Communicated on 29 April 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Applications nos. 38203/12 and 31564/14
Elnur SEYIDOV against Azerbaijan
and Parviz HASHIMOV against Azerbaijan
lodged on 22 May 2012 and 11 April 2014 respectively
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention concerning conditions of detention and (or) medical assistance while in detention. The applicant in application no. 38203/12 mainly alleges that he has not received adequate medical assistance while in detention and prison and that his state of health has been incompatible with the conditions of his detention. The applicant in application no. 31564/14 complains of inadequate conditions of detention in detention facility.
The applicants complain that they were deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention.
Moreover, the applicant in application no. 31564/14 complains under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the use of the video surveillance in his cell in the relevant detention facility and the search and seizure in his house and offices. He further alleges a violation of his freedom of expression, in particular, his right to protection of journalistic sources.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular,
(a) Was the applicant’s detention in application no. 38203/12 compatible with the state of his health? Was the applicant provided with adequate medical care in detention and in prison?
(b) In application no. 31564/14, were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the pre-trial detention facility at the Ministry of National Security compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? In respect of the cell where the applicant was detained:
(i) Was the cell adequately lit and ventilated? What were the sanitary conditions inside the cell?
(ii) Did the applicant have access to TV and radio and undertake outdoor exercises?
2. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the deprivation of liberty in application no. 38203/12 from 10 a.m. on 27 March 2012 to 6.50 p.m. on 29 March 2012 and from 6 March 2013 to 29 March 2013 compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Was the applicants’ detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion? Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicants’ detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Was the procedure by which the applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
4. Regard being had to the applicant’s allegation in application no. 31564/14 that his cell in the detention facility at the Ministry of National Security was under video surveillance at all times, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention and if so, was this interference compatible with this Convention provision?
5. Was the search and seizure in the applicant’s house and offices in application no. 31564/14 in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 of the Convention?
6. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression in application no. 31564/14, in particular, his right to protection of journalistic sources, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?
1SEYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN AND HASHIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN
– SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE AND QUESTIONS
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
First name LASTNAME
Birth year
Nationality
Place of residence
Representative
38203/12
Elnur Rafig oglu SEYIDOV
1971
Azerbaijani
Baku
A.Mustafayev
2.
31564/14
Parviz Kamran oglu HASHIMOV
1981
Azerbaijani
Baku
R.Hajılı
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy