CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s8BBCE811 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .sF4F12EF6 { width:180.75pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }     FIRST SECTION                 CASE OF ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN   (Application no. 15172/13)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   22 May 2014       FINAL   13/10/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 April 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 15172/13) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov ( İlqar Eldar oğlu Məmmədov – “the applicant”), on 25   February 2013. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr F.   Agayev, a lawyer practising in Baku. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç.   Asgarov. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that his arrest and pre-trial detention had not been justified and had been carried out in bad faith, that his right to presumption of innocence had been breached, and that his rights were restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. 4.     On 8 April 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Baku. A.     Background 6.     The applicant has been involved in various political organisations and local and international non-governmental organisations for a number of years. In 2008 he co-founded the Republican Alternative Civic Movement (“REAL”) and in 2012 was elected its chairman. He is also Director of the Baku School of Political Studies, which is part of a network of schools of political studies affiliated with the Council of Europe. He has held that position for several years. 7.     The applicant maintained a personal internet blog on which he commented on various political issues. In particular, in November 2012, after the enactment of a new law by the National Assembly introducing heavy sanctions for unauthorised public gatherings, the applicant posted a comment on his blog which he claimed was meant to insult members of the National Assembly. Without naming any names, he went on to state, inter alia , that the National Assembly was composed of “fraudulent people” and compared the entire legislative body to a zoo. Those statements were quoted in the media and elicited a number of seemingly irate responses from various National Assembly members. The responses, also published in the media, ranged in content from retaliatory ad hominem insults to calls for punishment and threats of suing him in court. According to the applicant, the parliamentarians’ “lawsuit plans were ... temporarily dropped” after the calls for reprisals against the applicant were condemned by one of the Vice ‑ Presidents of the European Commission, who was visiting the country at the time. 8.     At the beginning of January 2013 REAL announced that it would consider nominating its own candidate for the upcoming presidential election of November 2013. The applicant himself announced that he was considering standing as a candidate in the election. According to the applicant, his prospective presidential candidacy was widely discussed in Azerbaijan at that time. B.     The Ismayilli events of January 2013 9.     On 23 January 2013 rioting broke out in the town of Ismayilli, located to the northwest of Baku. According to media reports quoting local residents, the rioting was sparked by an incident involving V.A., the son of the Minister of Labour and Social Protection and nephew of the Head of the Ismayilli District Executive Authority (“IDEA”). It was claimed that after being involved in a car accident, V.A. had insulted and physically assaulted passengers of the other car, who were local residents. On hearing of the incident, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of local residents took to the streets and destroyed a number of commercial establishments (including the Chirag Hotel) and other property in Ismayilli thought to be owned by V.A.’s family. 10.     On 24 January 2013 the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General’s Office issued a joint press statement, placing the blame for the rioting on E.S., a hotel manager, and his relative E.M., who had allegedly been drunk and who, it was claimed, had committed acts of hooliganism by damaging local residents’ property and inciting people to riot. 11.     Meanwhile, the Head of IDEA, V.A.’s uncle, publicly denied that the Chirag Hotel belonged to his family. C.     The applicant’s role in the Ismayilli events 12.     On 24 January 2013 the applicant travelled to Ismayilli to get a first ‑ hand account of the events. On 25 January 2013 he described his impressions from the trip on his blog. The entire post read as follows: “Yesterday afternoon I spent a little longer than two hours in Ismayilli, together with [another member] of our Movement [REAL] and our media coordinator... First, here is [the summary of] what I wrote on Facebook during those hours using my phone: -     We have entered the town. -     There is a lot of police and their number is growing. The protesters gather each hour or two and make speeches. We are in front of the building of the [Ismayilli District] Executive Authority. There are around 500 police officers in this area. -     The cause of the events is the general tension arising from corruption and insolence [of public officials]. In short, people have had enough. We are having conversations with local residents. -     The [ethnic] Russians of the village of Ivanovka are also fed up; they tried to come to [Ismayilli] to support the protest, but the road was blocked and they were sent back. -     Everybody is preparing for the night. -     We are leaving Ismayilli, returning to Baku. The matter is clear to us. Quba was the first call. Ismayilli is the second. After the third call, the show will begin. We came back after having fully investigated the situation in Ismayilli. I wrote that clashes would again take place in the evening, by posting ‘everybody is preparing for the night’ [on Facebook]. People there had been saying ‘We’ll give them hell in the evening; we have procured supplies’ (meaning the fuel for Molotov cocktails had been bought). People are angry. There are also those who do not care and who are afraid, but those who are not afraid are very exasperated and will continue the protest at night. This is no longer a political situation where we could stay there and try to change something; this is already a situation of disorderly crisis which requires conciliatory steps by the State to be resolved. No one should fool oneself or others. The events in Ismayilli were not and are not a calm peaceful protest, it is an extremely violent but just protest and the responsibility for it lies with Ilham Aliyev. As it is with all revolutionary processes, in the beginning the political initiative is still in the hands of the President, but by not taking action he is gradually losing this initiative. When [such leaders] begin to react to the situation, it is usually too late and their actions have no effect. Mubarak, the Shah of Iran, and all others have gone this way.” 13.     On 28 January 2013 the applicant posted more information on his blog concerning the events, citing the official websites of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the Ministry of Taxes and publishing screenshots of those sites. In particular, he noted that, according to those sources and to information posted on V.A.’s Facebook account, the Chirag Hotel was actually owned by V.A. This directly contradicted the earlier denial by the Head of IDEA. The information cited by the applicant was removed from the aforementioned Government websites and V.A.’s Facebook page within one hour of the applicant publishing his blog entry. However, the blog entry itself was extensively quoted in the media. 14.     On 29 January 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a new joint press statement concerning the events in Ismayilli. It noted that ten people had been charged with criminal offences in connection with the events of 23 January 2013, and had been detained pending trial. In addition, fifty-two people had been arrested in connection with their participation in “actions causing a serious breach of public order”; some of them had been convicted of “administrative offences” and sentenced to a few days’ “administrative detention” or a fine, while others had been released. The statement further noted that “lately, biased and partial information has been deliberately disseminated, distorting the true nature of the mentioned events resulting from hooliganism”, including information about large numbers of injured people and the disappearance of one individual. The statement refuted that information, noting that only four people had been admitted to the regional hospital with injuries and that no one had disappeared. It further stated, inter alia , the following: “Following the carrying out of inquiries, it has been established that on 24 January 2013 the Deputy Chairman of the Musavat Party, Tofiq Yaqublu, and the Co ‑ chairman of the REAL Movement, Ilgar Mammadov, went to Ismayilli and made appeals to local residents aimed at social and political destabilisation, such as calls to resist the police, not to obey officials and to block roads. Their illegal actions, which were calculated to inflame the situation in the country, will be fully and thoroughly investigated and receive legal assessment.” 15.     On 30 January 2013 the applicant commented on that statement on his blog. He noted that the Government had taken a decision to “punish and frighten” him, and that there were several reasons for that: firstly, the applicant’s blog posting of 28 January 2013, which had revealed facts embarrassing the Government; secondly, the fact that REAL had raised a public debate on the June 2012 legislative amendments aimed at keeping secret information concerning shareholders in companies, creating “a more clandestine environment for stealing the oil money”; thirdly, the applicant’s earlier criticism of the National Assembly, in which he compared it to “a zoo”, following enactment of the legislation placing “severe limitations on the freedom of assembly” by “introducing unjustifiably high monetary penalties for attending unauthorised demonstrations”; and lastly, the REAL Movement’s “quickly accumulating strength” prior to the presidential election, becoming a “serious barrier in the eyes of the traditional [political] players” and threatening “to spoil the repeat of the election farce performed year after year”. D.     Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant 16.     On 29 January 2013 the applicant received a phone call from the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office and was orally invited to the department for questioning as a witness. Although that did not constitute a formal summons, the applicant went to the Prosecutor General’s Office and was questioned. 17.     According to the record of the questioning, the applicant stated that he had arrived in Ismayilli in a car driven by another member of REAL at around 3.30 p.m. on 24 January 2013. After entering the town, they stopped from time to time and spoke to local residents without getting out of the car, in order to receive first-hand information about the events that had taken place up to that time. When they arrived at the central square where the IDEA building was located, they met a number of journalists and saw a large number of police and law-enforcement officers. At the square, the applicant spoke only to the journalists; he did not speak to any local residents. No violent clashes were happening at the square at that time. While at the square, the applicant saw Tofiq Yaqublu, who was also visiting the town, but separately from the applicant. They stopped to greet each other and immediately went their separate ways. The applicant and his colleague from REAL spent about thirty to forty minutes at the square. The applicant, his colleague from REAL, and one of the journalists then spent some time in a nearby teahouse. After a while, the three of them returned to Baku. On their way out of Ismayilli, they again stopped a few times and, from inside the car, spoke to passers-by about the situation in the town. 18.     During the questioning, the investigator informed the applicant that it had been established from “the material in the criminal case file” that at around 5 p.m. of that day, while standing near the building of the Ismayilli Region Education Department, the applicant and Mr Tofiq Yaqublu had been inciting local residents to cause disorder, disobey the police, block roads and throw stones at the police. The applicant was asked to comment on that. He replied that that information was false and a calumny against him. 19.     After the questioning had ended, the applicant went home. 20.     In the evening of 3 February 2013 the applicant received another telephone call asking him to come in for further questioning. 21.     In the morning of 4 February 2013 the applicant voluntarily appeared at the Prosecutor General’s Office. First, from 10.50 to 11.10 a.m. a face-to-face confrontation was held between the applicant and R.N., described in the record of the confrontation as a resident of the Ashagi Julyan village of the Ismayilli Region. According to a copy of that record (submitted by the Government to the Court as a separate document enclosed with their observations), R.N. stated that on 24 January 2013 he had been in Ismayilli where he had seen many police officers, as well as a number of young people slowly gathering in groups of five to seven. He heard people discussing the events of the day before. Among them, he saw Tofiq Yaqublu and the applicant. He did not know the applicant’s identity until he inquired about it and someone told him. He heard the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu telling people to throw stones at the police and to capture the IDEA building. Following this, people started throwing stones at the police. 22.     According to the record, in reply, the applicant stated that everything that R.N. had said was false and a laughable fabrication, and that it was an attempt to frame him and pressure him for political reasons. 23.     After the questioning ended at 11.10 a.m., the applicant was not allowed to leave the building. 24.     From 12.50 to 1.05   p.m. another face-to-face confrontation was held, this time with another Ismayilli Region resident, I.M. According to the record of the questioning (also submitted by the Government to the Court as a separate document enclosed with their observations), I.M. stated that on 24 January 2013 he had been in Ismayilli and had seen lots of young people gathering. There were also many police officers. Protesters were throwing stones at the police. Then he saw two persons standing near the Education Department building and telling protesters to throw stones, not to be afraid, and to capture the IDEA building. Having inquired from the bystanders who those two persons were, he was told that they were Tofiq Yaqublu and the applicant. Then he saw and heard two police officers named Namiq and Vahid tell the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu to calm down, but to no avail. 25.     According to the record, in reply, the applicant stated that I.M.’s statement was a fabrication and that “everything happening in this room” amounted to political sabotage against him and the Azerbaijani people. The applicant also noted in the record, in handwriting, that he had not been allowed to leave the building during the period of more than one hour between the two face-to-face confrontations, despite his wish to the contrary. 26.     The above face-to-face confrontations were not specifically mentioned in the official charges against the applicant (see paragraph 27 below) or the prosecution’s subsequent requests for a judicial order on the applicant’s remand in custody or an extension of the detention period, and the names of R.N. and I.M. were not otherwise mentioned in either of the above or in any other official document made available to the Court by the parties and relating to the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him. 27.     After the second confrontation, the applicant was again denied permission to leave. At 3.24 p.m., following the arrival of his defence lawyer, the applicant was charged with criminal offences under Articles 233 (organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or health) of the Criminal Code. The specific acts attributed to the applicant were described as follows: “Beginning at around 3 p.m. on 24 January 2013, Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov, having taken advantage of the fact that from around 9.30 p.m. on 23 January 2013 a group of persons in the town of Ismayilli had engaged in acts of malicious hooliganism causing a serious breach of public order, had deliberately burned, in a publicly dangerous manner, property belonging to various persons [including] the Chirag Hotel, four cars, five mopeds and scooters, and an auxiliary building located in the yard of a private residential house, and had committed acts of violence against Government officials, having, in his false way of thinking, considered [the above events] as a ‘rebellion’, aiming to make the above acts develop and acquire a continuous character in order to create artificial tension and to violate the social and political stability in the country, being a resident of Baku, arrived in Ismayilli and, together with Tofiq Rashid oglu Yaqublu and with the active participation of others, [committed the following:] organised, as an active participant, acts causing a serious breach of public order, by means of openly and repeatedly inciting town residents [E.I.], [M.A.] and others, who had gathered at the square near the administrative building of the Regional Education Department located on the Nariman Narimanov Street opposite to the administrative building of [the IDEA], [to do the following:] [i] to enter in masses into the area in front of the building of [the IDEA], which is the competent body of the executive power of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and by doing so to create difficulties for the movement of traffic and pedestrians, [ii] to disobey the lawful demands to disperse, made by Government officials wanting to stop their illegal behaviour, [iii] to resist uniformed police officers protecting the public order, by way of committing violent acts posing danger to [police officers’] life and health, using various objects, [iv] to disrupt the normal functioning of [the IDEA], State enterprises, bodies and organisations, as well as public-catering, commercial and public-service facilities, by way of refusing to leave, for a long period of time, the areas where the acts seriously breaching the public order were being committed, and [v] to stop the movement of traffic, by way of blocking the central avenue and the Nariman Narimanov Street, and was finally able to achieve that, at around 5 p.m. of the same day in the town of Ismayilli, a group of persons consisting of [E.I.], [M.A.] and others had marched in masses from the mentioned square in the direction of the administrative building of [the IDEA] and had thrown stones at officers of the relevant bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs who were preventing [this march] in accordance with the requirements of the law. By these actions, Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov committed the criminal offences under Articles 233 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.” [1] 28.     From 4.30 to 5.10 p.m., the applicant was questioned again, this time as an accused. During the interview he gave essentially the same statement as during the interview of 29 January 2013 (see paragraph 17 above). E.     The applicant’s remand in custody 29.     At around 6 p.m. the applicant was taken to the Nasimi District Court. The Deputy Prosecutor General lodged an application with the Nasimi District Court asking it to order the applicant’s remand in custody. The application was essentially a copy of the text of the decision to charge the applicant with the criminal offences (see paragraph 27 above). It was followed by a note stating that it was necessary to remand the applicant in custody because of the gravity and publicly dangerous character of the offences committed, because they carried a sanction of over two years’ imprisonment, and because there were “sufficient reasons” to believe that, if released, the applicant would abscond or obstruct the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings. 30.     The court hearing commenced at around 7 p.m. in the presence of the applicant, his lawyers, a member of the investigation team, and one of the prosecutors working in the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office. According to the applicant, and not disputed by the Government, the prosecution did not submit the case file or the records of the applicant’s questioning to the court. 31.     At the hearing, the applicant and his lawyers submitted that the accusation against the applicant was groundless and was not supported by any evidence. As for the applicant’s conduct, they pointed out that he had voluntarily appeared before the prosecution as soon as requested to do so and that, therefore, there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or interfere with the investigation. They argued that, for those reasons, his detention was not justified. 32.     By a decision of 4 February 2013, the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody for a period of two months (until 4 April 2013). The part of the decision containing the court’s reasoning read as follows: “Having examined the [prosecution’s] application and enclosed documents and having heard the oral submissions of the parties, and taking into account the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, the accused Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov would abscond from the investigation or disrupt the normal course of the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons involved in the proceedings, the publicly dangerous character and gravity of the criminal offence committed, and the fact that he is charged with a criminal offence carrying a sanction of over two years’ imprisonment, the court considers that the preventive measure of remanding him in custody must be applied in his respect.” 33.     On 5 February 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nasimi District Court, claiming that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty during the period from 11.10 a.m. to 7 p.m. on 4 February 2013. His complaint was rejected on 22 February 2013. 34.     On 6 February 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order of 4 February 2013. He argued that he had been detained in breach of the domestic law and Article 5 of the Convention. He complained that, although the introductory part of the detention order stated that the court had reviewed preliminary evidence collected by the prosecution, no evidence or any other information giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence had been presented by the prosecution to the first-instance court. The court had issued the order solely on the basis of the decision to charge the applicant with the criminal offences and the prosecution’s request to order his remand in custody, without independently verifying whether there was a reasonable suspicion against him. He further complained that the court had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his detention by finding that he might abscond from the investigation or attempt to obstruct the proceedings. As for his conduct prior to arrest, he had been cooperative with the authorities and, on more than one occasion, had appeared for questioning after a simple phone call, even without having been formally summoned. Other factors, such as the fact that he had a wife and a small child, a permanent residence and a job in Baku, his personality, social status and professional occupation, his affiliation with the Council of Europe’s programmes, no prior criminal record, and so on, also showed that he was very unlikely to abscond and should have been taken into account by the court. In his appeal, as well as relying on the relevant domestic law, the applicant also relied extensively on the European Court’s case-law and cited a number of its judgments concerning Article 5 of the Convention. 35.     On the same date the applicant submitted to the Nasimi District Court observations on the transcript of that court’s hearing of 4 February 2013, to be included in the case file. The observations mainly concerned the prosecutor’s inability and refusal to answer questions posed by the defence during the oral hearing. Those questions concerned the prosecution’s failure to produce any evidence on which its suspicions against the applicant were based or to identify the specific circumstances which had led it to believe that the applicant, if released, would abscond or obstruct the proceedings. 36.     The Baku Court of Appeal’s hearing was scheduled to be held on 8   February 2013. The hearing was delayed for some hours, awaiting the Nasimi District Court’s examination of the applicant’s observations on the transcript of the hearing and the request to include them in the documents related to his pre-trial detention, which had been forwarded to the Baku Court of Appeal. During the delay, the Nasimi District Court took a decision refusing to incorporate the applicant’s observations into the transcript of the hearing. 37.     According to the applicant, and not disputed by the Government, as at the first-instance hearing, the prosecution’s case materials were not made available to the court at the appellate hearing. 38.     By a decision of 8 February 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Nasimi District Court’s detention order of 4 February 2013, finding as follows: “Taking into account the personality of Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov, the publicly dangerous character and gravity of the criminal offences in question, the fact that [those offences] belong to the category of less serious crimes, that [the applicant], if released, could abscond and would disrupt the objectivity of the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons involved in the criminal proceedings, the court considers that the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 4 February 2013 ordering the applicant’s remand in custody is lawful and justified and must be upheld. ... In Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands [(19 April 1994, § 61, Series A no. 288], the European Court of Human Rights noted that the right to a fair trial required that a court should give reasons for its decisions. This does not mean, however, that a detailed answer should be given to every argument raised by the parties.” 39.     Having provided the above reasoning, the Baku Court of Appeal did not address any of the specific arguments raised by the applicant against the necessity of detention (see paragraph 34 above). F.     Extensions of pre-trial detention and new charges 40.   On 11 March 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court to change the preventive measure of remand in custody to house arrest. He argued that his previous conduct had showed that he did not intend to avoid the investigation. Furthermore, his personal circumstances (his family situation, the fact that he had a permanent job and a permanent place of residence, his active political career in Baku, and so on) made it very unlikely that he would abscond. Lastly, in his case, “persons involved in the criminal proceedings” lived in Ismayilli, and not in Baku where he resided. Therefore, it was unlikely that he would unlawfully influence them. 41.     At the hearing on 12 March 2013 the prosecution submitted that the request was “groundless” and reiterated that there was a risk that if the applicant were not detained, he would abscond or disrupt the investigation. On the same day the Nasimi District Court rejected the applicant’s request. The reasoning provided by the court was as follows: “Having examined the counsel’s request, having heard the persons participating in the hearing, and having examined the case material, the court considers that the request cannot be granted because the grounds for detaining the accused person have not ceased to exist.” 42.     The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. On 27 March 2013 his appeal was dismissed by the Baku Court of Appeal. 43.     In the meantime, on 13 March 2013 the prosecution requested an extension of the applicant’s detention (originally authorised until 4 April 2013), noting that, despite the fact that a number of investigative measures had been taken, the case was complex and more time was needed to complete the investigation. According to the applicant, and undisputed by the Government, apart from that request, the prosecution did not submit to the court any other material relating to the criminal case. At the hearing of 14 March 2013 concerning the extension request, the prosecution gave no answer to the defence’s questions as to what specific evidence served as grounds for suspecting the applicant of having committed a criminal offence, what specific investigative measures had been taken so far and what further measures needed to be taken. Following the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer formally requested that the judge include the above questions and the (lack of) answers in the transcript of the hearing, but to no avail. 44.     On 14 March 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention by two more months (until 4 June 2013), providing the following reasoning: “Taking into account the fact that the accused is charged with offences belonging to the category of less serious crimes, the complexity of the criminal proceedings, the need for more time to complete the investigation, and the necessity to carry out a number of investigative measures, the court considers that [the prosecution’s] request must be granted and the period of the accused’s detention extended ... to 4 June 2013.” 45.     The applicant appealed, reiterating in detail all the arguments against his detention that he had previously raised before the courts. He also argued that it was not permissible, under the domestic law and the Convention, to justify prolonging his pre-trial detention on the ground that the prosecution needed more time to do its job. Again, he cited a number of relevant judgments of the European Court concerning various issues relating to pre ‑ trial detention. 46.     On 19 March 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the extension decision of 14 March 2013 and providing the same reasoning as the first-instance court. 47.     On 5 April 2013 the applicant applied to the Nasimi District Court for bail, reiterating his previous arguments against his detention. On 8 April 2013 the Nasimi District Court rejected his request, finding that the grounds justifying his detention, as specified in its decision of 14 March 2013, “had not ceased to exist”. 48.     The applicant appealed, reiterating in detail his arguments for release. On 15 April 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 5 April 2013. 49.     On 30 April 2013 the head of the investigation team decided to charge the applicant with new offences, this time under Articles 220.1 (mass disorder) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or health) of the Criminal Code. In essence, the charge under Article 220.1, which carried a much heavier sentence (four to twelve years’ imprisonment), replaced the previous charge under Article 233. No changes were made in the original description of the accusations against the applicant (see paragraph 27 above). 50.     One of the effects of the new charge under Article 220.1 of the Criminal Code was that the applicant could no longer apply for bail, because the law did not permit individuals accused of deliberately committing “serious criminal offences” to be released on bail (see paragraphs 71 and 74 below). Moreover, as a person charged with a “serious criminal offence”, the applicant’s pre-trial detention could now be extended for a longer overall period (see paragraphs 71 and 73 below). 51.     On 15 May 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention (which had been authorised until 4 June 2013) by another three months (until 4 September 2013). At the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer reiterated his specific arguments for release and further argued that there were no relevant factors justifying the applicant’s detention. In its decision, the District Court justified the applicant’s continued detention as follows: “Having heard the parties, having examined the [prosecution’s] request on the basis of the case material, and taking into account the scope of the investigative measures to be taken and the fact that the grounds for [the applicant’s] detention have not ceased to exist, the court considers that [the prosecution’s extension] request must be granted and the period of [the applicant’s] detention extended ...” 52.     The applicant appealed, reiterating his previous arguments. On 27   May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the extension order, providing reasoning similar to that given by the courts previously. 53.     On 14 August 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention (previously authorised until 4 September 2013) by another two months (until 4 November 2013). On 20 August 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the detention order on appeal. The arguments made before the courts and the courts’ reasoning were essentially the same as in the previous extension hearings and decisions. 54.     No further extension decisions are available in the case file. 55.     The applicant’s criminal trial began in November 2013. On 17   March 2014 the Sheki Court of Serious Crimes convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The conviction is not yet final and the appeal is pending. G.     Public reaction to the applicant’s arrest and criminal proceedings against him 56.     The applicant’s case generated wide publicity. Some of the select reactions to the case are summarised below. 57.     Immediately after the applicant’s arrest, a number of domestic NGOs, as well as international NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Article 19, condemned the authorities’ actions, assessing them as a “politically motivated persecution” on “trumped up” charges. 58.     On 6 February 2013, Pedro Agramunt and Joseph Debono Grech, PACE Monitoring Committee co-rapporteurs on Azerbaijan, expressed their concern at the arrest of the applicant, noting that it “gave rise to justified doubts and legitimate concerns” and urging the authorities to release the applicant and Tofiq Yagublu. 59.     On 8 February 2013, Thorbjørn Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, made the following official statement: “I am concerned by ... the heavy-handed response of the police to the protests. I am particularly disturbed by the arrest on 4 February of Tofig Yagublu and Ilgar Mammadov, in relation to recent events in Ismayilli. Mr Mammadov is the Director of the Baku School of Political Studies, a close co-operation partner of the Council of Europe. Today’s decision of the Baku Court of Appeal not to release these two men and its refusal to allow the Council of Europe’s representative to be present during the court proceedings is of particular gravity”. In his further statement of 3 May 2013, Thorbjørn Jagland “expressed his concern and disappointment” at the new charges against the applicant. 60.     On 9 February 2013, the spokespersons of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton, and the European Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy, Štefan Füle, issued a statement expressing concern over the applicant’s arrest and urged the authorities to ensure a fair, transparent and independent investigation of the charges against him. 61.     On 13 June 2013, the European Parliament adopted a resolution entitled “Azerbaijan: Case of Ilgar Mammadov” (2013/2668(RSP)). Inter alia , the resolution assesses the applicant’s detention as “unlawful” and “an apparent attempt to keep him behind bars pending the forthcoming elections”, “strongly condemns the detention of Mr   Mammadov, calls for his immediate and unconditional release and an end to his prosecution”, and “expresses serious concern over reports by human rights defenders and domestic and international NGOs about the alleged use of fabricated charges against politicians, activists and journalists”. H.     The applicant’s nomination for the presidential elections 62.     The process of registration of candidates for the presidential elections started on 4 August 2013. The Electoral Code required candidates to submit their initial eligibility documents to the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”), which would then issue them with official signature sheets in order to collect a minimum of 40,000 voter signatures in support of the nomination. The deadline for submission of the signatures and all other documents was 9 September 2013. 63.     Since the applicant needed an authorised representative to deal with various matters concerning his nomination, on 1 August 2013 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office to set up a meeting between the applicant and a notary public in the Baku Detention Facility, in order to prepare a power of attorney for his representative in electoral matters. The permission for a notary public’s visit was given on 21 August 2013. The notary public visited the detention facility and certified the power of attorney on 23   August 2013. 64.     Pending a response to the above request, on 10 August 2013 the applicant sent his initial eligibility documents to the CEC from the detention facility’s post office. According to the applicant, the documents were not delivered to the CEC until 22 August 2013. 65.     On 23 August 2013 the CEC returned the applicant’s initial eligibility documents, having found that they had shortcomings. After rectification of the shortcomings, the applicant’s representative resubmitted the documents on the same day. 66.     On 27 August 2013 the CEC preliminarily accepted the applicant’s nomination as a candidate in the elections, pending the verification of the required voter signatures (see paragraph 62 above) due by 9 September 2013. The applicant’s representatives submitted the required signature sheets. 67.     On 13 September 2013 the CEC refused to register the applicant as a candidate, finding that his signature sheets contained a number of invalid signatures and that the number of valid signatures in support of the applicant was below the minimum (40,000) required by law. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Criminal Code 68.     Article 220.1 of the Criminal Code provides as follows: Article 220. Mass disorder “220.1.     Organisation of or participation in mass disorder accompanied by violence, plunder, arson, destruction of property, use of firearms or explosive substances or devices, or by armed resistance to public officers – is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period from four to twelve years. ...” 69.     Article 223 of the Criminal Code provides as follows: Article 233.     Organisation or active participation in actions causing a breach of public order “Organisation by a group of persons of actions which grossly breach public order, or are associated with insubordination to lawful demands of a public officer, or cause disruption of the normal functioning of transport, enterprises, bodies and organisations, as well as active participation in such actions – is punishable by a fine in the amount of five thousand manats to eight thousand manats, or correctional labour for a period of up to two years, or deprivation of liberty for a period of up to three years.” 70.     Article 315 of the Criminal Code provides as follows: Article 315.     Resistance to or violence against a public officer “315.1.     Use of violence against, or violent resistance to, a public officer in connection with the exercise of the latter’s official duties, or use against the close relatives of such a public officer of violence which does not pose a danger to their life or health, or the threat of use of such violence – is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of up to three years. 315.2.     Use against persons mentioned in Article 315.1 of this Code of violence which poses a danger to their life and health – is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period from three to seven years.” 71.     Article 15 of the Criminal Code classifies criminal offences by degree of gravity into (i) offences which do not pose a major public threat, (ii) “less serious” criminal offences, (iii) serious criminal offences, and (iv) especially serious criminal offences. According to Article 15.3, a “less serious criminal offence” is an offence committed deliberately or negligently for which the maximum punishment does not exceed seven years’ imprisonment. Under Article 15.4, a “serious criminal offence” is an offence committed deliberately or negligently, for which the maximum punishment does not exceed twelve years’ imprisonment. Under those criteria, the offences under Articles 233 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code fall into the category of “less serious criminal offences”, while the offence under Article 220.1 of the Criminal Code falls into the category of “serious criminal offences”. B.     Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) 72.     A detailed description of the relevant provisions of the CCrP concerning pre-trial detention and the proceedings concerning the application and review of the preventive measure of remand in custody can be found in the Court’s judgments in Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no.   37138/06, §§ 83-102, 9 November 2010), and Muradverdiyev v.   Azerbaijan (no. 16966/06, §§ 35-49, 9 December 2010). 73.     In respect of persons accused of “less serious criminal offences”, the maximum length of remand in custody during the pre-trial period cannot exceed nine months from the time of the arrest, including all possible extensions of the initial two-month period. In respect of persons accused of “serious criminal offences”, the maximum length is twelve months, including all possible extensions of the initial three-month period (Articles   158.1, 159.1, 159.2, 159.7 and 159.8 of the CCrP). 74.     Under Articles 164.1 and 164.2 of the CCrP, release on bail can be ordered only as a substitute measure replacing a previously ordered remand in custody and on the basis of the detainee’s request. Bail can be granted only in respect of persons accused of offences which do not pose a major public threat, less serious criminal offences, or serious offences committed negligently. C.     Decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court 1.     Decision “on the application of the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in the administration of justice” of 30 March 2006 75.     The relevant part of this decision reads as follows: “13. ... the preventive measure of remand in custody must be considered an exceptional measure to be applied in absolutely necessary cases, where the application of another preventive measure is not possible. 14. The courts should take into account that persons whose right to liberty has been restricted are entitled, in accordance with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to trial within a reasonable time, as well as to release pending trial if it is not necessary to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of them.” 2.     Decision “on the application of the legislation by the courts during the examination of requests for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of an accused” of 3   November 2009 76.     The relevant part of this decision reads as follows: “3.     Under the legislation, there must be substantive and procedural grounds justifying the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. The substantive grounds are to be understood as the evidence establishing a