November 2016)?

2.  Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita, cited above, § 131, and Mustafa Hajili, cited above, §§ 47-48), was the investigation in the present cases in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

Case-specific questions

In respect of applications nos. 21744/20, 35075/21 and 15247/22:

3.  Were the applicants arrested and deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did their deprivation of liberty fall within one of the sub-paragraphs of this provision? Were the applicants’ arrests and detentions in accordance with a procedure “prescribed by law” (see Mammadov and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 1172/12, §§ 42-54, 8 July 2021)?

In respect of application no. 15247/22:

4.  Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Mammadli v. Azerbaijan, no. 47145/14, §§ 72‑74, 19 April 2018)?

In respect of application no. 27084/21:

5.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the fact that the police entered into their apartment on 8 June 2020 (see Sabani v. Belgium, no. 53069/15, §§ 41-58, 8 March 2022, and Khalikova v. Azerbaijan, no. 42883/11, §§ 120-29, 22 October 2015)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

In respect of application no. 21744/20:

6.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (see Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, § 66, 2 October 2012)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?

In respect of applications nos. 35075/21, 39397/21 and 15247/22:

7.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was this interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 50-68, 15 October 2015)?

In respect of applications nos. 21744/20, 35075/21 and 39397/21:

8.  Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

APPENDIX