CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; 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 } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; 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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB042F7C6 { width:162.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIFTH SECTION             CASE OF RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN   (Application no. 69981/14)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG       17 March 2016     FINAL   04/07/2016   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   André Potocki,   Yonko Grozev,   Síofra O’Leary,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 February 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 69981/14) 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 Rasul Agahasan oglu Jafarov ( Rəsul Ağahəsən oğlu Cəfərov – “the applicant”), on 10 October 2014. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr   K.   Bagirov, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan, and Mrs R.   Remezaite, a lawyer based in London. 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 freedom of assembly had been breached, and that his rights had been restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. 4.     On 3 December 2014 the complaints concerning the alleged breaches of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, and Articles 11 and 18 of the Convention were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. On 25   June 2015 a new complaint concerning an alleged failure to comply with the obligations under Article 34 of the Convention was communicated to the Government. The applicant and the Government each submitted written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights made use of his right under Article   36 § 3 of the Convention to intervene as a third party, and submitted observations in accordance with Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court. Observations were also received from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Human Rights House Foundation and Freedom Now, to whom the President had given leave to intervene as third parties in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Baku. A.     Background 6.     The applicant is a well-known civil society activist and human rights defender. He is the Chairman and one of the co-founders of Human Rights Club, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) specialising in the protection of human rights. Human Rights Club was established in December 2010 and has made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain State registration by the Ministry of Justice in order to obtain legal entity status under domestic law. The authorities’ refusal to register Human Rights Club is the subject of another application pending before the Court (see application no. 27309/14). The applicant has collaborated with other NGOs in Azerbaijan on various projects. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Republican Alternative Civic Movement (REAL). 7.     The applicant has been involved in the preparation of various reports relating to human rights issues in Azerbaijan. He has also been involved in promoting the adoption of a Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) report on political prisoners in Azerbaijan, and has been working on a consolidated list of political prisoners to be presented to the Council of Europe. He has been a speaker at Council of Europe and United Nations (UN) events, and has submitted shadow reports to UN institutions. 8.     The applicant also coordinated the Sing for Democracy campaign (later renamed Art for Democracy) during and after the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 in Baku, which aimed at drawing attention to human rights violations in Azerbaijan. 9.     During the June 2014 session of the PACE the applicant presented a report on human rights violations in Azerbaijan at the Council of Europe. B.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his remand in custody 10.     In recent years a number of human rights activists, lawyers, politicians, journalists and other government critics have been arrested and/or charged with various criminal offences. Those arrests generated wide publicity and were condemned by a number of international organisations, NGOs and prominent individuals (see, for example, paragraphs 83-84 below). 11.     On 22 April 2014 the Prosecutor General’s Office instituted criminal proceedings under Articles 308.1 (abuse of power) and 313 (forgery by an official) of the Criminal Code in connection with alleged irregularities in the financial activities of a number of NGOs. 12.     While the applicant was away in Kyiv from 6 to 11 July 2014 the Sabail District Court ordered a freezing injunction in respect of his bank accounts on 7 July 2014. 13.     On 29 July 2014, while travelling by train from Baku to Tbilisi, the applicant was stopped during checks at the Azerbaijani-Georgian border. He was informed that he could not leave the country because a travel ban had been imposed on him on 25 July 2014. 14.     On 31 July 2014 the applicant was invited to the Prosecutor General’s Office, where he was questioned as a witness in connection with the above-mentioned criminal proceedings (see paragraph 11 above). 15.     On 31 July and 1 August 2014 searches were conducted at Human Rights Club, and a number of documents, mainly related to book-keeping and finance, were seized. 16.     On 2 August 2014 the applicant was again invited to the Prosecutor General’s Office for questioning as a witness. On his arrival at the premises he was arrested and formally charged under Articles 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.1 (large-scale tax evasion) and 308.2 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code. The description of charges consisted of a single sentence which was one page long. In particular, it was noted that since June 2010 the applicant, as co-founder and Chairman of Human Rights Club, an “organisation lacking State registration”, and as a project manager in an NGO named International Cooperation of Volunteers, had received a number of grants from the United States of America’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED), various branches of the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation (OSIAF), Norway’s Stiftelsen Fritt Ord and other donor organisations, pursuant to relevant grant agreements. He was accused of acquiring profit, “by paying money to himself and other people involved in the projects in the guise of salaries and service fees” in the amount of 147,900.85 Azerbaijani new manats (AZN), having acquired that money through, “illegal entrepreneurial activity in respect of grants which, as an official, he had failed to register with the relevant executive authority, even though he had a professional obligation to do so”. He was also accused of avoiding payment of taxes under Articles 218, 219 and 220 of the Tax Code in the amount of AZN 6,162.24, thus causing, “significant damage to State interests protected by law, bringing about grave consequences”. 17.     On the same day, 2 August 2014, the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s application for the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of three months. The court justified the decision as follows: “Taking into account the gravity of the criminal offences of which the applicant is accused and the possibility of him disrupting the normal course of the investigation by unlawfully influencing people involved in the proceedings or absconding from the investigation if he remains at liberty, the court considers that the preventive measure of remanding him in custody must be applied in his case.” 18.     On 4 August 2014 the Prosecutor General’s Office made a public statement which noted that the applicant had been charged under Articles   192.2.2, 213.1 and 308.2 of the Criminal Code because there was a suspicion that he had committed the criminal offences set out in the above ‑ mentioned Articles. 19.     On 4 August 2014 the applicant appealed against the detention order. He argued that there was no “reasonable suspicion” that he had committed a criminal offence, and that his detention was a punishment for carrying out activities which were protected by the Constitution. He further argued that the court had failed to provide any relevant reasons as to the applicability of grounds which could justify his detention. In particular, as to the risk of absconding, the applicant pointed out that the factual circumstances indicated that there was no such risk. He submitted that he had cooperated with the investigating authorities from the very beginning by appearing for questioning and producing documents whenever he had been required to do so, and that he had returned to the country from a trip to Kyiv knowing that he was under investigation. As to the risk of disrupting the investigation, the applicant argued that the existence of such a risk had not been substantiated. He argued that, on the contrary, he had given to the authorities originals of all documents which could be relevant to the investigation, and therefore was not in a position to tamper with the evidence. 20.     On 8 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the detention order of 2 August 2014 without addressing any of the applicant’s arguments. 21.     On 19 August 2014 the applicant applied to the Nasimi District Court, requesting the substitution of remand with either house arrest or release on bail. Among other things, the applicant highlighted the factual circumstances which supported his argument for less restrictive measures, including the fact that he had returned to the country from Kyiv knowing that he was under investigation and had complied with all orders to produce documents and appear for questioning, and that he, as a human rights defender, was a respected public figure with strong ties to the community. 22.     On 20 August 2014 the Nasimi District Court rejected his application, finding that the grounds justifying his detention, as specified in its decision of 2 August 2014, “had not ceased to exist”. 23.     On 22 August 2014 the applicant appealed, reiterating his arguments in detail. On 28 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 20 August 2014. 24.     On 23 October 2014 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention by three months (to 2 February 2015), finding that the grounds justifying his continued detention, “had not ceased to exist”. 25.     On 24 October the applicant appealed, reiterating his previous arguments. 26.     On 29 October 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the extension decision of 14 March 2013 and providing the same reasoning as the first-instance court. 27.     On an unspecified date in December 2014 the applicant applied to the Nasimi District Court, requesting the substitution of remand with house arrest. On 10 December 2014 the Nasimi District Court rejected his application, finding that the grounds justifying his detention, as specified in its decisions of 2 August and 23   October 2014, “had not ceased to exist”. 28.     On 12 December 2014 the applicant appealed against the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 10 December 2014, reiterating his arguments in detail. On 19 December 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. 29.     No further decisions extending the applicant’s detention are available in the case file. 30.     On 12 December 2014 the Prosecutor General’s Office charged the applicant under Articles 179.3.2 (high-level embezzlement) and 313 of the Criminal Code, in addition to the original charges under Articles 192.2.2, 213.1 and 308.2 of the Criminal Code. The description of the allegations against him was slightly expanded, but essentially remained the same as that given on 2 August 2014 (see paragraph 16 above), with additional information alleging that the applicant had falsified various pieces of paperwork and minor contracts for services provided by a number of individuals (presumably in connection with various grant projects) and had not paid them in full as stipulated in the contracts. The new description of charges also included changes to the total amount of the alleged illegal profit obtained by the applicant (AZN 150,170.62) and the alleged amount of unpaid taxes (AZN   6,257.11). 31.     The applicant’s criminal trial began in January 2015. On 16 April 2015 the Baku Court of Serious Crimes convicted him of all charges and sentenced him to six and a half years’ imprisonment and deprivation of the right to hold official positions in State and local authorities and the right to engage in entrepreneurial activity for a period of three years. The conviction is not yet final and the appeal is pending. C.     Statements by the grant donors 32.     Enclosed with his submissions to the Court, the applicant included statements by NED dated 22 October 2014, by the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Baku dated 19 November 2014, by the British Embassy in Azerbaijan dated 12 December 2014, by People In Need dated 12 January 2015, by OSIAF dated 20 and 21 January 2015, by International Bridges of Justice dated 22 January 2015 and by the Fritt Ord Foundation dated 5   February 2015. 33.     All of those statements, addressed “To whom it might concern”, provided details of the relevant grants and donations awarded to the applicant or Human Rights Club, noted that the applicant had regularly provided the relevant donor with necessary accounting information concerning the expenditure of the funds, and specified that the donor organisations and embassies had every confidence that the funds had been used properly for the relevant projects and initiatives for which they had been awarded. 34.     There is no indication in the case file that the above statements have been sought or taken into account by the prosecuting authorities. D.     Statements by public officials and politicians from the ruling party concerning the applicant’s case and those of other arrested human rights activists 35.     Before and after the applicant’s arrest, numerous articles about him were published in the State media and in the media allegedly close to the government. In those articles, he was described as a spy for foreign interests and “a traitor”. Moreover, a number of politicians from the ruling political party made similar comments about recently arrested NGO activists and human rights defenders in Azerbaijan, without specifically naming the applicant. The following are some examples of such comments. 36.   In January 2012 Yeni Azerbaijan , the official newspaper of the ruling party, ran a piece entitled “New Target of National Traitors: Eurovision 2012”, which attacked the Sing for Democracy campaign coordinated by the applicant as a campaign against the interests of the country and stated the following: “The blackmail and slander campaign of the Alliance to Protect Political Freedoms, Institute for Peace and Democracy, Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety, and Human Rights Club is based on ugly intentions which are evident from the names of these organisations. These organisations always orchestrate the ugly plans of several interested circles against Azerbaijan and act as mercenaries. The remote control of those who would do anything for money, who easily betray their country and State by launching a black smear campaign in exchange for foreign donations (donations obviously granted for meeting certain interests) is in the hands of those who give the money.” 37.     Around the time of the applicant’s arrest and thereafter, the same newspaper and online news portals affiliated with the authorities published a number of pejorative articles calling the applicant an “American agent”, with headlines such as “American Agent Rasul Jafarov Detained for Three Months”, “The Rights of Rasul Jafarov, Another Agent, Limited”, and “Search of the Flat of American Agent Rasul Jafarov”. 38.     On 14 August 2014 A.H., the Chairman of the Legal Policy and State Building Committee of the National Assembly, gave an interview to APA news agency where he commented on the reactions to the arrests of Ms   Leyla Yunus, Mr Intigam Aliyev and other human rights defenders and stated: “... it is those [international organisations] which made them ‘well known’. The organisations which have allocated grants to them in non-transparent ways, directing them into various activities, including those against Azerbaijan. These people, some of whom are traitors and some weak-minded, will finally answer before the law.” 39.     On 15 August 2014 A.H., the Head of the Department of Social and Political Issues of the Presidential Administration, stated the following in an interview with Trend news agency: “The most deplorable thing is that such NGOs and individuals and some journalists, relying on foreign circles funding them, placed themselves above the national law, evaded registering their grant projects, filing financial statements, paying taxes and the government’s other legal requirements.” 40.     In an interview published on 2 September 2014 Y.M., a member of parliament from the ruling party, who was also the Director of the Institute of History at the Academy of Sciences, stated the following in respect of the recently arrested NGO activists and human rights defenders: “People who betray their motherland cannot be forgiven. ... The death penalty should be imposed on such people. Capital punishment must be the gravest punishment for them. Why should traitors be forgiven? ... Therefore, the activities of a number of non-governmental organisations must be investigated very seriously, and if any illegality is discovered, such organisations must be immediately banned and their leaders punished.” 41.     On 3 December 2014 State-owned news agencies published a sixty ‑ page manifesto written by R.M., the Head of the Presidential Administration, entitled “The World Order of Double Standards and Modern Azerbaijan”. The article accused human rights NGOs operating in the country of being the “fifth column of imperialism”. It postulated that various, mostly US-sponsored, donor organisations such as NED, as well as other foreign organisations, supported political opposition movements in various countries against national governments. For local human rights NGOs, the purpose of such funding schemes was the formation of a “fifth column” inside a country. US taxpayers’ money was spent on preparing a change of political power or forcing existing governments to comply with US political demands. 42.     According to the applicant, in various speeches given in 2014 the President of the State had stated that foreign criticism of the human rights situation in Azerbaijan had nothing to do with human rights, but was politically motivated, and that within the country there were “national traitors who had sold their conscience to foreign anti-Azerbaijani circles”. E.     The applicant’s contact with his representative before the Court, Mr Bagirov 43.     The applicant’s representative, Mr Bagirov, was an advocate and a member of the Azerbaijani Bar Association (“the ABA”). He was affiliated with Law Office no. 6 in Baku. 44.     In November 2014 disciplinary proceedings were instituted against Mr Bagirov by the ABA on the basis of a letter dated 25 September 2014 from a judge of the Shaki Court of Appeal. In his letter, the judge informed the ABA that Mr Bagirov had breached the ethical rules of conduct for advocates at court hearings held in September 2014 before the Shaki Court of Appeal during criminal proceedings against I.M. 45.     On 10 December 2014 the Collegium of the ABA held a meeting at which it considered the complaint against Mr Bagirov. Following the meeting, the Collegium of the ABA held that Mr Bagirov had breached the ethical rules of conduct for advocates because at the court hearing he had made the following remark about the judicial system, “Like State, like court ... If there were justice in Azerbaijan, Judge [R.H.] would not deliver unfair and partial judgments, nor would an individual like him be a judge” (“ Belə dövlətin belə də məhkəməsi olacaq ... Azərbaycanda ədalət olsaydı, hakim [R.H.] ədalətsiz və qərəzli hökm çıxarmaz, nə də onun kimisi hakim işləməzdi ”). On the same day the Collegium of the ABA decided to refer Mr   Bagirov’s case to a court, with a view to his disbarment. It also decided to suspend his activity as an advocate ( vəkillik fəaliyyəti ) pending a decision by the court. 46.     It appears from documents submitted to the Court that, following Mr   Bagirov’s suspension as an advocate, the domestic authorities stopped allowing him to meet the applicant in prison. 47.     On 29 March 2015 Mr Bagirov sent a letter to the Head of the Prison Service of the Ministry of Justice asking for a meeting with six of his clients who were held in detention, including the applicant. He specified in his letter that he was representing those individuals before the Court, and requested a meeting with them in connection with their pending cases. The relevant part of the letter reads: “I am writing to inform you that I represent the following individuals, who are detained in the penal facilities and temporary detention centres under your authority, before the European Court of Human Rights. I ask you to allow a meeting with these individuals in connection with the progress of their cases based on their applications lodged with the European Court (the numbers of which are stated below): ... 6. Jafarov Rasul Agahasan oglu (Baku Detention Facility, application no.   69981/14) Attachment: Copies of letters from the European Court and the Azerbaijani government concerning these individuals.” 48.     A copy of the letter was also sent to the Head of the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office. 49.     By a letter of 14 April 2015, the Deputy Head of the Prison Service refused to allow Mr Bagirov to meet the applicant in prison. The relevant part of the letter reads: “Your request for a meeting in the penal facilities and detention centres with the individuals detained in the penal facilities and with convicted inmates in order to provide them with advocacy services has been considered. In explanation, as your advocacy activity at Law Office no. 6 has been suspended by decision no. 29 of 10 December 2014 of the Bar Association of the Republic of Azerbaijan and you have been disbarred, and [as a result of the fact that] as of that date you can no longer practise as an advocate in court and investigation proceedings, it is impossible to grant you access to the penal establishments as counsel.” II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     The 2000 Criminal Code 50.     Article 179 of the Criminal Code provided: Article 179. Embezzlement and squandering “179.1. Embezzlement or squandering, that is, misappropriation of property belonging to another which has been entrusted to the perpetrator, is punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred to five hundred manats, or 360 to 480 hours of community service, or imprisonment for a period of up to two years. 179.2. Commission of the same acts: 179.2.1. by a group of persons conspiring in advance; 179.2.2. repeatedly; 179.2.3. by means of abusing official authority; 179.2.4. inflicting significant damage ... 179.3. Commission of the acts provided for in Articles 179.1 and 179.2 of this Code: ... 179.3.2. in particularly large amounts; ... is punishable by imprisonment for a period of seven to twelve years” 51.     Article 192 of the Criminal Code provided: Article 192.     Illegal entrepreneurship “192.1.     Conducting business activity without registration by means of the procedure provided for by the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan, or without obtaining a special permit (licence) where such a permit (licence) is required, or with the infringement of licencing conditions, or by using objects whose use is restricted in the absence of special permission, where such activity causes significant damage to citizens, organisations or the State and generates significant income is punishable by a fine equivalent to twice the value of the damage caused (or income generated) as a result of the criminal offence, or imprisonment for a period of up to six months; 192.2.     The same acts: 192.2.1.     causing damage of an especially large value; 192.2.2.     committed for the purpose of generating an especially large amount of income; 192.2.3.     committed by an organised group are punishable by a fine equivalent to three times the value of the damage caused (or income generated) as a result of the criminal offence, or restriction of liberty for a period of one year, or imprisonment for a period of up to five years.” 52.     Article 213 of the Criminal Code provided: Article 213.     Tax evasion “213.1.     Evasion of payment of significant amounts of taxes or mandatory State social security contributions is punishable by a fine in the amount of one thousand to two thousand manats, or correctional work for a period of up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of up to three years, with or without deprivation of the right to hold a certain position or to engage in a certain activity for a period of up to three years. ...” 53.     Article 308 of the Criminal Code provided: Article 308.     Abuse of official power “308.1.     Abuse of official power, that is, the deliberate use by an official of his official authority or the deliberate failure of an official to use his official authority when required, contrary to official interests, in connection with the execution of his official duties and with the aim of obtaining an unlawful advantage for himself or for third parties, where this causes serious harm to the rights and lawful interests of individuals or legal entities, or to the interests of society or the State protected by law is punishable by a fine in the amount of one thousand to two thousand manats, or deprivation of the right to hold a certain office or engage in a certain activity, or correctional work for a period of up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of up to three years; 308.2.     The acts set out in Article 308.1 of this Code which have grave consequences or are committed with the aim of interfering with election (or referendum) results are punishable by imprisonment for a period of three to eight years with deprivation of the right to hold a certain office or engage in a certain activity for a period of up to three years.” 54.     Article 313 of the Criminal Code provided: Article 313.     Forgery by an official “Forgery by an official, that is, the entry by an official of information which is known to be false into official documents or information resources, or the making of changes by him or her in such documents or information resources which distort original content, where such acts are committed out of greed or some other personal interest is punishable by a fine in the amount of five hundred to one thousand manats, or correctional work for a period of one to two years, or imprisonment for a period of up to two years, with deprivation of the right to hold a certain office or engage in a certain activity for a period of up to two years.” B.     The 2000 Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) 55.     Article 223-1.1 of the CAO (Violation of the legislation on giving and receiving grants), as amended on 4 February 2014, provides, inter alia , that the failure by a domestic donor or a domestic recipient of a grant to submit copies of the grant agreement or grant decision to the relevant executive authority for registration within the period established by law is punishable by a fine in the amount of: AZN 1,000 to AZN 2,000 (in the case of an individual offender); AZN 1,500 to AZN 2,500 (in the case of an official); and AZN 5,000 to AZN 7,000 (in the case of a legal entity). The previous version of Article 223-1.1, in force before 4 February 2014, only made legal entities receiving grants liable (as opposed to all recipients, including individuals), and did not provide for any fine in respect of individual offenders. 56.     Article 223-1.4 of the CAO, as amended on 4 February 2014, provides, inter alia , that conducting banking or any other transactions in connection with grant agreements or grant decisions which have not been registered in accordance with the Law on Grants is punishable by a fine in the amount of AZN 2,500 to AZN 5,000 in the case of an (NGO) official, and AZN 5,000 to AZN 8,000 in the case of a legal entity (the NGO itself). C.     The 2000 Tax Code 57.     Article 13.2.27 of the Tax Code defines non-commercial activity as a legal activity whose purpose is not generation of profit and which designates any income received for non-commercial purposes only, including purposes established in a (legal entity’s) charter. Such activity is otherwise considered to be commercial. 58.     According to Article 106 of the Tax Code, grants, membership fees and donations received by non-commercial organisations are exempt from profit tax on legal entities. 59.     Article 165.1.2 of the Tax Code establishes that the import of goods, provision of goods and services, and execution of work by recipients of foreign grants is not subject to value-added tax (VAT). 60.     Articles 218, 219 and 220 of the Tax Code concern the simplified tax regime. Legal entities and individual entrepreneurs not required to register for VAT purposes are subject to the simplified tax regime, under which tax is levied at 4% for those conducting business in Baku and 2% for those conducting business in other regions. The taxable base is gross income received from the sale of goods and the provision of work and services, except for income subject to withholding tax. Legal entities working under the simplified tax regime are exempt from property tax. D.     The 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) 61.     A detailed description of the relevant provisions of the CCrP concerning pre-trial detention and 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). E.     The 2003 Law on State Registration of Legal Entities and the State Register 62.     Article 4.1, as amended on 4 February pursuant to Law   no.   852 ‑ IVQD of 27 December 2013, provides: “4.1.     An organisation, as well as a representative office or branch of a foreign legal entity, wishing to obtain legal entity status in the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan shall obtain State registration and be entered into the State Register. Commercial organisations, as well as representative offices or branches of foreign legal entities, may carry out activities only after their State registration. Activities being carried out by them in the absence of State registration results in liability in accordance with the law.” F.     The 2000 Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (Public Associations and Foundations) (“the NGO Law”) 63.     Article 16 provides that the State registration of NGOs is carried out by the relevant executive authority (the Ministry of Justice) in accordance with the legislation on State registration of legal entities. An NGO acquires legal entity status only after State registration. 64.     Article 24 provides that the property of an NGO comes from the following sources: membership fees paid by its founders or members; property fees and voluntary donations; revenue from the sale of goods, the provision of services or the execution of work; dividends or income from shares, bonds and other securities or deposits; income from the use or sale of its property; grants; and other forms of income not prohibited by law. 65.     Article 24-1.5, as amended on 16 November 2014, provides that an NGO receiving a donation must submit information concerning the size of the donation received and its donor(s) to the relevant executive authority in accordance with the procedure established by that authority. No banking or other transactions can be conducted in respect of donations which have not been so notified to the relevant executive authority. 66.     Article 24-1.6 provides that economic and legal matters related to the giving, receiving and use of grants are regulated by the Law on Grants. 67.     Article 24-2, introduced into the NGO Law on 16 November 2014, provides that an NGO provides services and executes work – as specified in Article 24 of the NGO Law – in accordance with an agreement. An agreement on the provision of services or execution of work funded by foreign financial sources must be submitted to the relevant executive authority for registration (Article 24-2.1). An NGO which provides services or executes work without a relevant agreement, or pursuant to an unregistered agreement, is liable under the CAO (Article 24-2.2). G.     The 1998 Law on Grants 68.     Article 1.1 defines a grant as financial aid for preparing and carrying out: humanitarian, social and ecological projects; work on the restoration of destroyed industrial or social facilities or infrastructure in areas damaged as a result of war or natural disaster; programmes in the areas of education, health care, culture, legal advice, information, publishing and sport; programmes in the areas of science, research and design; and other programmes of importance for the State and society. Grants must be only given for specific purposes. With the exception of donations regulated by the NGO Law and financial aid from State authorities, an NGO may not receive any aid in financial or material form in the absence of a grant agreement or grant decision. 69.     Article 4.1 provides that either a written agreement between a donor and a recipient or a donor’s written decision on giving a grant is a lawful basis for giving, receiving and using the grant. 70.     Article 4.2 provides that a grant can be used only for the purposes indicated in the grant agreement or grant decision. 71.     Article 4.4, as amended on 4 February 2014 pursuant to Law no. 852-IVQD of 27 December 2013, provides, inter alia , that a grant recipient in the Republic of Azerbaijan must submit the grant agreement or grant decision to the relevant executive authority for registration (in accordance with the presidential decree on the implementation of the Law on Grants, the relevant executive authority in respect of non-religious, non-commercial organisations and individuals was the Ministry of Justice). 72.     Article 4.5, as amended on 4 February 2014 pursuant to Law no.   852-IVQD of 27 December 2013, provides that no banking or other transactions can be carried out in respect of unregistered grant agreements or grant decisions. 73.     Article 5.1 provides that taxation issues relating to money or other aid received as a grant in accordance with the Law on Grants are regulated by the Tax Code. Article 5.2 provides that no fees or other mandatory payments to the State budget may be withheld from the money or other aid received as a grant in accordance with the Law on Grants. H.     Definition of entrepreneurial activity under domestic law 74.     Article 13 of the 2000 Civil Code provides: Article 13. Entrepreneurial activity “Entrepreneurial activity is an activity carried out independently by a person for the main purpose of obtaining profit (or income in the case of an individual entrepreneur) from the use of property, manufacture and/or sale of commodities, execution of work or provision of services.” 75.     Article 1 of the 1992 Law on Entrepreneurial Activity provides: Article 1.     Entrepreneurial activity “Entrepreneurial activity is an activity carried out independently by a person for the main purpose of obtaining profit (or income in the case of an individual entrepreneur) from the use of property, sale of commodities, execution of work or provision of services.” 76.     Article 13.2.37 of the 2000 Tax Code provides: “13.2.37.     Entrepreneurial activity is an activity carried out independently by a person for the main purpose of obtaining profit (or income in the case of an individual entrepreneur) from the use of property, supply of commodities, execution of work or provision of services.” I.     Provisions of domestic law concerning legal assistance for detainees 77.     Article 10.2.9 of the 2000 Code of Execution of Punishments (“the CEP”) provides that inmates have the right to legal assistance. In accordance with Article 81.7 of the CEP, inmates are entitled to have meetings with advocates and other individuals authorised to provide them with legal assistance at their own request or at the request of their close relatives or legal representatives. The number and duration of such meetings are not limited (Article 81.8 of the CEP). An advocate or other person authorised to provide legal assistance is admitted to a penal establishment on presentation of a document confirming his identity and authority. Meetings are carried out in private at the request of the parties (Article 81.9 of the CEP). Similar provisions are contained in Article 17 of the Internal Disciplinary Rules for Pre-Trial Detention Facilities, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers Decision no. 63 of 26 February 2014. 78.     Section 4 (I) of the 1999 Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity provides that advocacy activity is carried out by persons admitted to the Bar Association in accordance with an established procedure. In accordance with section 4 (II), the defence of accused persons and those under suspicion in criminal proceedings is exclusively an advocacy activity. J.     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 79.     The relevant part of that decision reads: “13. ... the preventive measure of remand in custody must be considered an exceptional measure to be applied in cases where it is absolutely necessary and where the application of another preventive measure is not possible. 14. The courts should take into account that individuals 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 respect of them.” 2.     Decision “on the application of the legislation by the courts during the consideration of applications for the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of an accused” of 3 November 2009 80.     The relevant part of that decision reads: “3. In accordance with the legislation, there must be substantive and procedural grounds justifying remand in custody. The substantive grounds are to be understood as the evidence establishing a connection between the accused and the commission of the criminal offence of which he has been accused. The procedural grounds consist of the grounds justifying the lawfulness and necessity of remand, as determined by the court from the combination of the circumstances set out in Article 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [“the CCrP”]. When deciding to apply the preventive measure of remand, the courts must not be content with only listing the procedural grounds set out in Article 155 of [the CCrP], but must verify whether each ground is relevant in respect of the accused, and whether it is supported by the material in the case file. In so doing, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused, information about his personality, age, family situation, occupation, health and other circumstances of that kind must be taken into consideration. ... 6. Applications for remand, extension of the detention period and replacement of detention with house arrest or release on bail must be considered in camera by a single judge in the court building within twenty-four hours of their receipt (regardless of whether it is a public holiday or after working hours). The presence at the hearing of the person whose rights may be restricted by the application is compulsory. The courts must take into account that the consideration of applications for remand or for extension of the detention period in the absence of the accused is allowed only in exceptional circumstances where it is not possible to ensure his presence at the hearing. Those circumstances may exist where the accused has absconded from the investigation, is being treated in a psychiatric hospital or for a serious illness, or where there are extraordinary circumstances, a declaration of quarantine, or other similar circumstances. ... 8. In accordance with Article 447.5 of [the CCrP], when considering an application for remand, a judge has a right to review the documents and material evidence serving as a basis for the application. The courts must appreciate that this provision of criminal procedural legislation does not provide for the examination and assessment of evidence by the courts. The judicial review under this provision should only consist of reviewing the initial evidence giving rise to the suspicion that the accused has committed a criminal offence and verifying the existence of the procedural grounds required for remand. 9. The courts should apply more scrutiny in ensuring that the material submitted by the preliminary investigation authority in connection with this issue is complete and sound. ... The application [for remand] must be accompanied by the material necessary for its consideration, for example, copies of records and decisions on the institution of the criminal proceedings, the accused’s arrest, the accused’s being charged, his questioning, and identity documents. Under Article 447.5 of [the CCrP], the judge has a right to request and review other documents (for example, statements given in connection with the charges or records of face-to-face formal confrontations) as well as the material evidence in order to determine whether the application [for remand] is substantiated. ... 13. ... the courts are reminded that, although the legislator determined the same material and procedural grounds and rules for the consideration of both applications for remand and applications for extension of a detention period, since the extension of a detention period restricts a person’s right to liberty as well as his right to the presumption of innocence for a long period, when considering applications of this kind, the courts must be careful, verify the grounds and reasons for the extension of the detention, and justify in a different manner in their decisions the necessity of extending the detention period from the necessity of the [initial] application of remand. While considering applications for extension of the accused’s detention period, courts must verify in detail the arguments in the application as to why it is not possible to terminate the preliminary investigation within the period previously established. In so doing, they must take into account that, in accordance with the case ‑ law of the European Court of Human Rights, relying on the same grounds which formed the basis of the [initial] application of remand in respect of the accused when ordering the extension of his detention period is considered a violation of the right to liberty and security from the point of view of Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.” III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS 81.     The following are extracts from the conclusions reached in the Opinion on the compatibility with human rights standards of the legislation on non-governmental organisations of the Republic of Azerbaijan, adopted by the European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) at its 88 th Plenary Session (Venice, 14-15 October 2011): “117.     The Venice Commission reckons that, while legislation relating to NGO’s legal status has been improved in some aspects over the years, the 2009 amendments and the 2011 Decree unfortuna