Communicated on 14 December 2015
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 65597/13
Uzeyir MAMMADLI
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 1 September 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Uzeyir Mammadli, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1987 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 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.
On 30 March 2013 he was arrested by the police 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.
It appears from the documents in the case file that a few hours after his arrest the applicant was charged with the criminal offence of illegal possession of weapons under Article 228.3 of the Criminal Code. The specific act attributed to him was that he had illegally obtained twenty-two Molotov cocktails and then instructed two other members of NIDA, B.G. and S.N., to keep them in their place of residence.
On the same day the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of three months. The court 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.
On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this decision. He claimed, in particular, that there was no evidence that he had committed a criminal offence and that the first-instance court had failed to justify his detention pending trial.
On 4 April 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision was justified. As regards the applicant’s particular complaint that there was no evidence that he had committed a criminal offence, the appellate court held that the investigation had collected the relevant evidence, but that evidence should be assessed at a later stage of the proceedings.
B. Extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention
On an unspecified date in May 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 17 May 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of remand in custody.
On 23 May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.
On 22 June 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s remand in custody by three months, until 30 September 2013. The court substantiated the necessity of the extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial by the gravity of the charges, the existence of a risk of re‑offending, and the likelihood that if released the applicant might abscond from and obstruct the investigation.
On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that there was no need for the extension of his detention pending trial.
On 27 June 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial had been justified.
On 30 July 2013 the applicant again lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre-trial detention. He claimed that his continued detention had not been justified and that no investigative action had been taken since the beginning of his pre-trial detention.
On 31 July 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant’s request.
On 7 August 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.
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