FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29676/07
by Abdulrza ZAHIDI
against Azerbaijan
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 September 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Sectin Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 June 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the Government,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Abdulrza Zahidi, is an Iranian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Tehran. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Aşurov, a lawyer practising in Baku. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant worked as a driver in a bus service between Iran and Azerbaijan.
At approximately 10 p.m. on 1 December 2006 the bus driven by the applicant arrived at the bus station in Baku. Upon the arrival, the applicant was approached by agents of the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) who asked him for information about a person (A.M.) to whom a piece of baggage, conveyed by the bus, was addressed. The applicant gave the relevant information (name, brand and vehicle registration plate of A.M.’s car) that he knew about A.M. to the MNS’s agents.
After A.M.’s arrival at the bus station, he was arrested by the agents of the MNS and 1,020 grams of heroin were found in the baggage addressed to him. A record was drawn up and the applicant signed it. After his arrest A.M. stated that he did not know the applicant and there was no deal between them.
At 6.05 p.m. on 2 December 2006 the investigator of the MNS issued a record of the applicant’s forty-eight-hour detention as a suspect (tutma protokolu) in the presence of the applicant, an interpreter and a State‑appointed lawyer. The investigator noted that the applicant was suspected of the participation in an organised criminal group in order to transport 1,020 grams of heroin from Iran to Azerbaijans and was charged with Articles 206 (smuggling) and 234 (illegal preparation, possession, purchase, transportation and sale of narcotic substances) of the Criminal Code. The applicant noted in handwriting remarked by hand-writing on the bottom of the document that he had not known that there were narcotics in the baggage.
On 4 December 2006 the judge, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri), ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of three months. The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure by the possibility of his absconding and obstructing the investigation. The hearing concerning the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody was held in the MNS building and the applicant was not represented by a lawyer.
On 6 December 2006 the applicant appealed against the Sabail District Court’s decision of 4 December 2006. He complained about the lack of evidence that he had committed a criminal offence and the lack of justification for the application of the preventive measure of detention on remand. He further argued that the holding of the hearing in the MNS building was in breach of the relevant law, that the judge had merely relied on the prosecution’s submissions and, that the judge had not taken into consideration his age, family situation or other personal circumstances when he had ordered his detention. The applicant also asked the court to ensure his presence at the hearing before the Court of Appeal.
On 13 December 2006, in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer, the Court of Appeal upheld the Sabail District Court’s decision, noting that the detention order was justified. The Court of Appeal’s decision did not address to any of the applicant’s specific complaints. The applicant was absent from the hearing before the Court of Appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that there had been no reason for the application of remand in custody as a preventive measure and that the domestic courts had failed to justify his detention.
He further complained about the unfairness of the proceedings, noting that he could not be considered to be brought promptly before a judge. In this connection, he argued that the “hearing” had been a matter of formality, that there had been no symbols of justice in the room where the judge had decided on his detention and, that he had not been able to identify the judge as a judge, because the latter had not been in the official uniform and had not conducted a formal hearing. He also complained about his absence from the hearing before the Court of Appeal.
THE LAW
On 4 May 2011 the Court received the following letter from the Government regarding a friendly settlement of the case:
“With reference to Article 38 of the Convention, as well as Rule 62 of the Rules of Court, the Government express its readiness to reach a friendly settlement with the applicant in this case. Taking into account the case-law of the Court, the Government propose EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to the applicant as a compensation for all damages he might have suffered.
The Court is kindly requested to facilitate the friendly settlement of the matter on the aforementioned basis.”
On 29 July 2011 the Court received the following letter signed by the applicant’s representative:
“The applicant, Mr. A. Zahidi, agrees with the Government’s proposal regarding a friendly settlement of the case and asks the European Court of Human Rights to exclude the case from the general list of the cases.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenNina Vajić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy