CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 27 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF2EF8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s3756EA5F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .sEC9B6AAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s304E8EBB { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sC7F8CD82 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .sC66F3853 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC6F18721 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sF8EF8A76 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sADAE7E8B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:55.95pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:8.4pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s17EAA502 { margin-left:6.95pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s76334B44 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s71EEDCF9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC79167A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s72C5114D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6FC64B9D { width:2.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD5AD751E { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCFB617AF { width:177.62pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2) (Application no. 30778/15)   JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 25 August 2020 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.     Art 5 § 1 (c) • Reasonable suspicion • Minimum standard of “reasonableness” of suspicion not met • Applicant’s arrest and detention initially based on false claim made as a result of coercion • No facts, information or evidence supporting additional charges related to applicant’s journalistic activities Art 5 § 4 • Review of lawfulness of detention • Systemic failure on the part of domestic courts to verify the existence of a reasonable suspicion underpinning the applicant’s arrest and detention Art 6 § 2 • Presumption of innocence • Public statement of the Prosecutor General’s Office issued shortly after the applicant’s arrest and containing declaration of her guilt Art 18 (+ Art 5) • Restriction for unauthorised purposes • Detention of a well-known investigative journalist and government critic in order to silence and punish her for her journalistic activities   STRASBOURG 27 February 2020 FINAL   27/06/2020   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Khadija Ismayilova (no. 2) v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Yonko Grozev,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Lәtif Hüseynov,   Lado Chanturia,   Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 30778/15) 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, Ms Khadija Rovshan gizi Ismayilova (“the applicant”), on 8 June 2015. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms A. Clooney and Ms N. Jansen, lawyers practising in London, and Mr Y. Imanov and Mr Namazli, lawyers based in Azerbaijan. On 1 July 2016 Ms A. Vermeer replaced Ms N.   Jansen as co-counsel with Ms A. Clooney. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov. 3.     The applicant complained of a breach of her rights under Article 5, Article 6 § 2, Article 10 and Article 18 of the Convention. In particular, she complained that her arrest and pre-trial detention had not been based on a reasonable suspicion and had been applied for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. 4.     On 26 August 2015 notice of the application was given 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. [1] Third ‑ party comments were also received from the following interveners, which had been granted leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3): [2] (1) UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; [3] (2) Freedom Now, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Human Rights House Foundation, International Partnership for Human Rights (jointly); and (3) ARTICLE 19, PEN International, International Media Support, International Partnership for Human Rights and Committee to Protect Journalists (jointly). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Baku. The applicant’s background and her employment with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 6.     The applicant is a well-known investigative journalist and civil society activist. She is known for her strong criticism of the Azerbaijani government and was involved earlier in her career in numerous journalistic investigations relating, in particular, to cases of alleged corruption and business activities of the members of the Government and their families. 7.     In November 2007 the applicant started to work as a freelance journalist for the Baku “bureau” of the Azerbaijani service (“Azadliq Radio”) of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (“RFE/RL”). RFE/RL is a non-profit international broadcasting corporation with its headquarters in Prague and several local bureaus across its broadcast region, including one in Baku. It is funded by the U.S. Congress through the United States Agency for Global Media. 8.     On 1 July 2008 the applicant was recruited to the Baku bureau based on a fixed-term employment contract. The relevant parts of that contract, submitted by her, read as follows: “[J.C.], (hereafter “the employer”) representing the management of the office of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Azerbaijan located at [address of the office] and [the applicant] (“the employee”) signed the employment contract on the terms below. ... Article 3: Duties of the Employee 3.1.     The employee shall work as Acting Head of Bureau ... ... Article 5: Subordination 5.1.     The employee shall be subordinate to the director of the Azerbaijani Service in Prague and all decisions made by the director within his or her mandate shall be binding for the employee ...” 9.     On 1 July 2009 the applicant was appointed as head of the bureau and her employment contract was further extended. The relevant parts of the “Amendment to the employment contract” submitted by the applicant read as follows: “[E.P.], (hereafter “the employer”) representing the management of the office of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Azerbaijan located at [address of the office] and [the applicant] (“employee”) signed the Amendment to the employment contract on the terms below. “ Article 3: Duties of the Employee 3.1.     The employee shall work as Head of Bureau and ... perform the duties stipulated in the job description appended to the contract (appendix 1) as well as the duties assigned by the management ... APPENDIX 1 JOB DESCRIPTION ... General overview of the position: The Head of Bureau shall be subordinate to the director of the Service. He or she shall be responsible for the quality of all products produced by bureau employees and staff and for management of the team with a view to expanding the coverage area. The Head of Bureau shall receive all instructions related to his or her area of responsibility from the director of the Service. DUTIES ... In the area of team management Prepares the work schedule of all staff in order to ensure the resources efficiency of the bureau (workforce, equipment, finance) Develops the team: recruits and motivates staff, defines training needs for individual journalists and the entire team, assists in training, carries out annual performance reviews ...” 10.     On 1 October 2010 the applicant’s employment contract with RFE/RL was terminated and from then until December 2014 she worked for the latter on a freelance basis. Events preceding the applicant’s arrest 11.     Between 2010 and 2012 the applicant wrote a number of investigative articles which were published on the website of RFE/RL and elsewhere concerning the alleged involvement of President Aliyev’s family in illegal business activities. During this period, the applicant published various articles, including most notably: - “Aliyev’s Azerbaijani empire grows, as daughter joins the game”; - “Azerbaijani President’s daughters tied to fast-rising telecoms firm”; -.“Azerbaijani Government awarded goldfield rights to President’s family”; - “President’s family benefits from Eurovision Hall”. 12.     According to the applicant, as a result of her journalistic investigations and published articles, she was constantly threatened and harassed. In particular, in 2012 intimate videos unlawfully recorded by a camera hidden in her bedroom were disseminated on the internet in order to silence her as a journalist (for further details concerning these events see Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan , nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, 10 January 2019). 13.     In 2013 and 2014 the Prosecutor General’s Office instituted criminal proceedings concerning alleged irregularities in the financial activities of a number of non-governmental organisations. Several NGO activists and human rights defenders were later arrested in the context of those proceedings and charged with criminal offences such as illegal entrepreneurship, embezzlement, tax evasion and abuse of power (see Aliyev v. Azerbaijan , nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, 20 September 2018; Mammadli v. Azerbaijan , no. 47145/14, 19 April 2018; and Rasul   Jafarov v.   Azerbaijan , no. 69981/14, 17 March 2016). 14.     During that period numerous articles about the applicant and other civil society activists and human rights defenders were published in the State media and in the media allegedly close to the government. In those articles, the applicant and other activists were described as “spies for foreign interests” and “traitors” (for examples of some of these comments, see Rasul Jafarov , cited above, §§ 36-40). 15.     Two days prior to the applicant’s arrest, on 3 December 2014, State-owned news agencies published a sixty-page manifesto written in Russian by R.M., the then head of the Presidential Administration, entitled “The World Order of Double Standards and Modern Azerbaijan” (“ Миропорядок двойных стандартов и современный Азербайджан ”). The article, among other things, accused various NGOs operating in the country of being the “fifth column of imperialism”. As regards the applicant, the relevant parts of the article read as follows: “... [The applicant] ... zealously broadcasts anti-Azerbaijani programs, makes statements of an obscene nature, openly demonstrates a hostile attitude towards well ‑ known Azerbaijani public figures and spreads insulting lies. Obviously, such a challenge to society is appreciated by her foreign patrons, but not by patriots of the motherland. Furthermore, the position she holds has nothing to do with the journalistic profession. The public strongly believe that the employees of “Azadliq” radio were very slippery in their ways. There is no need to prove that the dissemination of fabricated information is tantamount to working for the foreign secret services. This is treason. “If the symbol of democracy is Khadija Ismayilova, then it is awful to imagine what future awaits society”  this is the opinion of journalists and ordinary people with a normal mindset ...” Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant The applicant’s arrest and remand in custody on a charge of incitement to suicide 16.     On 20 October 2014 T.M., a former colleague of the applicant at Azadliq Radio, attempted to commit suicide. 17.     On 24 October 2014 the Prosecutor General’s Office instituted criminal proceedings under Article 125 (incitement to suicide) of the Criminal Code. 18.     On 25 November 2014 T.M. lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office accusing the applicant of inciting him to commit suicide. 19.     According to the applicant, on 26 November 2014 T.M. underwent an expert medical examination which found that he was suffering from “affective personality disorder” with depressive episodes and had attempted to commit suicide on three occasions in the past. 20.     On 5 December 2014 the applicant was questioned at the Prosecutor General’s Office in the presence of her lawyer and T.M. During questioning the applicant denied any wrongdoing and stated that in fact she had had no contact with T.M. since 9 March 2014. 21.     After questioning the applicant was officially charged with the criminal offence of incitement to suicide under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The relevant parts of the decision to charge her read as follows: “... [The applicant] is accused of regularly humiliating the dignity of the victim, who was dependent on her in service-related and other ways and of driving him to attempt suicide by using threats against him. Notably, [the applicant], while working as a freelance journalist in public and non ‑ governmental organisations, and as a leading journalist in the Baku office of “Azadliq Radio”, met the journalist, [T.M.], who worked in the same office[.] As they had an intimate relationship, [the applicant], by using her authority in the organisations she had worked, directly helped [T.M.] in his job [and helped him] to establish connections in those organisations, to improve his living conditions and financial situation[.] However, on 8 March 2014, after discovering that [T.M.] had entered in close relationship with another woman whom he intended to marry, [the applicant], by using her authority in the said organisations, routinely humiliated his dignity on social networks and among their acquaintances[.] By her actions, which aimed at restricting [T.M.]’s journalistic activity, [the applicant] managed to make [T.M.] lose his job, worsen his financial situation and place him in a position of dependence on her[.] [She] threatened him [that] if their intimate relationship was not rekindled, [she would] hinder his work in his field, continue to spread pejorative information about him and [would not] forgive [the fact that he preferred to] have a relationship with another woman[.] Although [T.M.] informed [the applicant] that if she did not back off, he would kill himself, [the applicant] ignored [this] and continued her actions[.] As a result, at around 5 p.m. on 20 October 2014 [T.M.], after deciding to kill himself, attempted to commit suicide in the National Park by ingesting “Zinc oxide”, a drug used on rodents[.] However, [after] being found unconscious by [some] citizens, he was transferred by ambulance to the Toxicology Unit of the Clinical Medical Centre where his life was saved as a result of medical treatment. Thus, [the applicant] committed a criminal offence provided by Article 125 of the Criminal Code the Republic of Azerbaijan ...” 22.     On the same day the Sabail District Court, in response to a request by the prosecutor, remanded the applicant in custody for a period of two   months. The court justified the detention as follows: “In accordance with the presumption of innocence, the court, having examined the   request of the investigating authority, the request of the prosecutor supervising the preliminary investigation and the material of the criminal case, taking into account that the acts imputed to the accused fall within the category of less serious crimes (“ təqsirləndirilən şəxsə istinad edilən əməllərin az ağır cinayətlər kategoriyasına aid olmasını ”), and [taking into account] the nature of these acts and the circumstances of their commission, as well as [taking into account] that the risks that [applicant might abscond, obstruct the proceedings or reoffend] are real and well-founded, considers that the preventive measure of remand in custody must be applied with respect to [the applicant].” 23.     On 8 December 2014 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that her detention was unlawful and unjustified. She complained, in particular, that the charges brought against her were not supported by any evidence, that there was no reasonable suspicion that she had committed a criminal offence and that the first-instance court had failed to verify the existence of such a suspicion. In this context, she referred to the report concerning T.M.’s medical examination of 28 November 2014, which stated that T.M. had been suffering from “affective personality disorder” with depressive episodes for the last one or two years and had attempted to commit suicide on three occasions. 24.     On 11 December 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 5 December 2014 using identical wording. The above-mentioned complaints were left unanswered by the appellate court. 25.     On 24 December 2014 the applicant lodged an application with the Sabail District Court asking for her pre-trial detention to be replaced by house arrest or her release on bail. She claimed, in particular, that there was no evidence that she had been involved in any way in T.M.’s attempted suicide and that her detention was not justified. She further noted that there was no reason for her continued detention as she had a permanent place of residence and there was no risk of her absconding from or obstructing the investigation. 26.     On 26 December 2014 the Sabail District Court dismissed the application, finding that there was a risk of her absconding from and obstructing the investigation. 27.     On 30 December 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Sabail District Court’s decision of 26 December 2014. Public statements made by T.M. following the applicant’s arrest 28.     On 27 December 2014 T.M. published a number of posts on his Facebook profile announcing his intention to withdraw his complaint against the applicant. He was then immediately contacted by journalists from Meydan TV, an online news portal, to whom he confirmed his intention. He also stated that on the same day he had tried to travel to Moscow but the authorities had not allowed him to leave the country. He had then found out that on 26 November 2014, a day after he had lodged a formal complaint against the applicant, the authorities had imposed a travel ban on him. T.M.’s Facebook posts were repeated by Meydan TV on its website. The posts read as follows: “I am asking for help from independent lawyers. I am withdrawing my complaint lodged against [the applicant]. Someone help me urgently. There is a risk of arrest.” 29.     About three minutes later, T.M. published the following post: “I am not afraid of [being] arrested, it’s just that I could be arrested without having time to withdraw my complaint. I am announcing that I want to withdraw my complaint lodged against [the applicant] and I will do it.” 30.     About an hour later, T.M. wrote the following: “I have been arrested!!!” 31.     On 8 April 2015 T.M. stated in an interview with Azadliq Radio that he had sent a letter to the Prosecutor General’s Office stating his intention to withdraw his complaint against the applicant. He further stated that the applicant had had no involvement in his attempted suicide and that he had been suffering from psychological problems at that time. He pointed out that he had been previously unable to withdraw his complaint for certain reasons on which he did not wish to elaborate further. He had also asked the Prosecutor General’s Office to lift the travel ban imposed on him. 32.     On 3 May 2015 a personal video statement by T.M., which had apparently been recorded on 7 April 2015, was published on YouTube. In it he complained that he had been subjected to coercion by the authorities, and placed in unacknowledged detention. He stated, in particular, the following: “I would like to state that on 20 October 2014 I attempted to commit suicide by ingesting rat poison ... I was admitted to the Toxicology [Unit], where the poison in my blood was removed. The Baku prosecutor’s office, by using this opportunity, stated that I had done it purely because of [the applicant] and I was forced by the first deputy prosecutor of Baku, [A.A.], and the investigator, [V.S.], to make a formal written complaint [against the applicant] ... I was also stopped by officers from the MNS [Ministry of National Security] near the “28 May” metro station [who] threatened ... that if I did not agree, the video footage made inside my apartment would be made public ... Thus, I was obliged to make a formal written complaint ... On 27 December 2014 I was leaving Azerbaijan for Moscow and I was going to record and publish this video afterwards ... However, it happened that they banned me from leaving the country  I had made the formal written complaint [against the applicant] on 25 November and on 26 November they imposed a travel ban on me. Despite the travel ban, I tried to leave the country, but it did not work out. On 27   December I was arrested in the town of Goychay [T.M.’s hometown] by police officers ... and was taken to the Goychay police station and from there two police officers and two officers from [MNS] took me to Baku. Until 14 February they kept me in my rented apartment at [location of the apartment] like under house arrest, they hacked my Facebook [account], my email address ...” 33.     T.M. further alleged in his statement that on 14 February 2014 officers from the MNS had subjected him to ill-treatment and had forcibly placed him in a psychiatric facility. He had allegedly been released on 28   February 2014 and had returned to his hometown, from where he had written to the Prosecutor General about the withdrawal of his complaint against the applicant and had also asked for the travel ban imposed on him to be cancelled. Extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and additional charges brought against her 34.     On 27 January 2015 the Sabail District Court, in response to a request by the prosecutor, extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 24 March 2015 based on the same grounds. The applicant appealed, reiterating her complaints. 35.     On 6 February 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 27 January 2015, leaving the applicant’s complaints without consideration. 36.     On 13 February 2015 the applicant was charged with additional criminal offences under Articles 179.3.2 (high-level embezzlement), 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.1 (large-scale tax evasion) and 308.2 (aggravated abuse of power) of the Criminal Code. The charges against the applicant mainly concerned her activity as head of the Baku bureau of Azadliq Radio in the period between 1 July 2008 and 1 October 2010. She was accused of the following: (i)     Misappropriating State property and abusing her power by illegally employing several individuals to work at the Baku bureau of Azadliq Radio on the basis of service contracts under the Civil Code (which were subject to a simplified low tax rate of 4%). In breach of the requirements of the Labour Code, the applicant had not concluded employment contracts with those people (which would have been subject to personal income tax at a rate of 14%) and had therefore inflicted material damage on the State in the amount of 17,992.60 Azerbaijani new manats (AZN), which represented a difference of 10% between the above rates; (ii)     In her capacity as head of the Baku bureau of Azadliq Radio, which was a non-commercial organisation, engaging in illegal entrepreneurship by continuing the radio broadcasting activities of the Baku bureau despite the fact that the broadcasting licence given to the bureau by the National Television and Radio Council of the Republic of Azerbaijan had expired on 1 January 2008 and had not been renewed thereafter. Furthermore, since 1   October 2010 she had been working for Azadliq Radio without being accredited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan as a representative of the foreign media. Consequently, in the period between 1 July 2008 and 1 December 2014 the applicant had acquired profit through illegal entrepreneurship activity by receiving and paying money to herself and other employees of the Baku bureau “disguised as salaries and service fees” in the total amount of AZN 335,880.54; (iii)     While head of the Baku bureau of Azadliq Radio in the period between 1 July 2008 and 1 October 2010, avoiding payment of profit tax in the amount of AZN 45,145.63. 37.     On 6 March 2015 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 24 May 2015. The detention was justified on the grounds that, given the complexity of the case, a number of investigative steps needed to be carried out and more time was needed to complete the investigation. The applicant appealed, claiming that the first-instance court had failed to justify the extension of her pre-trial detention, T.M. had withdrawn his complaint against her and there was no evidence whatsoever that she had committed any criminal offence, including those related to her activities at Azadliq Radio. 38.     On 12 March 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s decision, leaving the applicant’s complaints without consideration. 39.     On 14 May 2015 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 24 August 2015. The decision was identical in its wording to the court’s decision of 6 March 2015. 40.     On 21 May 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 14 May 2015, and extended her pre-trial detention until 22 August 2015. 41.     Meanwhile, on 14 May 2014 the applicant lodged an application with the Nasimi District Court, asking for her pre-trial detention to be replaced by house arrest or her release on bail. The applicant reiterated her complaints that there was no reasonable suspicion of her committing a crime and that her continued detention was unjustified. In addition, she stated that she had been recognised as a prisoner of conscience by an international NGO, which showed that she had been arrested and prosecuted for her political and human rights activities, in breach of Article   18 of the Convention. 42.     On 9 July 2015 the Prosecutor General’s Office drew up a bill of indictment and the case went to trial. 43.     On 24 July 2015 the Baku Court for Serious Crimes held a preliminary hearing and ruled that the applicant’s “preventive measure of remand in custody should remain unchanged.” The applicant’s criminal conviction and subsequent release from detention 44.     On 1 September 2015 the Baku Court for Serious Crimes found the applicant guilty under Articles 179.3.2 (high-level embezzlement), 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.1 (large-scale tax evasion) and 308.2 (aggravated abuse of power) of the Criminal Code and sentenced her to seven and a half years’ imprisonment and a ban on holding managerial and financial posts in public and local self-government bodies for a period of three years. As regards the charge under Article 125 (incitement to suicide) of the Criminal Code, the court acquitted her for lack of evidence. 45.     On 25 November 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 1 September 2015. 46.     On 25 May 2016 the Supreme Court quashed the part of the judgment of 25 November 2015 related to the applicant’s conviction under Articles   179 and 308 of the Criminal Code for lack of the constituent elements of the crime and reduced her sentence to three and a half years’ imprisonment suspended on probation. She was released from detention. Statement of 6 December 2014 by the Prosecutor General’s Office 47.     On 6 December 2014, following the applicant’s arrest, the Prosecutor General’s Office made a public statement entitled “Illegal acts of Khadija Ismayilova have been unmasked” (“ Xədicə İsmayılovanın qanunazidd əməlləri ifşa edilmişdir ”). It indicated, in particular: “The prosecutor’s office of the Sabail district has instituted criminal proceedings under Article 125 (incitement to suicide) of the Criminal Code into the fact that on 20   October 2014 [T.M.], a reporter from “Azadliq Radio” and “Meydan TV, attempted to commit suicide by ingesting “Zinc oxide”..., [T.M.] applied to the General Prosecutor’s office and asked to take the appropriate measures against [the applicant] on account of her...driving him to attempt suicide. The investigation has established that [T.M.] since February 2013 started to work in “Azadliq Radio”... where he met [the applicant] and get involved in close relationship with her ... The investigation has also established that on 1 May 2014 [T.M.] attempted to commit suicide as a result of threats and pressure used by [the applicant] ... [The applicant] was charged as an accused in the criminal case on a reasonable suspicion that [the applicant] continued to perform illegal acts against [T.M.] despite the fact that [T.M.] warned her that if she did not leave him alone, he would kill himself ...” RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 48.     A summary of domestic law, including most of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the relevant international reports, may be found in Rasul Jafarov (cited above, §§ 50-84). Further information on the domestic law relevant to the present case is summarised below. Criminal Code 49.     The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code provided as follows at the material time: Article 125. Incitement to violence “Incitement of a victim who is dependent on the accused for material, service-related or other reasons to commit or attempt suicide by means of cruel treatment, systematic humiliation of his dignity, use of threats is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of three to seven years.” Code of Criminal Procedure 50.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”) provided as follows at the material time: Article 37. Types of criminal prosecution “37.1.     Depending on the nature and degree of severity of the offence, a criminal prosecution shall be carried out in the form of private, semi-public or public prosecution in accordance with the provisions of this Code. 37.2.     A private criminal prosecution may only be carried out on the basis a complaint by the victim with respect to offences under Articles 147, 148, 165.1 and   166.1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan ... 37.3.     A semi-public criminal prosecution shall be carried out on the basis of a complaint by the victim or by the prosecutor ... with respect to offences under Articles 127, 128, 129.2, 130.2, 131.1, 133, 134, 142.1, 149.1, 150.1, 151, 156-158, 163, 169 ‑ 1, 175-177.1, 178.1, 179.1, 184.1, 186.1, 187.1, 190.1, 197 and 201.1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. ... 37.6.     A public criminal prosecution shall be carried out with respect to other offences not covered by Articles 37.2 and 37.3 of this Code.” Code of Administrative Offences 2000 (“the old CAO”) 51.     The relevant provisions of the old CAO (repealed and replaced by a new Code, which entered into force on 1 March 2016) provided as follows at the material time: Article 187-2. Breach of rules and conditions of the special authorisation (licence) in the field of television and radio broadcasting “A breach of rules and conditions of the special authorisation (licence) in the field of television and radio broadcasting shall be punishable with respect to officials by a fine in the amount of [AZN 300 to   500], and with respect to legal entities by a fine in the amount of [AZN 1,000 to   2,000].” THE LAW SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION 52.     The Court observes that on 26 August 2015 the respondent Government were given notice of the application which concerned the applicant’s complaints under Article 5, Article 6 § 2, Article 10 and Article   18 of the Convention. As regards the complaint under Article 6 § 2, in her original application the applicant complained of a breach of her right to the presumption of innocence because of the domestic courts’ decisions of 5   and 11 December 2014 and the statement made by the Prosecutor General’s Office on 6 December 2014. In her observations after notice of the application was given to the respondent Government the applicant raised additional complaints, alleging under Article 6 § 2 that the domestic courts’ detention orders of 27 January, 6 March and 15 May 2015 had also breached her right to the presumption of innocence. She raised new complaints under Article 13 of a lack of effective remedies and under Article 14 of discrimination on the grounds of her political views. 53.     The Court reiterates that, as a general rule, it does not examine any new matters raised after the Government have been given notice of the application, unless the new matters are an elaboration on the applicant’s original complaints to the Court (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no.   15172/13, § 78, 22 May 2014). Because the applicant may subsequently elucidate or elaborate upon his or her initial submissions, the Court must take into account not only the application form but the entirety of his or her submissions in the course of the proceedings before it which may eliminate any initial omissions or obscurities (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 122 and 129, 20 March 2018). 54.     In the present case the Court notes that the applicant’s new complaints are not an elaboration of her original complaints, on which the parties have commented, but constitute new matters which were not covered in the original application sent to the Government. The Court does not therefore find it appropriate to examine these complaints in the present context (see Seleznev v. Russia , no. 15591/03, § 56, 26 June 2008 and compare Ilgar Mammadov , cited above, §   78-79). The applicant had the opportunity to lodge new applications in respect of any other complaints relating to the subsequent events in her case in accordance with the requirements set out in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 §§ 1 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION 55.     Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that her arrest and detention had not been based on a reasonable suspicion that she had committed a criminal offence, and that the domestic courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the need for her continued detention. Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention reads: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ... 3.     Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” Admissibility 56.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions (a)    The applicant 57.     The applicant submitted that the prosecuting authorities and domestic courts had failed to make genuine enquiries into the basic facts of the case to verify if the allegations against her had been well-founded. She argued that that the charges brought against her had not been supported by any material. 58.     In particular, as regards the charge of “incitement to suicide”, the authorities had failed to demonstrate that the applicant had used threats or humiliated T.M., which was one of the constituent elements of this crime. The applicant’s arguments that she had not seen T.M. since 9 March 2014 and that T.M. had had a history of mental disorders and attempted suicide in the past had all been ignored by the domestic courts. Furthermore, this accusation had not been supported by any evidence, as T.M. had admitted following the applicant’s arrest that he had been coerced by the authorities into providing false evidence against her. The fact that there had been no reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed this crime was also confirmed by the fact that she had been acquitted by the trial court of this charge. 59.     With respect to the criminal charge of illegal entrepreneurship, the applicant submitted that this charge had only been based on her alleged lack of accreditation and Azadliq Radio’s lack of a broadcasting licence, which had not constituted per se a crime under domestic law at the material time. Furthermore, even assuming that there had been a regulatory breach, this should have been the administrative responsibility of RFE/RL or the US   agency that governed its broadcast, and not the criminal responsibility of any of the journalists working for Azadliq Radio, including herself. 60.     With respect to the charge of embezzlement, the applicant submitted that there had been no information or evidence supporting the authorities’ version of events. In particular, there had been no basis to back up the allegation that she had illegally employed staff to work for Azadliq Radio. In support of her submissions, she provided a copy of the service contract signed between a journalist, J.E., and RFE/RL. It could be seen from this contract that it had been signed on behalf of RFE/RL by E.P., acting as its official representative in Azerbaijan and concluded on 1 October 2009, when the applicant had already been head of the Baku bureau. 61.     As to the charges of tax evasion and abuse of power, the applicant submitted that they had simply been incomprehensible and had lacked any factual basis. 62.     The applicant further argued that the domestic courts had failed to provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons justifying her pre-trial detention. She also complained that the decision of the Baku Court for Serious Crimes of 24 July 2015 had been unlawful as it had failed to set a time-limit or rely on any grounds justifying her detention pending trial. (b)    The Government 63.     The Government submitted that the applicant’s arrest and detention had been based on a reasonable suspicion that she had committed criminal offences. In particular, they stressed that there had not been “any government actions” behind the applicant’s arrest, and that she had been arrested on suspicion of having committed the criminal offence of “incitement to suicide” following a complaint lodged by a private individual. According to the Government, this accusation was supported “by the initial evidence, including the statements of the victim and other witnesses”. As regards the charges against the applicant in relation to illegal entrepreneurship, embezzlement, tax evasion and abuse of power, the Government noted that “those facts had been revealed within the investigation of a criminal case connected with the allegedly illegal activities of some non-commercial organisations, including the one the applicant had worked for”. 64.     The Government further indicated that the applicant’s detention had been justified and that the domestic courts had given sufficient and relevant reasons for her detention. (c)    Third parties 65.     The observations submitted by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights concerned the situation of human rights defenders, journalists and civil society activists in Azerbaijan which, according to the Commissioner, had amounted to “a clear pattern of repression against those expressing dissent or criticism of the authorities”. Those comments were to a large extent similar to those made in Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no.   69981/14, §§   99 ‑ 113, 17 March 2016). 66.     [4] The UN Special Rapporteur and two intervening organisations also expressed their concern as regards the alleged ongoing crackdown on civil society in Azerbaijan. With reference to various international reports and the arrests of various well‑known individuals, the interveners were of the view that the present case was a perfect example of a systematic practice of arbitrary detention and selective criminal prosecution of journalists, human rights defenders and others in Azerbaijan in retaliation for their exercise of the right to freedom of expression, assembly and association and their cooperation with international organisations. The Court’s assessment 67.     The Court will examine the applicant’s complaints on the basis of the relevant general principles set out, in particular, in the case of Ilgar   Mammadov (cited above, § 87-90 respectively). The requirement that the suspicion must be based on reasonable grounds forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention. As a general rule, problems concerning the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” arise at the level of the facts. The very specific context of the present case calls for a high level of scrutiny of the facts. The Court’s task is to verify whether there existed sufficient objective elements that could lead an objective observer to reasonably believe that the applicant might have committed the acts alleged by the prosecuting authorities (ibid., § 94). Besides, the Court has to have regard to all the relevant circumstances in order to be satisfied that objective information existed showing that the suspicion against the applicants was “reasonable”. In this connection, at the outset, the Court considers it necessary to have regard to the general context of the facts of this particular case (see Rasul Jafarov cited above, § 120). 68.     The Court observes that the applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention were based on charges relating to two separate sets of facts: the first set formed the basis for the charge of incitement to suicide, while the second concerned various charges in relation to the applicant’s work at Azadliq Radio. In order to assess the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” for the applicant’s arrest and detention, the Court will proceed to examine the facts giving rise to the above charges in turn. (a)    As regards the charge of incitement to suicide 69.     The Court observes that between 5 December 2014 and 6 March 2015 the applicant was detained solely on the basis of the charge of incitement to suicide. In her submissions she disputed the prosecution’s version of events in relation to this charge. However, the Court notes that it does not need to determine the veracity of each and every allegation made by the applicant, as the main question before the Court is whether T.M.’s complaint could have formed the basis for a reasonable suspicion against her, regard being had to the allegation that the impugned charge had been brought as a result of coercion on the complainant by the authorities. (i)   As to the allegation that T.M.’s complaint was obtai