CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sEF2F5C06 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s86B0278D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sB1125EF4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .sE1C80691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DE88426 { width:180.29pt; display:inline-block } .s40964402 { width:201.63pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIFTH SECTION   CASE OF YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)   (Application no. 68817/14)   JUDGMENT   Art 18 • Restriction for unauthorised purposes • Detention of human rights defenders for the purpose of silencing and punishing them for their NGO activities Art 5 § 1 • Unlawful deprivation of liberty of the applicants at an airport in the context of criminal proceedings against a third party • Arrest and detention in the absence of a “reasonable suspicion” of the applicants having committed a criminal offence Art 5 § 4 • Lack of adequate judicial review of the lawfulness of detention Art 6 § 2 • Presumption of innocence • Authorities’ press statement issued shortly after the applicants’ arrest and containing declaration of their guilt Art 8 • Respect for private life, home and correspondence • Unjustified intrusion of a male police officer into the toilet resulting in a female applicant being exposed to him in a state of undress • Lack of legitimate aims for the search of home and office, inspection of luggage and seizure of documents Art 1 P1 • Control of the use of property • Unlawful freezing of the applicants’ bank accounts in the context of criminal proceedings against a third party Art 13 (+ Art 1 P1 and Art 2 P4) • Effective remedy • Seizure of passports and freezing of bank accounts by investigating authorities not amenable to judicial review Art 34 • Hindering the exercise of the right of application • Impediments to communication between the applicants and their representative whose licence to practise law had been suspended   STRASBOURG   16 July 2020   FINAL   16/10/2020   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 (no. 2), The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Lәtif Hüseynov,   Lado Chanturia,   Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges, and Victor Soloveytchik, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 June 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 68817/14) 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 17 October 2014. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr K. Bagirov and Mr J. Javadov, lawyers based in Azerbaijan, and Ms D. Bychawska-Siniarska, a lawyer from the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights, a non-governmental organisation based in Warsaw. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov. 3.     The applicants complained about the breach of their rights under Articles 3 and 5, Article 6 § 2, Articles 8, 11, 13 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. In particular, they complained that their arrest and pre-trial detention had not been based on a reasonable suspicion and had been carried out for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention 4.     On 5 January 2015 the Government were given notice of part of the application and the remainder was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule   54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. It was also decided to grant the application priority treatment under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. On 25   June 2015 the President of the Section decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court, to invite the parties to submit further written observations under Articles 5 § 4, 11 and 34 of the Convention. 5.     In addition, third-party comments were received from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, who exercised his right to intervene in the proceedings and submitted written comments (Article   36 §   3 of the Convention and Rule   44 § 2 of the Rules of Court). Observations were also received from the Human Rights House Foundation and Freedom Now, organisations which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Background of the case 6.     The background information is similar to a large extent to that in the cases of Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 69981/14, 17 March 2016); Mammadli v. Azerbaijan (no. 47145/14, 19 April 2018); and Aliyev v.   Azerbaijan (nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, 20 September 2018) in that the applicants’ arrest was based in part on similar criminal charges. 7.     The applicants were born in 1955 and lived in Baku at the time of the events. 8.     The first applicant is a well-known human-rights defender and civil ‑ society activist. She was known for her strong criticism of the Azerbaijani Government and she prepared various reports relating, in particular, to the problem of political prisoners in the country. 9.     At the time of the events she was the director of an association named the Institute for Peace and Democracy (“the Association”), a non ‑ governmental organisation specialising in human-rights protection and conflict resolution problems. The Association was founded in 1996 and has been involved in various projects concerning, in particular, human rights, democracy, gender equality, confidence and peace-building measures. According to the applicants, their several attempts to obtain State registration of the Association were unsuccessful. The Association carried out some projects, in cooperation with its partner organisation Azerbaijan Women for peace and democracy in Transcaucasia (“the AWPDT”), which had been registered as a legal entity by the Ministry of Justice in 1996. 10.     The second applicant, who is the husband of the first applicant, is a researcher and at the relevant time was the head of the Conflict resolution Department of the Association. He is the author of more than 200 publications, in particular concerning the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. 11.     In 2005, in the context of Track II diplomacy, known in Azerbaijan as “people’s diplomacy”, the first applicant launched a joint project with Ms   L.B., a director of the Region Research Centre (“the Centre”), a non ‑ governmental organisation based in Armenia. The aim of the project was to focus on peace and reconciliation between the two countries. In 2012 the Association and the Centre launched the first unofficial Armenian ‑ Azerbaijani website, publicdialogues.info , which was designed as a platform for the direct dialogue between the Armenian and Azerbaijani civil societies. B.     Events preceding the applicants’ prosecution 12.     On 16 April 2014 the Prosecutor General’s Office instituted criminal case no. 142006022 against Mr Rauf Mirgadirov (“R.M.”), an Azerbaijani journalist based in Turkey, in connection with his alleged spying for Armenia. On 21 April 2014 R.M. was arrested and charged under Article   274 (high treason) of the Criminal Code. The circumstances relating to R.M.’s arrest and detention are the subject of a separate application pending before the Court (application no. 62775/14). 13.     On 25 April 2014 the investigating officer in charge summoned the second applicant to the Prosecutor General’s Office for questioning as a witness in criminal case no. 142006022. The questioning was scheduled at 2.30 p.m. on the same day. A copy of the summons submitted by the Government shows that it was served against the first applicant’s signature at 1 p.m. on the same day. According to the summons, the second applicant was warned that if he failed to appear, a decision would be taken to bring him in by force in accordance with Article 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP). The second applicant did not appear for questioning. 14.     On the same date, the investigator in charge sent a letter to the applicants’ bank, asking to have their bank accounts frozen, owing to the “emerging necessity” within criminal case no. 142006022. 15.     On 28 April 2014 the first applicant was also summoned for questioning, which was scheduled for 2.30 p.m. on the same day. A copy of the summons submitted by the Government shows that it was served on the first applicant against her signature at 6 p.m. on the same day, that is several hours after the questioning was due to take place. The first applicant did not appear for questioning. 16.     On the same date the Yasamal District Court adopted two decisions granting the prosecutor’s request to carry out a search at the applicants’ flat and at the Association’s office respectively within the framework of the criminal case no. 142006022. 17.     The relevant parts of the decision concerning the search at the Association’s office read as follows: “[The investigator in charge of the case] ... applied to the court with a request [to conduct a search and seizure] in the framework of criminal case no. 142006022. [The investigator in charge of the case] justified his application by [the fact that ]this criminal case concerned an investigation under Article 274 of the Criminal Code into [R.M.’s] committing high treason by way of espionage ... Given that the evidence gathered provides sufficient grounds, it is necessary to carry out a search at the office of the [Association], with which [R.M.] cooperated ...” 18.     The text of the decision concerning the search at the applicants’ flat was almost identical to the previous one. Notably, the prosecutor in charge justified the search as follows: “Given that the evidence gathered provides sufficient grounds, it is necessary to carry out a search of [the flat of the applicants], with whom [R.M.] was in a close relationship ...” 19.     In the evening of the same day the applicants arrived at Baku Heydar Aliyev Airport in order to take a flight abroad. According to the Government, the applicants were accompanied by foreign diplomatic personnel. At around 10.30 p.m. at passport control the State Border Service did not allow the applicants to board the flight. Soon after that two investigators from the General Prosecutor’s Office came to the airport and searched the applicants’ luggage and handbags. Following the search, the investigator seized the applicants’ passports and various documents and objects in the luggage, including a laptop, a video camera, and some USB flash drives. It appears from the “inspection record” ( baxış keçirilməsi haqqında protokol ) of 28 April 2014 that the search was authorised by the investigator in charge of the case and was carried out “owing to the necessity which emerged in the context of criminal case no. 142006022”. The search began at 11.20   p.m. on 28 April 2014 and ended at 3.15 a.m. on 29 April 2014. The applicants refused to sign the record. 20.     The applicants were kept in a room at the airport from 10.30 p.m. on 28 April 2014 until 3.40 a.m. on 29 April 2014 and were not free to leave. At around 3.40 a.m. the applicants, accompanied by plain-clothes officers, were taken by car to unknown destination. According to the applicants, the officers did not tell them where they were being taken. They further alleged that during their transfer the officers verbally abused them and threatened them with rape. 21.     On arrival, the applicants realised that they had been brought to their home address. The officers attempted to carry out a search of the applicants’ flat, but the first applicant refused to open the door fearing that the officers might plant evidence in order to frame them.   Various journalists were already present in the courtyard of the block of flats and were filming the events. The video recordings were later published on a video-streaming service. 22.     In the meantime, the second applicant began not to feel well. The journalists present at the scene called an ambulance. He was then diagnosed with hypertension and at an unspecified time that night taken to hospital where he received inpatient treatment until 6 May 2014. According to the applicants, this was the result of the alleged ill-treatment to which they had been subjected during their arrest and transfer. 23.     Following the second applicant’s departure, the first applicant was still under the control of the police officers who were gathered at the courtyard and were trying to persuade her to open the door of the flat. According to the first applicant, at some point around dawn she went up to her neighbour’s flat in order to use the toilet, but was followed by a male police officer who intruded into the toilet and observed the first applicant in a state of undress. The video recordings submitted by the applicants showed the moment when the first applicant returned to the courtyard, followed by the male police officer, and complained that the latter had intruded and watched her using the toilet facilities. The police officer in question replied to the journalists filming the scene that the first applicant was “talking nonsense”. The first applicant then approached the police’s officer superior who was also at the courtyard and complained about the officer’s intrusion into the toilet. However, the superior officer condoned the actions of his subordinate by replying that the latter had accompanied the first applicant in order to protect her from self-harm and “he had to do that in the toilet as well”. 24.     Later on, as the officers’ persistent attempts to carry out the search at the applicants’ flat were unsuccessful, at 7 a.m. on the same day they took the first applicant to the Prosecutor General’s Office, where she was questioned until 4.50 p.m. Afterwards, she was taken to the Association’s office and then to her flat where the investigator in charge carried out a search on the basis of the Yasamal District Court’s above decisions. During the search, the investigator seized various documents and objects, including a computer, different books, business cards and bank documentation.   The first applicant was set free after the end of the search at about midnight on 29 April 2014. C.     Remedies used by the applicants in relation to the above events 1.     Proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the search of the applicants’ luggage and handbags at the airport 25.     On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint with a court concerning the alleged unlawfulness of their search at the airport on 28 April 2014. They argued that there had been no court order for conducting the search and that it had been conducted in the absence of their lawyer. 26.     On 9 June 2014 the Khazar District Court dismissed the applicants’ claim. The court held that the investigator had not conducted a search of the applicants’ persons ( şəxsi axtarış ), but an inspection of objects ( əşyalara baxış ), which did not constitute a search measure requiring a court order under Article 236 of the CCrP. As to the absence of the applicants’ lawyer, the court found that the lawyer’s presence was not required during this kind of investigative measure. The applicants appealed, reiterating their complaints. 27.     On 20 June 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision of 9 June 2014. 2.     Proceedings concerning the searches at the applicants’ flat and at the Association’s office 28.     On 1 May 2014 the applicants appealed against the Yasamal District Court’s decision of 28 April 2014 ordering a search at their flat. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants argued that the search had been unlawful. In particular, they complained that there had been no reasonable grounds for carrying out the search and that they had not been provided with a copy of the search order. 29.     On 15 May 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the search order had been lawful. 30.     In the meantime, on 14 May 2014 the applicants appealed against the Yasamal District Court’s decision of 28 April 2014 authorising a search of the Association’s office. According to the applicants, they did not receive any response to their appeal. 3.     Proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the applicants’ deprivation of liberty and their alleged ill-treatment 31.     On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint with the Yasamal District Court, complaining of their unlawful deprivation of liberty and ill-treatment by the investigating authorities and the police. In particular, they alleged that from the moment of their arrest at the airport at 10.30   p.m. on 28 April 2014 until the end of the search of their apartment which had taken place on the next day, they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty. They also complained that during their transfer by car from the airport to their flat the police officers had verbally abused them and had threatened them with rape. They submitted that as a result of this treatment the second applicant had become unwell and had been hospitalised. The first applicant further argued that the fact that a police officer had entered into the toilet occupied by her had constituted degrading treatment and that treatment had been condoned by the police officer’s superior. In support of this claim, the applicants submitted to the court a list of web addresses where video recordings of the events had been published and could be viewed. 32.     On 17 June 2014 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicants’ claim as unfounded. The court held that the applicants had failed to submit evidence to prove their allegations of ill-treatment and unlawful deprivation of liberty. The applicants appealed. 33.     On 10 July 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision and dismissed the applicants’ appeal. 4.     Proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the seizure of the applicants’ passports 34.     On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint with the investigator in charge of the case asking him to return their passports. They argued that the seizure of their passports on 28 April 2014 at Baku Heydar Aliyev Airport had been unlawful and had breached their right to liberty of movement. The authorities informed the applicants in reply that their request had been added to the case file and that they would be apprised of the result of its examination. It appears that no further reply followed. 35.     On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint with the Nasimi District Court, complaining of the seizure of their passports by the investigator. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, they argued that the seizure of their passports and their prevention from leaving the country in the absence of any procedural decision had been unlawful and had violated their right to freedom of movement. 36.     On 14 May 2014 the Nasimi District Court refused to admit the applicants’ complaint, holding that the investigator’s above actions were not enumerated in Article 449 § 3 of the CCrP, which provided a list of specific actions which could be challenged before the domestic courts. 37.     On 26 May 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 14 May 2014. 38.     There is no information in the case file about further developments concerning the return of the applicants’ passports. 5.     Proceedings concerning the freezing of the applicants’ bank accounts 39.     On an unspecified date, following unsuccessful attempts to withdraw cash from their bank accounts, the applicants lodged a request with their bank, asking it to explain the reason for freezing their bank accounts. 40.     On 12 July 2014 the bank replied that the Prosecutor General’s Office had, by a letter of 25 April 2014, requested that the bank suspend all the operations in relation to the applicants’ bank accounts on the grounds of the “emerging necessity” within the framework of criminal case no.   142006022. 41.     On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint with the   Nasimi District Court complaining of the unlawfulness of the prosecuting authorities’ actions. 42.     On 18 July 2014 the Nasimi District Court refused to admit the claim, holding that the investigator’s actions could not be challenged before the domestic courts pursuant to Article 449 § 3 of the CCrP. The court hearing was held in the absence of the applicants and their lawyer. 43.     On 24 July 2014 the applicants were provided with a copy of the above decision. They appealed and asked the appellate court to restore the time-limits for lodging an appeal, noting that the hearing before the first ‑ instance court had been held in their absence and that they had been provided with a copy of the decision only on 24 July 2014. 44.     On 4 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal decided to return the case to the first-instance court without considering the applicants’ request. The appellate court held that the question of the restoration of time-limits for lodging an appeal should be examined by the lower court. 45.     There is no information in the case file about further developments concerning the freezing of the applicants’ bank accounts. D.     Criminal proceedings against the applicants and their remand in custody 1.     Institution of criminal proceedings against the first applicant and her pre-trial detention 46.     On 30 July 2014 the first applicant was arrested by the police and was taken to the Prosecutor General’s Office. 47.     On the same day the investigator in charge of the case issued a decision, charging the first applicant 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. The decision contained a description of the incriminating acts attributed to the first applicant and indicated that there was “sufficient incriminating evidence” to charge the first applicant without referring to any specific piece of evidence in this regard. 48.     As regards the crime of high treason, the first applicant was accused, together with the second applicant, of cooperating since 2002 with various agents of the special services of Armenia, including Ms L.B., to the detriment of the national security of Azerbaijan. This cooperation had been allegedly pursued under the disguise of the joint projects carried in the context of “people’s diplomacy” between the Association and the Centre as well as other NGOs. Notably, the first applicant was accused of receiving together with the second applicant large sums of money in grants from international donors as well as from Journalistic Studies, an NGO based in Armenia, in exchange for recruiting persons for espionage. In particular, they had allegedly recruited R.M. for this purpose and organised on various dates from 2008 to 2013 the latter’s meetings in Armenia and Georgia with agents of the Armenian secret service, including L.B. During these meetings R.M. had allegedly provided information on the location of military bases and strategic infrastructure in Azerbaijan. 49.     As regards the charges related to the crimes of illegal entrepreneurship and large-scale tax evasion, the first applicant was accused of receiving between 2006 and 2014, as a chairwoman of the Association, which lacked State registration, and a deputy chairwoman of AWPDT, a number of grants in the total amounts of 167,199.57 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (approximately EUR 159,238 at the material time), 620,878.94 US   dollars (USD) and 263,745.49 euros (EUR) from the United States of America’s National Democratic Institute, the German Marshall Fund and other donor organisations for various projects, under relevant grant agreements which she had failed to register with the relevant State authority. 50.     As to the charge of falsification of official documents, the first applicant was accused of inserting false information in various financial documents of AWPDT. 51.     As regards the charge of large-scale fraud, the first applicant was accused of acquiring, by abuse of trust, various sums in the total amount of USD 78,130.42 paid by donors under the grant agreements. Specifically, it was stated that the first applicant had withdrawn this money from AWPDT’s bank account and, together with the second applicant, had placed it in instalments in their personal joint bank accounts on various dates between 2009 and 2014. 52.     On the same day the prosecutor in charge lodged an application with the Nasimi District Court, asking it to order the first applicant’s remand in custody on the basis of the official charges brought against her. The application was essentially a copy of the text of the decision to criminally charge the applicant. During the court hearing held on the same day the first applicant argued that the charges brought against her were “surreal” and asked the court to dismiss the prosecutor’s application. The District Court, relying on the prosecutor’s request, ordered the first applicant’s detention for a period of three months. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the seriousness of the charges and the likelihood that if released she might abscond or obstruct the investigation. The court’s decision did not refer to any specific piece of evidence which had led to a reasonable suspicion against the first applicant and the latter’s complaint as regards the lack of evidence supporting the charges remained unanswered. 53.     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 the real purpose of her detention was to punish her for her human-rights activities, in particular in retaliation for her reports about the problem of political prisoners in the country. She also argued that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. 54.     On 6 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision had been lawful. The first applicant’s above complaints were left unanswered by the appellate court. 55.     On 24 October 2014 the Nasimi District Court, following an application by the prosecutor, extended the first applicant’s detention by four months. During the court hearing the first applicant complained de novo that there were no lawful grounds for her pre-trial detention because no evidence whatsoever had been presented by the prosecution to support the charges brought against her. The first applicant’s complaints were left unanswered by the court. 56.     On 27 October 2014 the first applicant appealed, reiterating her complaints concerning the lack of reasonable suspicion and the real purpose of her detention. 57.     On 30 October 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first ‑ instance court’s decision, leaving the first applicant’s complaints without examination. 58.     No further decisions extending the first applicant’s detention are available in the case file. 2.     Institution of criminal proceedings against the second applicant and his pre-trial detention 59.     On 30 July 2014 the second applicant was questioned by an investigator at the Prosecutor General’s Office. Following the questioning, he was charged under Articles 178 § 3(2) (large-scale fraud) and 274 (high treason) of the Criminal Code. The incriminating acts attributed to the second applicant were similar to those of which the first applicant was accused under the respective Articles of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs   48 and 51 above). The decision noted that there was “sufficient incriminating evidence” to charge the second applicant without referring to any specific piece of evidence in support of those charges. 60.     On the same day the investigator decided to apply in respect of the second applicant the preventive measure of placement under police supervision, taking into account his state of health (for further details see Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan , no. 59620/14, § 19, 2 June 2016). 61.     On 5 August 2014 the second applicant was arrested by the police. On the same date the prosecutor lodged an application with the Nasimi District Court asking it to replace the second applicant’s placement under police supervision by the preventive measure of remand in custody. 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. During the court hearing held on the same day the second applicant argued that the charges against him were unfounded and asked the court to dismiss the prosecutor’s application. The District Court, citing the prosecutor’s application, ordered the second applicant’s detention for a period of three months. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the seriousness of the charges and the likelihood that if released he might abscond and obstruct the investigation. As in the case of the first applicant, the court’s decision did not refer to any specific piece of evidence which formed a reasonable suspicion against the second applicant and the latter’s complaints in this regard remained unanswered. 62.     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 the replacement of the preventive measure of placement under police supervision by the preventive measure of remand in custody. He further pointed out that the court had failed to justify his detention on remand and that his detention was related to his activities as a civil-society activist and his wife’s activities as a human-rights defender. 63.     On 11 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the second applicant’s detention was justified. His complaints concerning the lack of reasonable suspicion and the real purpose of his detention were left unanswered by the appellate court. 64.     On 29 October 2014 the Nasimi District Court, citing the prosecutor’s application, extended the second applicant’s detention by four months. During the hearing the second applicant maintained that the criminal charges against him were unfounded and his detention was unjustified. His complaints were left unanswered. The second applicant appealed. 65.     On 6 November 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first ‑ instance court’s decision, leaving the second applicant’s complaints without examination. 66.     No further decisions extending the second applicant’s detention are available in the case file. 3.     The applicants’ criminal conviction and their subsequent release from detention 67.     While no further information has been submitted by the applicants as regards the further developments in their case, according to publicly available information on 13 August 2015 the applicants were convicted and sentenced by the Baku Court for Serious Crimes to eight and a half and seven years’ imprisonment respectively. Meanwhile, the second applicant was released pending trial owing to his state of health. 68.     On 9 December 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 13 August 2015 and commuted the applicants’ sentence to five years’ imprisonment suspended on probation. The first applicant was also released from detention. 69.     In April 2016 the applicants left Azerbaijan for the Netherlands where they sought political asylum. 70.     The applicants’ criminal trial is the subject of a separate application which is pending before the Court (application no. 51984/19). E.     Joint statement of 31 July 2014 by law-enforcement authorities concerning the criminal proceedings against the applicants 71.     On 31 July 2014 following the applicants’ arrest the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of National Security issued a joint press statement. This statement officially informed the public of the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicants and reproduced the description of the incriminating acts contained in the decisions to charge the applicants. The statement reads as follows: “As we have already informed previously, on 19 April 2014 [R.M.] was arrested as a suspect based on reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime of high treason by espionage... and charged as an accused under Article 274 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It has been established that ( müəyyən edilib ki ) [the first applicant] since 2012 under the disguise of the joint projects carried with [various individuals based in Armenia] in the context of “people’s diplomacy”... recruited [R.M.] for espionage to the detriment of the national security of the Republic of Azerbaijan and together with [the second applicant] organised [R.M.]’s trips to the Republic of Armenia. During some of these trips [the second applicant] together with [R.M.] organised meetings with [D.Sh.], the former minister of national security of the Republic of Armenia, and representatives of other organisations operating under control of secret services. Moreover, [the applicants] in order to involve to secret cooperation certain citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan, whose names cannot be disclosed at present, fulfilled their task by giving instructions to collect information concerning the current situation in socio-political, energy, industrial areas and military equipment supplies ... As a result, they transferred through [R.M.] to the representatives of the secret services of the enemy state photographs of the concrete locations of military bases, airports and other strategic public infrastructures. In addition, [the first applicant]... by acquiring profit in the total amount of 526,943 [Azerbaijani] manats under the grant agreements, which she failed to register with the state authorities, carried out illegal entrepreneurship and avoided payment of taxes on a very large scale to the state budget due in accordance with tax legislation in the total amount of 369,378 manats. At the same time, there is a reasonable suspicion that [the applicants] took possession by abuse of trust by withdrawing 88,468 USD dollars from the [AWPDT]’s bank account...and placing it [to their personal bank accounts]. In order to question [the applicants] concerning the indicated circumstances, it has been decided to bring [the applicants] by force before the investigating authority because they failed to appear on multiple occasions... Having regard to the existence of the reasonable suspicion that [the first applicant] committed criminal offences provided for by Articles 274, 178.3.2, 192.2.2, 213.2.2, 320.1 and 320.2 of the Criminal Code and [the second applicant] under Articles 274 and 178.32 of the same Code, on 30 July 2014 they were charged as accused under the said Articles... [The applicants’] rights to legal aid ... were respected. At present, the criminal investigation and the legal assessment of all actions is under way and the public will be informed of its results.” F.     Statements by public officials and politicians from the ruling party concerning the cases of arrested human-rights activists 72.     Before and after the applicants’ arrest, numerous articles about them and the Association as well as other human-rights defenders and civil ‑ society activists were published in the State media and in media organs allegedly close to the government. In those articles, the applicants together with other activists were described as “spies for foreign interests” and “traitors”. Moreover, a number of politicians from the ruling political party and members of the Government made similar comments about NGO   activists and human-rights defenders in Azerbaijan (for the content of some of these comments see Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 69981/14, §§   36-41, 17 March 2016). G.     The applicants’ contact with their representative before the Court, Mr Bagirov 73.     The applicants’ representative, Mr Bagirov, was a lawyer and a member of the Azerbaijani Bar Association (“the ABA”).   In November 2014 disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him by the ABA and he was suspended from practising pending those proceedings. Following Mr   Bagirov’s suspension from the bar, the domestic authorities stopped allowing him to meet with six of his clients who were being held in detention, including the applicants (for further details see Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 81553/12, §§ 51-57, 4 February 2016, and Rasul Jafarov , cited above, §§ 43-49). The proceedings concerning Mr Bagirov’s suspension to practice law are the subject the Court’s judgment in the case of Bagirov v Azerbaijan , nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, 25 June 2020 (not final). II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 74.     A summary of domestic law, including most of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as of the relevant international reports may be found in Rasul Jafarov (cited above, §§ 50-84). Further information on domestic law relevant to the present case is summarised below: A.     Criminal Code 75.     The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) provided as follows at the time of the events: Article 178.     Fraud “178 § 1.     Fraud, that is to say taking possession of property or acquisition of property rights of others, by abuse of trust or deceit is punishable by a fine in the amount of [AZN 100 to 800], or 360 to 480 hours of community service, or correctional work for a period of up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of up to two years ... ... 178 § 3.     Commission of the same acts: ... 178 § 3 (2).     by inflicting significant damage is punishable by imprisonment for a period of seven to twelve years. ...” Article 274.     High treason “High treason, that is to say a deliberate act committed by a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the detriment of the Republic of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, territorial inviolability, State security or defence capacity: [namely] joining the enemy; espionage; the transfer of State secret to a foreign State; [or] providing assistance to a foreign State, organisation or their representatives by carrying out hostile activity against the Republic of Azerbaijan, is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of twelve to twenty years, or life imprisonment.” Article 320.     Falsification, illegal fabrication and sale of official documents, State awards, seals, stamps and forms or use of falsified documents “320 § 1.     Falsification, illegal fabrication or sale, with the purpose of its use, of a certificate or other official document granting rights or discharging from obligations as well as fabrication and sale with the same purpose of falsified awards of the Republic of Azerbaijan, seals, stamps and forms is punishable by a fine in the amount of [AZN 200 to 500], or correctional work for a period of up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of up to two years. 320 § 2.     Deliberate use of falsified documents specified in Article 320 § 1 of the present Code is punishable by a fine in the amount of [AZN 200 to 500], or 240 to 300 hours of community service, or correctional work for a period of up to one year, or imprisonment for the same period ...” B.     Code of Criminal Procedure 76.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the   CCrP”) provided as follows at the time of the events: Article 177.     Right to carry out coercive investigative measures “177 § 1.     The authority conducting criminal proceedings may carry out coercive investigative measures in order to ensure the normal course of the investigation ... 177 § 2.     If the conduct of an investigative measure is not authorised by the person concerned and the coercive conduct of such a measure requires a court decision, the prosecutor supervising the preliminary investigation, after acceding to a reasoned request by the investigator, applies to the court with a petition. 177 § 3.     The coercive conduct of the below investigative measures requires, as a general rule, a court decision: 177 § 3(1).     conduct of inspection, search, seizure and other investigative measures in a residential place, office or industrial buildings; 177 § 3(2).     search of a person against his or her will, except an arrested or detained person; 177 § 3(3).     attachment of property; 177 § 3(4). seizure of postal, telegraphic and other dispatches; 177 § 3(5).     interception of conversations held by telephone and other means as well as of information sent via telecommunications and other technical means; 177 § 3(6).     obtainment of information about financial transactions, bank accounts, tax payments, private, family life, [as well as information containing] State, commercial or professional secrets; 177 § 3(7).     exhumation; 177 § 3(8).     suspension of execution of suspected operations relating to legalisation of monetary funds and other property obtained by crime and terrorism financing. 177 § 4.     inspection and other investigative measures in a residential place, service or industrial buildings as well as the investigative measures provided by Articles 177 §   3(6) and (7) of this Code may be conducted only on the basis of a court decision. The investigator may forcibly conduct based on his or her own decision and without a court decision the following measures: 177 § 4(1).     inspection, search and seizure in a residential place, office or industrial buildings – on the grounds and under the circumstances provided by Article 243 § 3 of this Code; 177 § 4(2).     search of a person – under the circumstances provided by Article 238 §   2 of this Code; 177 § 4(3).     attachment of property – under the circumstances provided by Article   249 § 5 of this Code; 177 § 4(4).     seizure of postal, telegraphic and other dispatches and interception of conversations held by telephone and other means as well as of information sent via telecommunication and other technical means – under the circumstances requiring collection of evidence without delay in cases of grave and especially grave crimes against a person or State authority; 177 § 4(5).     suspension of execution of suspected operations relating to legalisation of monetary funds and other property obtained by crime, and to terrorism financing – under the urgent circumstances in which there are sufficient grounds to suspect that an operation with monetary funds and other property is aimed at terrorism financing or legalisation [of such property] obtained by crime. 177 § 5.     ... The decision of the investigator shall justify the necessity and the urgency of the conduct of an investigative measure without a court decision ...” Article 178.     Forcible appearance “178 § 1.     Forcible appearance shall entail bringing a person by force to the authority conducting criminal proceedings and forcibly ensuring his or her participation in investigative or other procedures. 178 § 2.     This measure may be applied to a person participating in criminal proceedings and summoned by the authority conducting criminal proceedings only in the following circumstances: 178 § 2(1).     if he or she fails to attend in response to a compulsory summons of the authority conducting criminal proceedings without good reason; 178 § 2(2).     if he or she evades receipt of the summons from the authority conducting criminal proceedings; 178 § 2(3).     if he or she hides from the authority conducting criminal proceedings; 178 § 2(4).     if he or she has no permanent place of residence. 178 § 3.     Children under the age of 14, pregnant women, persons who are seriously ill and victims of a criminal offence bringing a private criminal prosecution may not be forcibly brought before the authority c