CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 2 juin 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s38689EE6 { width:209.25pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .s30870011 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s9DEE9BA8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s2BF44DB3 { width:159.61pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIFTH SECTION               CASE OF YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN   (Application no. 59620/14)             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   2 June 2016       FINAL   17/10/2016   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.       In the case of Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Erik Møse,   André Potocki,   Síofra O’Leary,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 26 April 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 59620/14) 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 two Azerbaijani nationals, Ms Leyla Islam gizi Yunusova ( Leyla İslam qızı Yunusova – “the first applicant”) and Mr Arif Seyfulla oglu Yunusov ( Arif Seyfulla oğlu Yunusov  “the second applicant”), on 29 August 2014. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr K. Bagirov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The first applicant was also represented by Mr   J.   Javadov and Ms D. Bychawska-Siniarska, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan and Poland, respectively. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov. 3.     The applicants alleged that they had not received adequate medical assistance while in detention and that their state of health had been incompatible with their conditions of detention. The first applicant also complained that she had been subjected to verbal and physical violence by a prison guard and one of her cellmates. 4.     On 30 September 2014 the Acting President of the Section to which the case was allocated, acting upon the applicants’ request of 18 September 2014, decided in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to provide both applicants with adequate medical treatment in prison and, if such treatment was unavailable in prison, to ensure the first applicant’s immediate transfer to an appropriate medical facility for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The Government were also requested to inform the Court, on a monthly basis, of the applicants’ state of health and medical treatment. In view of information provided by the Government on 19 November and 30 December 2015 concerning the applicants’ release from detention, on 13 January 2016 the President of the Section decided to lift the interim measure previously indicated on 30   September 2014 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 5.     On 2 February 2015 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to grant the application priority treatment under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicants were born in 1955 and live in Baku. 7.     The first applicant is a well-known human rights defender and civil society activist. She is the director of the Institute for Peace and Democracy (“the Institute”), a non-governmental organisation specialising in human rights protection and conflict resolution. 8.     The second applicant, the first applicant’s husband, is a researcher and the head of the Conflict Resolution Department of the Institute. A.     Institution of criminal proceedings against the first applicant and her detention pending trial 9.     On 30 July 2014 the first applicant was arrested by the police and was taken to the Serious Crimes Department (“the SCD”) of the Prosecutor General’s Office. On the same day she was charged under Articles 178.3.2 (large-scale fraud), 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.2.2 (large-scale tax evasion), 274 (high treason), 320.1 and 320.2 (falsification of official documents) of the Criminal Code. 10.     On 30 July 2014 the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the first applicant and the prosecutor’s request for application of the preventive measure of remand in custody ( həbs qətimkan tədbiri ), ordered her detention pending trial for a period of three months. The court justified its application of the preventive measure by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released, she might abscond from the investigation. 11.     On 1 August 2014 the first applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that her detention was unlawful. She submitted, in particular, that there was no reasonable suspicion that she had committed a criminal offence, and that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. She pointed out in this connection that her detention was related to her activities as a human rights defender and that she had been punished for her activities. She further complained that the court had failed to take into account her personal circumstances, such as her state of health and age, when it had ordered her detention pending trial. 12.     On 6 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision was lawful. 13.     On 24 October 2014 the Nasimi District Court extended the first applicant’s detention pending trial by four months, until 28 February 2015. The court substantiated its decision by the fact that more time was needed to complete the investigation and that the grounds for the detention had not changed. 14.     On the same day the Nasimi District Court also dismissed the first applicant’s request to be released on bail or placed under house arrest instead of in pre-trial detention. 15.     On 27 October 2014 she appealed against these decisions, reiterating her previous complaints. 16.     On 30 October 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal, in two separate decisions, upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decisions of 24 October 2014. 17.     No further extension decisions were included in the case file. B.     Institution of criminal proceedings against the second applicant and his detention pending trial 18.     On 30 July 2014 the second applicant was questioned by an investigator at the SCD. Following the interrogation, he was charged under Articles 178.3.2 (large-scale fraud) and 274 (high treason) of the Criminal Code. 19.     On the same day the investigator decided to apply the preventive measure of placement under police supervision ( polisin nəzarəti altına vermə qətimkan tədbiri ), taking into account his state of health, in particular the fact that he suffered from chronic hypertension. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “Taking into consideration the state of health of the accused, Arif Yunusov, who was diagnosed with grade 3 hypertension and hypertensive crisis, and given medical treatment in the Central Oil Workers’ Hospital and Baku City Clinical Hospital No. 1 ... it was appropriate to choose the preventive measure of placement under police supervision.” 20.     It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that on 30 July 2014 the second applicant was examined by two experts, who issued forensic medical report no. 185/KES dated 31 July 2014. The report confirmed that the second applicant suffered from chronic hypertension. The report also indicated that “considering A. Yunusov’s current state of health, it is possible to carry out investigative actions with him” (“ A.   Yunusovun hal-hazırkı sağlamlıq durumu ilə əlaqədar onunla istintaq hərəkətlərinin aparılması mümkündür ”). 21.     On 5 August 2014 the second applicant was arrested by the police. On the same day the prosecutor lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking it to replace the second applicant’s placement under police supervision with detention pending trial. The prosecutor justified his request by the second applicant’s failure to comply with the requirements of the preventive measure of placement under police supervision. The request also indicated that forensic medical report no. 185/KES dated 31 July 2014 did not reveal anything that would prevent the second applicant from participating in the investigation. 22.     On 5 August 2014 the Nasimi District Court ordered the second applicant’s detention pending trial for a period of three months. The court justified the detention by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from the investigation. 23.     On 8 August 2014 the second applicant appealed against this decision. He submitted, in particular, that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that there was no justification for replacing the preventive measure of placement under police supervision with detention pending trial. He also pointed out that his detention was related to his and his wife’s activities as a civil society activist and human rights defender and that the court had failed to take into account his personal circumstances, such as his state of health and age, when it had ordered his detention pending trial. 24.     On 11 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the detention order was justified. 25.     On 29 October 2014 the Nasimi District Court extended the second applicant’s detention pending trial by four months, until 5 March 2015. The court substantiated its decision by the fact that more time was needed to complete the investigation and that the grounds for the detention had not changed. 26.     On 30 October 2014 the Nasimi District Court also dismissed the second applicant’s request to be released on bail or placed under house arrest instead of in pre-trial detention. 27.     On 3 November 2014 the second applicant appealed against these decisions, reiterating his previous complaints and arguing that the first ‑ instance court had failed to justify his continued detention. 28.     On 6 November 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal, in two separate decisions, upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decisions of 29 and 30   October 2014. 29.     No further extension decisions were included in the case file. C.     The applicants’ state of health before their arrest 30.     The medical documentation submitted by the parties shows that the first applicant suffers from a number of illnesses. In particular, she has suffered from chronic hepatitis (hepatitis C) since 1997. People with hepatitis C usually suffer from constant exhaustion, joint, muscle and abdominal pain, general sickness and weakness, and often depression. A low-fat diet is required to reduce liver damage. The disease is potentially fatal. The first applicant regularly underwent medical treatment in Germany before her arrest. 31.     Since 2009 she has also had type 2 diabetes, which is non-insulin dependent and requires sufferers to follow a special diabetic diet and take regular exercise. In addition, she suffers from myogelosis (muscle stiffness), arterial hypertension and a single cyst in the left kidney. 32.     It also appears from the medical documents in the case file that she underwent surgery on both eyes in Germany before her arrest and needs specialist medical care as a follow-up, to avoid any risk of damage to her eyesight. The relevant part of a letter dated 5 September 2014 from the head of the Department of Ophthalmology at the Asklepios Clinic in Hamburg reads as follows: “Mrs Yunusova’s right and left eyes were both myopic with cataracts. It is absolutely necessary that she undergoes a repeat consultation and examination for the development of capsular fibrosis, which can lead to visual impairment and needs surgical laser treatment. It is also absolutely necessary that she undergoes a complete bilateral examination of her retina since she has had myopia and her risk of retinal detachment is substantially higher than in normal eyes and is further increased by the previous surgery. Any signs of retinal tears must be treated early with a laser retinopexy to prevent further damage and minimise the risk of permanent visual impairment.” 33.     The medical documentation submitted by the parties shows that the second applicant suffers from grade 3 chronic hypertension and hypertensive crisis, with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. He regularly underwent medical treatment in Germany before his arrest. He was also hospitalised from 25 to 28 April 2014 in the Central Oil Workers’ Hospital and from 29 April to 6 May 2014 in Baku City Clinical Hospital No. 1. D.     The applicants’ conditions of detention and medical care 1.     The first applicant’s conditions of detention and medical care (a)     The first applicant’s account 34.     The first applicant was detained in a cell with four other detainees, two of whom were extremely noisy. Heating was available but inadequate. The electricity was cut off from 2 to 3 p.m. and from 1 to 8 a.m., which made it impossible to use a heater. The temperature inside the cell and in the walking area was very low in winter. There was no proper ventilation inside the cell and the temperature was very high in summer. There was a problem with hot water distribution in the cell. In particular, she was not informed of the distribution time for the hot water and could not obtain more when necessary. Moreover, there was only one refrigerator for all the detainees on her floor which was not sufficient. 35.     According to the first applicant, upon her arrival at the detention facility, she was examined by a doctor who confirmed that she had type 2 diabetes and chronic hepatitis C. 36.     From 31 July to 5 August 2014 she was provided with the necessary diabetic food and medicine by the second applicant who, as a close family member, was entitled to deliver her parcels. However, following his arrest on 5 August 2014, she was deprived of the necessary diabetic food and medicine. In particular, the detention facility administration did not allow her lawyer or friends to deliver her parcels until 23 August 2014, arguing that only the family members of a detainee could send in parcels. 37.     In this connection, it appears from the documents submitted by the first applicant that on 6 August 2014 her lawyer asked the investigator in charge of the case to allow her friends, A.I. and S.A., to deliver her a parcel. He pointed out that, taking into consideration that on 5 August 2014 her husband had been arrested and that her only daughter lived abroad, the first applicant did not have any other family member to do this. On 22 August 2014 the lawyer also lodged a request with the administration of the detention facility (“the administration”), complaining that on 21 August 2014 employees had refused to receive a parcel for the first applicant on the grounds that it had not been sent in by a family member. 38.     On 22 August 2014 the first applicant lodged a request with the administration and the investigator in charge of the case, asking for a medical examination at her own expense by a doctor of her own choosing, A.G. She specified in her request that she suffered from diabetes and other serious illnesses, and that under domestic law detainees could be examined by a doctor of their own choosing. 39.     By a letter of 4 September 2014, the deputy governor of the detention facility replied to her request, noting that there was no need for a medical examination by A.G. In this connection, he pointed out that the first applicant’s state of health was stable and being monitored by the detention facility doctors. The letter also indicated that on 19 August 2014 she had been examined by an endocrinologist from the Ministry of Health, who had recommended that she continue her previous treatment. 40.     By a decision of 9 September 2014, the investigator dismissed her request, finding that all the necessary measures had been taken for her medical treatment in the detention facility. 41.     On 23 September 2014 the first applicant’s cell was searched. On the same day she was deprived of her right to make phone calls for one month. She was also obliged to take a cold shower because the shower room had no hot water. 42.     On 26 September 2014 the first applicant’s lawyer asked the administration to provide him with a copy of the administrative decision depriving the first applicant of her right to make phone calls. He did not receive any response to his request. 43.     On 14 October 2014 the first applicant’s lawyer asked the administration to provide him with a list of medication prescribed to the first applicant during her detention. He did not receive any response to his request. 44.     By a letter of 21 October 2014 the deputy governor of the detention facility responded to the first applicant’s complaint of being unable to receive parcels following her husband’s arrest. He noted that she had received a parcel sent in by A.I. on 23 August 2014. The letter was however silent as to the delivery of any parcels between 5 and 23 August 2014. 45.     In a statement dated 4 May 2015 submitted by the first applicant to the Court with the applicants’ reply to the Government’s observations, she stated that she had not been provided with any documents concerning her state of health. As regards her medical treatment in detention, she stated that she had been examined on 29 December 2014 and 12 March 2015 at the Baku Diagnostic Centre by C.W., a German doctor from Charité, a university hospital in Berlin. During the examination on 29 December 2014, she had been insulted and humiliated by a doctor named R.A when C.W. had been out of the room. In March 2015 the eyesight in her left eye had drastically deteriorated. The ophthalmologist who had examined her on 31   March 2015 stated that the same process would soon begin to happen to her right eye. She further stated that in detention her weight had dropped dramatically because of her illnesses and conditions of detention. (b)     The Government’s account 46.     On 31 July 2014 the first applicant was admitted to the Baku Pre ‑ trial Detention Facility of the Ministry of Justice. 47.     She was held with four other detainees in a cell measuring 26.32   sq.   m designed to hold six detainees. The cell was adequately lit. It had two windows measuring 1.2 x 1.4 metres. The sanitary facilities were separate from the rest of the cell and were adequately ventilated. She was provided with food, water, bedding, clothing and other essentials. 48.     Upon her arrival at the detention facility on 31 July 2014, she underwent a series of medical examinations. Fluorography and electrocardiography examinations did not reveal any changes to her pathological condition. Her neuropsychological status was evaluated as satisfactory. An ultrasound examination of her abdomen and external examination of her body confirmed that she had previously undergone surgery. General and biochemical blood tests concluded that her blood sugar level was a little higher than average. Following these examinations, she was diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C, type 2 diabetes, gallstones, a single cyst in the left kidney (measuring 0.91 cm) and pseudophakia (replacement of the natural lenses of the eyes with intraocular lenses). The Government provided the Court with copies of the results of the medical tests and examinations carried out that day. 49.     It further appears from the extracts of the first applicant’s detention facility medical records ( məhkumun tibbi kitabçası ) submitted by the Government that on 31 July 2014 the doctor recommended that the first applicant continue the medical treatment for diabetes prescribed by her previous doctor, the drug Galvus.   She also had the rules of a diabetic diet explained to her and was provided with a blood glucose meter to monitor the level of sugar in her blood. 50.     On 2 August 2014 the first applicant was provided with medication brought in by her relatives, including 20 Galvus Met capsules, 90 Glifer capsules, 308 Galvus tablets, 30 Beloc tablets and 17 Spasmalgon tablets. The next delivery of medication, comprising 20 Spasmalgon tablets, took place on 29 August 2014. The first applicant’s need for medication during this period was fully covered by the medication delivered on 2 August 2014. As to the provision of diabetic food from 5 to 23 August 2014, upon her arrival at the detention facility, the first applicant was registered on a list of diabetic detainees and was consequently provided with diabetic food during this period. 51.     On 19 August 2014 she was examined by an endocrinologist in the detention facility, who recommended that she continue her previous treatment. On the same day she also underwent a blood test to determine her sugar level and the state of the hepatitis C. The Government provided the Court with copies of the results of the medical tests and examinations conducted that day. 52.     On 23 September 2014 she was examined by a detention facility doctor. She complained of general sickness without raising any particular complaints. 53.     On 8 and 10 October 2014 she was examined by a neurologist and a therapist. No pathological conditions were revealed. 54.     On 19 November 2014 the first applicant refused to be examined by an ophthalmologist at the National Ophthalmology Centre in order to establish the impact of the diabetes on her eyesight. According to the Government, on 25 and 26 November and 2 and 3 December 2014 she again refused to be examined by the detention facility doctors. They submitted various records compiled by the doctors to support this claim. 55.     On 11 December 2014 she was examined by an endocrinologist who assessed her state of health as stable. The Government did not submit any documents concerning this medical examination. 56.     On the same day she refused to undergo various medical examinations by a virologist, endocrinologist and physician from the Ministry of Health in the presence of the members of the joint working group on human rights and members of the public committee under the Ministry of Justice. However, she refused to sign anything to say that she had refused to be examined. 57.     On 12 December 2014 the first applicant’s lawyer lodged a request with the prosecution authorities, complaining of the deterioration of her state of health in detention and asking for a forensic medical examination. The lawyer submitted that her hepatitis C and diabetes were serious and that since her detention her weight had dropped dramatically from 61 to 47 or   48   kg. The lawyer also pointed out that, as the first applicant had not been provided with adequate medical care in detention, she refused to be examined by the detention facility doctors. 58.     On the same day the investigator in charge of the case ordered a forensic medical examination of the first applicant. The experts could only examine her on 8 January 2015 in the presence of her lawyer due to her initial refusal. They issued forensic medical report no. 424/KES, which indicated that the examination had begun on 18 December 2014 and ended on 28 January 2015. The report confirmed that the first applicant suffered from a number of illnesses, including hepatitis C and diabetes. However, the experts concluded that the illnesses were not life-threatening and could be treated in detention. The relevant part of the conclusion of the report reads as follows: “4. The illnesses revealed in L.Yunusova, being chronic in nature, do not pose any danger to her life and she does not currently need immediate and specialist treatment. 5. If necessary, L. Yunusova can receive outpatient treatment in her conditions of detention in respect of the hepatitis C and diabetes which were diagnosed. 6. L. Yunusova’s current state of health allows her to remain in detention and does not pose any danger to her life.” 59.     In the meantime, on 29 December 2014 the first applicant underwent a number of medical tests and examinations in the presence of C.W from Charité. In particular, she underwent a general and biochemical blood test, an ultrasound examination of the abdominal cavity, a chest computed tomography (CT) scan, and electrocardiography and echocardiography examinations. The Government submitted copies of the results of these medical tests and examinations to the Court with their observations. However, none of the documents submitted contained any information regarding medical recommendations or prescriptions made by the doctors following the examinations dated 29 December 2014. 60.     On 26 January 2015 the first applicant again underwent various medical tests and examinations. She was examined by a group of doctors, including international doctors C.W., L.U. (a professor from the Budapest Metropolitan Cancer Centre) and A.B. (a gynaecologist). The Government submitted copies of the results of these medical tests and examinations to the Court with their observations. However, none of the documents submitted contained any medical recommendations or prescriptions concerning the first applicant’s medical treatment. 61.     On 12 March 2015 she was examined in the presence of C.W. and Z.R. (the director of ExaMed Medical Centre in Budapest). On the same day, she underwent a blood test and gynaecological ultrasound examination. The Government submitted copies of the results of these medical tests and examinations to the Court with their observations. However, none of the documents submitted contained any medical recommendations or prescriptions concerning the first applicant’s medical treatment. 62.     The extracts of the first applicant’s detention facility medical records contained further information concerning her state of health from 31   July 2014 to 12 March 2015: -     On 19 and 20 September 2014 she was provided with the relevant medication brought in by her lawyer and friends. -     On 22 September 2014 she complained of constant exhaustion, general sickness and weakness. -     On 23 September 2014 she again complained of general sickness and stayed in bed. That day and the next she was examined by a prison doctor who assessed her state of health as satisfactory. In particular, it was established that her blood pressure, temperature and sugar level were within the permitted range. -     On 30 September 2014 she was provided with medication for diabetes brought in by her friends. -     On 3 October 2014 she underwent a prophylactic medical examination and was provided with medication brought in by her friends. -     On 8 and 10 October 2014 she was examined by a neurologist and a therapist. During the examination, she complained only of frequent urination. -     On 17 October 2014 she underwent a prophylactic medical examination and was provided with medication brought in by her friends. -     On 25, 28 and 31 October 2014 she was provided with medication brought in by her friends. -     On 15, 21, 25 and 26 November she refused to be examined. -     On 12 December 2014 she was provided with medication brought in by her friends. -     On 3, 13 and 16 December 2014 she refused to be examined. -     On 19 December 2014 she complained of a migraine and stress, but refused to be examined by a doctor. -     On 23 December 2014 she was provided with medication brought in by her friends. -     On 29 December 2014 she was examined in compliance with international standards by a group of doctors, including an international doctor. -     On 6, 7 and 10 January 2015 she did not complain about her state of health. (Illegible) -     On 23 January 2015 she complained of headaches, but refused to be examined by a doctor. -     On 26 January 2015 she was again examined by a group of international doctors. -     (date illegible) January 2015 she again refused to be examined by a doctor and was provided with medication brought in by her friends. -     On 6 and 17 February 2015 she again refused to be examined. -     On 19 February 2015 she complained of headaches. -     On 12 March 2015 she was again examined by a group of doctors, including international doctors. 2.     The second applicant’s conditions of detention and medical care (a)     The second applicant’s account 63.     The second applicant was detained alone in a cell at the Pre-trial Detention Facility of the Ministry of National Security. 64.     According to his lawyer, his state of health significantly deteriorated after his arrest. In particular, the domestic authorities had failed to provide him with adequate medical care in detention. He further submitted that in the absence of any information concerning the second applicant’s conditions of detention and medical care, it was impossible for him to give an account about either. (b)     The Government’s account 65.     On 6 August 2014 the second applicant was admitted to the Pre-trial Detention Facility of the Ministry of National Security. 66.     He was held in a cell measuring 8 sq.   m designed to hold two inmates. He was placed alone in the cell at his own request. The cell had two beds and was adequately lit and ventilated. He was provided with hot and cold water, bedding, clothing and other essentials. 67.     According to a letter by the governor of the detention facility dated 13 March 2015, heating was available and functioned well. The sanitary conditions were acceptable and the food served was of good quality. The second applicant also had the right to listen to the radio for five hours a day and to use the detention facility library. He was also entitled to receive one food parcel a week (weighing up to 31.5 kg) from his relatives. 68.     Upon his arrival at the detention facility, the second applicant underwent a medical examination, during which he stated that he had suffered from arterial hypertension since 2006. However, he did not make any particular complaint about his state of health which was assessed as satisfactory. 69.     On 7 August 2014 the second applicant underwent an electrocardiography examination which did not reveal any problems. 70.     It further appears from a medical certificate dated 29 September 2014 from the head of the medical service of the detention facility that the second applicant’s state of health was satisfactory and that he had not sought medical attention during his pre-trial detention. E.     The first applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in prison by prison guard and her cellmate 1.     The first applicant’s account of events 71.     On 7 August 2014 a repeat offender, N.H., was transferred to the applicant’s cell. After being transferred, N.H. frequently subjected the first applicant to verbal and physical violence. She complained to the administration, but no action was taken. 72.     On 19 September 2014 she lodged a request with the administration, complaining about N.H.’s unlawful behaviour. In particular, she complained that she had been subjected to physical violence and that the placement of a repeat offender in her cell was not in compliance with domestic law. 73.     On 23 September 2014 the first applicant was subjected to verbal and physical violence by Major Y., a prison guard. 74.     By a letter of 21 October 2014, the governor of the detention facility responded to the first applicant’s request of 19 September 2014. He claimed that she had not been subjected to violence by N.H. and that her conditions of detention complied with the established standards. 2.     The Government’s account of events 75.     Following publication in the media of information concerning the first applicant’s alleged beating in the detention facility, on 25 September 2014 an investigator from the Sabunchu District Prosecutor’s Office ordered a forensic medical examination. He asked experts to establish whether there were any signs of ill-treatment on the first applicant’s body. 76.     Following examinations on 29 September and 10 October 2014, the experts issued forensic medical report no. 285 dated 13 October 2014. They concluded that there were no signs of injury on the first applicant’s body. 77.     On 22 October 2014 the investigator in charge of the case refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding that there was no evidence that the first applicant had been subjected to violence in the detention facility. The decision relied on the conclusions of the forensic medical report of 13   October 2014, statements by the first applicant’s cellmates and video footage from the detention facility. 78.     No appeal was lodged against this decision. F.     The Government’s monthly reports on the applicants’ state of health 79.     Following the indication of the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court by the Acting President of the Section on 30 September 2014, the Government responded by a letter dated 3 November 2014 submitting that the relevant domestic authorities had been immediately informed of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39. They further submitted that the applicants’ state of health was stable and did not require their transfer to an appropriate medical facility. The letter also contained an overview of the medical examinations that the applicants had undergone in October 2014, although no medical documents were attached to the letter. 80.     The Government subsequently provided the Court with monthly information reports concerning the applicants’ state of health and medical treatment in detention. All the monthly reports submitted were one or two pages long. They began in a standard format and said that “the applicants’ state of health is stable and does not require [their] transfer to a specialist medical facility”. They were not accompanied by any medical documents. 81.     The reports sent by the Government from November 2014 to June   2015 contained the same information in respect of the first applicant’s state of health and medical treatment as they submitted in their observations of 27   May 2015. As regards the second applicant’s state of health and medical treatment, all the reports contained the two following sentences: “Over the past month, the second applicant’s state of health was under constant medical supervision, and it was assessed as satisfactory; no deterioration in his health has been noted. (date), the second applicant passed [his] latest general medical examination, which did not reveal any deterioration in his health.” 82.     As regards the subsequent reports, the two-page report dated 30 July 2015 indicated that on 13 July 2015 the first applicant had been examined by C.W. in the presence of local doctors. The results of the examination showed that her state of health was stable and did not reveal any pathological conditions or signs of deterioration. C.W. recommended that the first applicant take Harvoni and she started treatment with this drug on 14 July 2015. As regards the second applicant, the report contained the above-mentioned two sentences. No medical documents were attached to the information report. 83.     The two-page report dated 7 September 2015 indicated that on 14   August 2015 the first applicant had again been examined by C.W. in the presence of local doctors. The results of the examination showed that her state of health was stable and did not reveal any pathological conditions or signs of deterioration. C.W. prescribed the drug Velmetia for the regulation of her blood sugar level. As regards the second applicant, in addition to the above-mentioned two sentences, the report indicated that on 3 August 2015 at a court hearing, the second applicant had asked for medical help. His blood pressure had been 210/110 mm Hg and could be stabilised following the intervention of the emergency services. The hearing had been postponed upon a doctor’s advice. No medical documents were attached to the information report. 84.     The one-page report dated 6 October 2015 indicated that the first applicant had finished her medical treatment with Harvoni. The report also contained information relating to her blood pressure and sugar level. As regards the second applicant, the report contained the above-mentioned two sentences. No medical documents were attached. 85.     The reports dated 19 November and 2 December 2015 contained information relating to the first applicant’s blood pressure and sugar level and indicated that on 3 and 7 October 2015 the first applicant had refused to be examined by the doctors. On 30 October 2015 she had been examined by C.W, at whose request she had been transferred to the medical department of the Prison Service. As regards the second applicant, he had been examined by C.W on 30 October 2015. His blood pressure had been 224/122 mm Hg and he had been prescribed with the relevant medical treatment. On 2   November 2015 he had been transferred to the medical department of the Prison Service, where he had received the necessary medical treatment. Following this treatment, his blood pressure had lowered to 160/110 mm Hg. No medical documents were attached to the information report. G.     The applicants’ criminal conviction and subsequent release from detention 86.     On an unspecified date the criminal investigation was completed and the applicants’ case was referred to the Baku Assize Court for trial. 87.     On 13 August 2015 it convicted and sentenced the applicants to eight and a half and seven years’ imprisonment respectively. 88.     On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against this judgment to the Baku Court of Appeal. 89.     It appears from the information submitted by the Government that on an unspecified date the medical department of the Prison Service requested the Baku Court of Appeal to change the second applicant’s detention pending trial due to his emotional state and the possible repeat of hypertensive crisis. The Government did not provide the Court with a copy of this request. 90.     On 12 November 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal granted the request and ordered the second applicant’s release. The Court was not provided with a copy of this decision. 91.   On 9 December 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the Baku Assize Court’s judgment of 13 August 2015 and gave the applicants a conditional sentence of five years’ imprisonment. The first applicant was released from the court. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan 92.     Article 46 (III) of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan reads: “No one shall be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. No one shall be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment. ...” B.     Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) 93.     In accordance with Article 37 of the CCrP, criminal proceedings are instituted on the basis of a complaint by the victim of a criminal offence. Chapter LII of the CCrP lays down the procedure by which parties to criminal proceedings may challenge the actions or decisions of the prosecution authorities before a court. Article 449 provides that a victim or his counsel may challenge such actions or decisions as, inter alia , the prosecution authorities’ refusal to institute criminal proceedings or to terminate them. The judge examining the lawfulness of the prosecution authorities’ actions or decisions may quash them if he or she finds them to be unlawful (Article 451). This decision is amenable to appeal in accordance with the procedure established in Articles 452 and 453 of the CCrP. C.     Internal Disciplinary Rules of Pre-trial Detention Facilities adopted by Decision No. 63 of 26 February 2014 of the Cabinet of Ministers 94.     Section 9 provides that detainees are entitled to receive one parcel a week. Detainees suffering from serious illness (if there is a medical report) are entitled to receive an unlimited number of parcels. Section 9.3 requires the person who provides a detainee with a parcel to identify him or herself, without requiring him or her to show any family or other link between them. D.     List of Serious Illnesses Precluding the Detention of Prisoners adopted by the Ministry of Health on 26 October 2010 95.     Section 6.2 indicates that grade 3 hypertension is among the serious illnesses precluding the detention of prisoners if it leads to one of the three following situations: recurrent transmural myocardial infarction (6.2.1), third-stage circulatory inefficiency (6.2.2) or end-stage kidney failure (6.2.3). E.     Code of Administrative Procedure (“the CAP”) and the domestic remedy invoked by the Government 96.     The CAP, adopted on 30 December 2009, entered into force on 1   January 2011. Article 2 sets out the procedural rules relating to administrative law disputes, including those concerning the acts, actions or inactions of administrative organs affecting individuals’ rights and liberties. Following the entry into force of the CAP, on 10 June 2011 Chapter XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure establishing the procedural rules relating to disputes between individuals and administrative organs was deleted. 97.     Under the CAP, an action may be lodged to dispute the lawfulness of an administrative act (Article 32), to request the court to require an administrative organ to adopt an administrative act (Article 33), or to request the court to require an administrative organ to take action other than the adoption of an administrative act or refrain from taking certain action (Article 34). 98.     Chapter VII establishes the rules relating to the application of temporary defence measure ( müvəqqəti xarakterli müdafiə tədbiri ). In particular, under Article 40, an interested party may request a court to apply a temporary defence measure. Requests may be submitted before lodging a complaint with the court or in the course of the administrative proceedings (Article 40.1). The court may grant an injunction requiring the respondent party to take or refrain from certain action, or to tolerate certain action (Article 40.3). If the interested party lodges an administrative complaint with an administrative organ, the request for application of a temporary defence measure must be lodged with the same administrative organ. If the latter does not grant the request within fifteen days, the interested party may complain to a court under the procedure established in Articles 40.1 and 40.2 (Article 40.4). The CAP does not, however, provide any specific time ‑ limit for the examination of a request for application of a temporary defence measure by the domestic courts. 99.     The Government provided a copy of a decision of Baku Administrative Economic Court No. 1 dated 24 July 2012 ( A.I. v. the Prison Service of the Ministry of Justice ), submitting that the decision in question constituted an example of the effectiveness of one of several available domestic remedies. In that case, a first-instance court, in the course of the administrative proceedings, decided to apply a temporary defence measure ordering the Prison Service to transfer a detainee to a medical facility for ten days to undergo surgery. The Government did not provide any further information about the final outcome of those proceedings. III.   RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS A.   Extracts from the 3 rd General Report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) covering the period 1 January to 31 December 1992 100 .     The requirements concerning the organisation of health care services in detention facilities were described by the CPT in its 3 rd General Report (CPT/Inf (93) 12 - Publication Date: 4   June 1993). The relevant part of the Report reads as follows: “ a. Access to a doctor 33.   When entering prison, all prisoners should without delay be seen by a member of the establishment’s health care service. In its reports to date the CPT has recommended that every newly arrived prisoner be properly interviewed and, if necessary, physically examined by a medical doctor as soon as possible after his admission. It should be added that in some countries, medical screening on arrival is carried out by a fully qualified nurse, who reports to a doctor. This latter approach could be considered as a more efficient use of available resources. It is also desirable that a leaflet or booklet be handed to prisoners on their arrival, informing them of the existence and operation of the health care service and reminding them of basic measures of hygiene. 34.     While in custody, prisoners should be able to have access to a doctor at any time, irrespective of their detention regime ... The health care service should be so organised as to enable requests to consult a doctor to be met without undue delay. ... 35.     A prison’s health care service should at least be able to provide regular out ‑ patient consultations and emergency treatment (of course, in addition there may often be a hospital-type unit with beds) ... Further, prison doctors should be able to call upon the services of specialists. As regards emergency treatment, a doctor should always be on call. Further, someone competent to provide first aid should always be present on prison premises, preferably someone with a recognised nursing qualification. Out-patient treatment should be supervised, as appropriat