CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s924EE689 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.75pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; 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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s53CE0290 { width:176.96pt; display:inline-block } .s2055D3B3 { width:16.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7C039683 { width:226.45pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION       CASE OF MIRGADIROV v. AZERBAIJAN AND TURKEY   (Application no. 62775/14)     JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Respect for private and family life • Respect for correspondence • Lack of legal basis for restrictions on detainee’s right to receive and subscribe to socio-political magazines and newspapers • Unjustified restrictions on meetings, correspondence and telephone conversations with family members and outside world, imposed on detainee charged with espionage (Azerbaijan) Art 5 § 1 • Lawful arrest or detention • Minimum standard of “reasonableness” of suspicion not met • 16 hours’ pre-trial detention without any authorising judicial order (Azerbaijan) Art 5 § 4 • Review of lawfulness of detention • Inadequate review by domestic courts (Azerbaijan) Art 6 § 2 • Presumption of innocence • Unreserved attribution of criminal acts to applicant in investigating authorities’ statements to press (Azerbaijan) Art 18 (+ Art 5) • Restrictions for unauthorised purposes • Unsubstantiated allegations of ulterior purpose behind applicant’s arrest and detention (Azerbaijan)   STRASBOURG   17 September 2020     FINAL   17/12/2020     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Latif Hüseynov,   Saadet Yüksel,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Mattias Guyomar, judges, and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 62775/14) against the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Azerbaijani national, Mr   Rauf Habibula oglu Mirgadirov ( Rauf Həbibula oğlu Mirqədirov – “the applicant”), on 11 September 2014. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr F. Agayev and Mr   E.   Suleymanov, lawyers based in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov. The Turkish Government were represented by their Co-Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that his Convention rights and freedoms had been violated as a result of his arrest and detention in Turkey and his subsequent detention in Azerbaijan following his de facto deportation from Turkey to Azerbaijan. 4.     On 11   January 2016 the Azerbaijani Government were given notice of the complaints concerning: the absence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence (Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention); his unlawful detention from 19 to 20 November 2014 (Article   5 § 1 of the Convention); the lack of justification for his pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention); the domestic courts’ failure to assess his arguments in favour of his release (Article 5 § 4 of the Convention); his lawyers’ absence from the hearing of 20 November 2014 before the Nasimi District Court (Article 5 § 4 of the Convention); the violation of his right to the presumption of innocence (Article 6 §   2 of the Convention); the unlawfulness of the restrictions placed on his rights during the investigation (Article 8 of the Convention); and Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5. On the same date the Turkish Government were given notice of the complaints concerning: the applicant’s alleged unlawful detention on 19 April 2014 and the lack of communication regarding the reasons for his detention (Article 5 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention); the domestic authorities’ failure to bring him before a judge or any other authority authorised by law to decide on his detention (Article 5 §   3 of the Convention); his inability to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (Article 5 § 4 of the Convention); and the alleged violation of his right to freedom of expression as a journalist (Article 10 of the Convention). The remainder of the application 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. 5.     The applicant and the respondent Governments each filed observations. In addition, observations were received from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Human Rights House Foundation and Freedom Now, non-governmental 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 Azerbaijani Government were informed of their right to intervene in respect of the applicant’s complaints of which the Turkish Government had been given notice (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 §§ 1 and 4), but did not avail themselves of that right. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Thalwil, Switzerland. A.     Background information 7.     The applicant is a well-known journalist and political analyst in Azerbaijan. On several occasions he was awarded the prize for journalist of the year in Azerbaijan. By a presidential order of the Republic of Azerbaijan of 21 July 2005, he was awarded the title of “honoured journalist” ( əməkdar jurnalist ). The applicant was also awarded the Gerd Bucerius Free Press of Eastern Europe 2008 prize by the German ZEIT Foundation, for his journalistic activity. 8.     In July 2010 the applicant left Azerbaijan for Turkey, and at the time of the events described below he was based in Ankara and was working as a correspondent for the Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo . He wrote articles which mainly concerned regional foreign policy issues. B.     The applicant’s arrest and deportation from Turkey 9.     By a letter dated 26 December 2013, the Directorate General of Press and Information attached to the Turkish Prime Minister’s Office (“the BYEGM”) informed the Ankara governor’s office that it had been decided to grant the applicant with a press card valid between 1 January and 31   December 2014. In the same letter, the BYEGM also requested the governor’s office to issue the applicant with a residence permit for the duration of his press card in accordance with section 2 of Law   no.   4817 on the Work Permits of Foreign Nationals in force at the material time and the Directorate General of Security’s Circular no. 63 dated 2 April 2004. The applicant was accordingly granted a permit to reside in Turkey until 31   December 2014. 10.     On 8 April 2014 the BYEGM decided to annul the applicant’s press card under section 45 of the former Regulation on Press Cards (see paragraph 69 below). On the same date the BYEGM informed the Ankara Security Directorate of its decision, and requested that it take the necessary action to revoke the applicant’s residence permit. 11.     On 11 April 2014 information regarding the revocation of the applicant’s residence permit was registered in the Turkish police information network. 12.     In the meantime, on 9 April 2014 the applicant had been invited to the offices of the BYEGM in Ankara, where he was verbally informed that his press card had been revoked. The applicant was not provided with any written notification in that respect, nor was he given any explanation as to why his press card had been revoked. 13.     On 11 April 2014 the applicant lodged a petition with the BYEGM, requesting written confirmation of the revocation of his press card, along with the reasons for that revocation. 14.     On 18 April 2014 the Directorate General of Migration Management informed the Ankara Security Directorate of its decision that the applicant should be deported from Turkey in accordance with section 54 of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (Law no. 6458), and instructed the security directorate to take the necessary steps to issue the official deportation decision made by the Ankara governor’s office. 15.     On 18 April 2014 the applicant and his family took a bus to go to Georgia. Shortly after the bus left Ankara, at approximately midnight, the bus was stopped by the police so that identity checks could be carried out. During those checks, it was noted that the applicant’s residence permit had been revoked, and he was taken by the police to the Ankara Security Directorate. 16.     According to a report drawn up shortly after the applicant’s arrest by the police officers who apprehended him, he was informed that he had been arrested as he was no longer legally resident in Turkey following the revocation of his residence permit. The applicant refused to sign that report. 17.     According to an information document prepared by the police at 12.30 a.m. on 19 April 2014, the applicant was notified in writing that a procedure had been initiated for his deportation under section 54 of Law   no.   6458. It is indicated on the document that the applicant refused to sign it. According to the applicant, he was never notified of this procedure. 18.     At the same time, a separate document, which he allegedly also refused to sign, notified the applicant that his presence in Turkey was illegal. The document stated that a deportation decision had been taken in respect of him under section 53 of Law   no.   6458, and that a decision had been taken to detain him under section 57 of the same law. The document also provided an explanation as to the procedures for administrative detention and deportation, as well as information on the legal avenues which one could use to object to the deportation and administrative detention decisions. The applicant was reminded of his right to obtain the assistance of a lawyer, either by his own means or through the legal aid mechanism. According to the applicant, he was never notified of this. 19.     According to the applicant, he asked the Turkish authorities for the assistance of a lawyer and an opportunity to contact his wife, but both his requests were ignored. 20.     On 19 April 2014 the police took the applicant to Ankara Esenboğa Airport. It appears from the applicant’s submissions, and the Government did not contest this, that while at the airport he was informed in writing that a decision had been taken to ban him from entering Turkey for a period of twelve months from that date. The relevant information document was signed by the applicant. He was subsequently placed on a flight to Baku at around midday. He was under police control until the plane departed. 21.     On 21 April 2014 the Ankara governor’s office issued an official decision on the applicant’s deportation and administrative detention. C.     Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant in Azerbaijan and his remand in custody 22.     Following the arrival of the plane at Baku Airport at 4.20 p.m. on 19   April 2014, the applicant was arrested by agents of the Azerbaijani Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”). 23.     At 5.15 p.m. on 19 April 2014 an investigator from the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office issued a record stating that the applicant was being detained as a suspect. The applicant was suspected of having committed the criminal offence of high treason under Article 274 of the Criminal Code. 24.     At 5.20 p.m. on the same day the investigator questioned the applicant as a suspect, in the presence of a State-appointed lawyer. The applicant admitted that on various dates in Turkey, Armenia and Georgia, within the framework of various international conferences, he had met with L.B., the head of an Armenian non-governmental organisation, and D.S., the former head of the Armenian intelligence service, with whom he had discussed the prospect of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh problem and the international situation in the region. However, the applicant denied the accusations of high treason against him, stating that he had not provided the Armenian intelligence services with any information about the military, socio-political or economic situation in the country, or the location of military units. 25.     On 21 April 2014 the applicant was charged under Article 274 (high treason) of the Criminal Code. The relevant part of the decision stated: “... Mirgadirov Rauf Habibula oglu has been charged on the basis of sufficient evidence because, as a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan, to the detriment of the Republic of Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, State security, territorial inviolability and defence capacity, he was recruited for secret collaboration by L.B., an agent of the Armenian intelligence services, and [by] others, with whom he has had close ties since April 2008. Upon their instructions, for profit, [he] collected necessary information about the socio-political, economic, [and] military situation in the country and the location of military units, which constitute State secret[s], so that this information could be used in hostilities against the Republic of Azerbaijan. On several occasions [he] met with agents from the Armenian intelligence services – L.B., A.S., and others, from 1 to 4 April 2008 in the city of Tsakhkadzor in Armenia, on 28   September 2008 in Turkey, [and] on 2 February 2009 in the main room of the Marco Polo restaurant situated at 44 Shota Rustavelli Street in the city of Tbilisi in Georgia. [He] committed high treason by espionage, namely by providing [those individuals] with the information [he had] collected, together with photographs and technical drawings ( sxemlər ), and by deliberately providing them with assistance so that this information could be used against the Republic of Azerbaijan. Through these actions, Mirgadirov Rauf Habibula oglu committed a criminal offence under Article 274 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. ...” 26.     On the same date, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and an application by the prosecutor, the Nasimi District Court ordered that the applicant be detained pending trial for a period of three months. The court referred to the risk of his absconding and obstructing the investigation, and the nature of the criminal act, and justified its decision as follows: “Having examined the application and the material in the case file, and having heard the submissions of the participants in the criminal proceedings, the court considers that the application should be granted and the accused should be remanded in custody. ... ... the court considers that the criminal act under Article 274 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan attributed to the accused, Mirgadirov Rauf Habibula oglu, is classified as a serious crime. There is a likelihood that the accused will abscond from the investigation, fail to comply with the requests of the investigating authorities without good reason, or avoid his criminal prosecution or sentence by other means. For these reasons, the application should be granted and the accused, Mirgadirov Rauf Habibula oglu, should be remanded in custody.” 27.     On 22 April 2014 the applicant appealed against that decision with the assistance of a lawyer whom he had appointed in the meantime. He complained in particular that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence, and that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of detention pending trial. 28.     On 25 April 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the detention order was justified. D.     Restrictions imposed on the applicant’s rights 29.     On 7 May 2014 the investigator in charge of the case issued a decision in respect of the applicant “restricting some of the accused’s rights at [his] place of detention” ( təqsirləndirilən şəxsin həbs yerində bəzi hüquqlarının məhdudlaşdırılması haqqında ). In particular, the investigator decided to restrict the applicant’s rights to use the telephone at his place of detention, to correspond with and meet people other than with his lawyers, and to receive and subscribe to any socio-political newspaper or magazine. The investigator temporarily imposed the above-mentioned restrictions during the preliminary investigation ( ibtidai istintaq dövründə müvəqqəti olaraq ), without providing any specific time-limit. The investigator referred to Articles 17.3 and 19.8 of the Law on the Guarantee of the Rights and Freedoms of Individuals Kept in Detention Facilities of 22   May 2012 (“the Law of 22 May 2012”) as the legal basis for his decision, and justified it by referring to the necessity to protect the confidentiality of the investigation and prevent the disclosure of information about the investigation. 30.     On 14 May 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint against the investigator’s decision of 7 May 2014, claiming that it was unlawful. 31.     Following the death of the applicant’s father on 23 May 2014, on 24   May 2014 the applicant obtained permission to have three days to attend his father’s funeral. During that period he stayed at his parents’ home. 32.     On 27 May 2014 the Sabail District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the investigator’s decision of 7 May 2014 was lawful and justified. The court’s decision also referred to Articles 17.3 and 19.8 of the Law of 22 May 2012 being the legal basis for the imposition of the restrictions. 33.     On 27 May 2014 the applicant appealed against that decision. He argued that the decision of 7 May 2014 was unlawful and that the investigator had failed to justify it. In that connection, he pointed out that on 24 May 2014 he had been allowed to attend his father’s funeral and stay at his parents’ home for a period of three days and that during this period he had not breached any procedural rule or tried to disclose any information relating to the investigation. 34.     On 6 June 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. 35.     No information is available in the case file as regards the date on which the above-mentioned restrictions imposed on the applicant ended. 36.     In the meantime, on 12 May 2014 the applicant had lodged an application with the investigator in charge of the case, asking him to ensure his right to have the benefit of a notary service during his detention. In support of his application, he noted that he intended to give a lawyer a notarised power of attorney so that the lawyer could defend his rights which had been violated in Turkey. 37.     On 19 May 2014 the investigator dismissed the application, finding that delivering a notarised power of attorney to a lawyer which would authorise him to act on the applicant’s behalf in Turkey might lead to evidence being tampered with, given the fact that the applicant had met with agents from the foreign intelligence service in Turkey, the nature of the act attributed to the applicant, and the applicant’s failure to specify the actions which were to be taken on his behalf in Turkey. 38.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint against the investigator’s decision of 19 May 2014. 39.     On 9 June 2014 the Nasimi District Court found the investigator’s decision lawful and dismissed the complaint. 40.     On 17 June 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 9 June 2014. E.     Joint statement of 17 July 2014 by law-enforcement authorities concerning the criminal proceedings against the applicant 41.     On 17 July 2014 a joint statement was made by the Prosecutor General’s Office and the MNS. That joint statement officially informed the public of the progress of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The relevant parts of the joint statement read as follows: “As there are justified suspicions ( əsaslı şübhələr ) within the framework of the criminal investigation carried out by the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office that Mirgadirov Rauf Habibula oglu, a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan, has committed high treason by espionage [namely] deliberately assisting agents of the Armenian intelligence service, on 19 April 2014 he was arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence. On 21 April 2014 [he] was charged with the criminal offence provided for by Article 274 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the Nasimi District Court imposed the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of him. An investigative operational unit composed of agents of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of National Security was set up in respect of the criminal case, and investigative operational measures continue to be taken. A decision was made to give more information to the public as new relevant facts ( yeni xüsusatlar ) appeared during the investigation of the criminal case. ... It has been established ( Müəyyən edilib ki ) that Rauf Mirgadirov collaborated with the ‘Region’ Research Center, [a centre] headed by the above-mentioned L.B. since 2008. ... It has been established ( Müəyyən edilib ki ) that Rauf Mirgadirov had a meeting behind closed doors with the former Minister of National Security of Armenia, D.S., in a conference held in Turkey in 2008 [and] organised by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, with the attendance of Georgian and Armenian participants. Following this meeting, Rauf Mirgadirov informed L.B. via Internet correspondence ( internet yazışmalarında ) that he agreed with D.S.’s thoughts about the prospect of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh problem, and by collecting information about the current situation in socio-political, industrial, energetics, and military technical supplies fields to be used against the Republic of Azerbaijan, [he] transferred ( ötürüb ) a technical drawing ( sxem ) accompanied with photographs describing the exact location of military units, an aerodrome and other strategic State installations which constitute State and military secrets. Moreover, Rauf Mirgadirov transferred ( ötürüb ) information, photographs and technical drawings ( sxemlər ) of the indicated areas and other military installations [indicating] that the Azerbaijani Government had allegedly authorised the USA to use its territory in a prepared military intervention against Iran; that secret military installations would allegedly be constructed in Baku by the USA; and that the construction of the Zig Highway in concrete had been financed so that it could be used as a runway for military planes in future air strikes against Iran. ...” F.     Extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and further developments 42.     On 14 July 2014 the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case lodged an application with the court, asking for the applicant’s pre-trial detention to be extended for a period of four months, submitting that more time was needed to complete the investigation. 43.     On 15 July 2014 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial for a period of four months, namely until 19   November 2014. In justifying the extension of the detention period, the court limited itself to referring to the relevant domestic law and court practice, which authorised a court to extend a period of pre-trial detention for a period of four months. It appears from the court decision that the applicant stated that there was no justification for his continued detention. In that connection, he noted that although he had been authorised to stay at his parents’ home for a period of three days following the death of his father, he had not tried to abscond from the investigation or breached any procedural rule during that period. 44.     On 16 July 2014 the applicant appealed against the decision extending his pre-trial detention, claiming that there was no evidence that he had committed a criminal offence and that the first-instance court had failed to justify the extension of his pre-trial detention. 45.     On 25 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 15 July 2014. The appellate court’s reasoning reiterated that provided by the first-instance court. 46.     On 20 November 2014 one of the applicant’s lawyers went to the detention facility where the applicant was detained. He asked the administration of the detention facility to immediately release the applicant, since the latest detention order extending his pre-trial detention had expired on 19 November 2014. The lawyer also asked the administration of the detention facility if he could meet the applicant. However, the lawyer was told that he could not meet the applicant because the latter was undergoing a medical examination. The lawyer also sent telegrams to the Prosecutor General’s Office, the MNS and the Ombudsman, asking for the applicant’s immediate release. 47.     On the same day, in the afternoon, when the applicant’s lawyer was still in the detention facility waiting for a meeting with the applicant, the applicant was taken to the Nasimi District Court, which ordered the extension of his pre-trial detention for a period of five months, namely until 19 April 2015. The court justified the necessity of this extension on the grounds of the complexity of the case and the fact that a number of investigative steps needed to be carried out, and thus more time was needed to complete the investigation. The applicant’s lawyers were not informed of the hearing and the applicant was represented before the court by a State ‑ appointed lawyer. The transcript of the court hearing indicates that it took place at 4 p.m. on 20 November 2014. 48.     On 22 November 2014 the applicant appealed against that decision, claiming that he had been unlawfully detained from 19 to 20 November 2014 without any court order. He also argued that the first-instance court had failed to justify the extension of his continued detention pending trial, and that the hearing of 20 November 2014 had been held in the absence of his two lawyers, who had not been informed of the date and venue of that hearing. 49.     On 28 November 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 20 November 2014. The appellate court made no mention of the applicant’s specific complaints concerning the lawfulness of his detention from 19 to 20 November 2014 and the first-instance court’s failure to inform his lawyers of the date and venue of the hearing. 50.     In the meantime, on 21 November 2014 the applicant had lodged two separate complaints with the Sabail District Court. In his first complaint, he asked the court to declare the failure of the detention facility’s administration to allow him to meet his lawyer on 20 November 2014 unlawful. In his second complaint, he asked the court to declare his detention from 19 to 20 November 2014 in the absence of any court order unlawful. 51.     On 9 December 2014 the Sabail District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints in two separate decisions, finding them unsubstantiated. 52.     On 18 December 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Sabail District Court’s decisions of 9 December 2014 in two separate decisions. 53.     On 8 April 2015 the Nasimi District Court decided to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 19 May 2015. The court justified the extension on the grounds of the complexity of the case and the fact that a number of investigative steps needed to be carried out, and thus more time was needed to complete the investigation. 54.     On 16 April 2015 the applicant appealed against that decision. He claimed that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence, and that the first-instance court had failed to justify the extension of his pre-trial detention. 55.     On 23 April 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 8 April 2015. 56.     On 6 May 2015 the Nasimi District Court ordered the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of four months, namely until 19   September 2015. The court justified the extension of the applicant’s detention by referring to the necessity to carry out further investigative steps. 57.     On 8 May 2015 the applicant appealed against that decision, reiterating his previous complaints. 58.     On 12 May 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 6 May 2015. 59.     No further extension decisions were included in the case file. 60.     On 28 December 2015 the Baku Court of Serious Crimes found the applicant guilty of high treason and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. 61.     On 17 March 2016 the Baku Court of Appeal changed the sentence and decided to conditionally suspend it for five years. The applicant was released from prison on the same day. II.   RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE IN AZERBAIJAN A.     The Criminal Code 62.     Article 274 of the Criminal Code provides as follows: 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.” B.     The Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) 63.     A detailed description of the relevant provisions of the CCrP concerning pre-trial detention and proceedings concerning the application and review of detention pending trial can be found in the cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no.   37138/06, §§ 83-102, 9 November 2010), and Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 16966/06, §§ 35-49, 9 December 2010). C.     The Law on the Guarantee of the Rights and Freedoms of Individuals Kept in Detention Facilities of 22 May 2012 (“the Law of 22 May 2012”) 64.     The relevant provisions of the Law of 22 May 2012 provide as follows: Article 17.     Correspondence of arrested or detained individuals “17.3.     Except for their correspondence with counsel or other persons providing legal aid, the correspondence that arrested or detained individuals receive and send may be restricted or subjected to censorship: by a justified decision; by the investigating authority, for the purposes of preventing the preparation of crimes [or] ensuring a criminal investigation and the security of individuals; or by the detention facility’s administration, in the event of it being necessary to ensure the regime in the detention facility ...” Article 19.     Arrested or detained individuals’ contact with counsel and other persons “19.8.     The right of an arrested individual to use the telephone, [and] the right of a detained individual to use the telephone [and] meet and have telephone conversations with other persons except counsel, may be restricted for a certain period of time: by a justified decision; by the investigating authority, for the purposes of preventing the preparation of crimes [or] ensuring a criminal investigation and the security of individuals; or by the detention facility’s administration, in the event of it being necessary to ensure the regime in the detention facility ...” Article 23.     Obtaining and keeping literature and writing supplies “23.1.     Arrested individuals can access literature available in the library of the detention facility or obtain writing supplies, literature, newspapers and magazines from the commercial shop [at the detention facility] at their own expense, through the administration of the detention facility. In addition ..., detained individuals can also subscribe to newspapers and magazines at their own expense. 23.2.     Arrested individuals are prohibited from obtaining, keeping or disseminating publications propagandising war, violence, extremism, terror and cruelty, [or] inciting racial, ethnic and social enmity and hostility, as well as those containing pornography. In addition ..., detained individuals are also prohibited from subscribing to such publications.” D.     Decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court 65.     A detailed description of the relevant parts of the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court on the application of the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in the administration of justice, dated 30 March 2006, and on the application of the legislation by the courts during the consideration of applications for the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of an accused, dated 3   November 2009, can be found in Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no.   69981/14, §§ 50-76 and §§ 79-80, 17 March 2016). III.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE IN TURKEY A.     Relevant provisions of Law no. 6216 on the establishment and rules of procedure of the Constitutional Court 66.     The relevant paragraphs of sections 45, 47 and 50 of Law no. 6216 on the establishment and rules of procedure of the Constitutional Court provide as follows: Section 45 “(1)     Anyone claiming that a public authority has violated one of his or her fundamental rights and freedoms as protected by the Constitution and secured under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Protocols thereto that have been ratified by Turkey may apply to the Constitutional Court. (2)     An individual application may be lodged only after the exhaustion of all the administrative and judicial remedies provided for by law in relation to the measure, act or negligence complained of.” Section 47 “(1)     Individual applications may be brought directly or through national courts or representations [diplomatic missions] abroad, in accordance with the provisions of the present law and the Internal Regulations ... ... (4)     If the applicant is represented by a lawyer, a power of attorney must be presented [along with the application form]. (5)     The individual application must be lodged within thirty days of ordinary remedies being exhausted; if no remedy is provided for, the period begins to run from the date on which the person concerned becomes aware of the violation. Those who, for justified reasons, cannot lodge their applications within the specified period may make an application within fifteen days of the impediment [which prevented them from applying at an earlier stage] coming to an end, [and shall also provide] evidence substantiating the impediment. The court will check the validity of the reason presented by the applicant before allowing or dismissing it. (6)     If the documents accompanying the application are incomplete, the registry of the court shall give the applicant or his or her representative, if applicable, a maximum period of fifteen days to remedy the deficiency; [the applicant or his or her representative] shall be informed that the application will be rejected if the deficiency is not remedied within the specified period in the absence of a valid excuse.” Section 50 “(1)     Following the examination on the merits, a decision shall be given as to whether or not there has been a violation of the applicant’s right. If a violation is established, the measures to be taken to put an end to the violation and redress its effects shall be specified in the operative provisions of the decision. No review of the appropriateness of an administrative act may be carried out, and no decision amounting to such an act may be given.” B.     Relevant provisions of the Internal Regulations of the Turkish Constitutional Court ( Anayasa Mahkemesi İçtüzüğü ) 67.     The relevant provisions of the Internal Regulations of the Constitutional Court provide as follows: Individual application form and its annexes Section 59 “(1)     Applications should be lodged in the official language, using the application form provided in the annex to the present regulations or on the court’s website. ... (3)     It is obligatory to add the following documents, or certified copies [of such documents], to the application form: (a)     In applications presented by lawyers or legal representatives, a legal document demonstrating their authority to represent the applicant. ... (4)     If, for any reason, the applicant is not able to submit the documents noted in the [previous] paragraph, he or she should explain those reasons and, where applicable, append the relevant information and documents [in support of his or her explanations] to the application form. The court shall collect the relevant information and documents of its own motion if it accepts the reasons [presented by the applicant], and as it deems necessary.” The applicant’s representation Section 61 “(1)     The application may be lodged by the applicant personally, or by his legal representative or lawyer. With applications lodged by a lawyer or legal representative, it is mandatory to submit an authority form.” Where the application may be lodged Section 63 “(1)   Applications may be lodged ... personally with the [Constitutional] Court, or through other courts or representations abroad.” Preliminary examination of the [application] form and its annexes and deficiencies Section 66 (1)     The Individual Application Bureau shall examine the incoming applications in order to determine whether or not they contain any formal deficiencies. In the event that a deficiency is identified in the application form or its annexes, a period not exceeding fifteen days shall be given to the applicant or, if applicable, to his or her lawyer or legal representative, in order for those [deficiencies] to be remedied. (2)     In the letter sent regarding the deficiencies, the applicant shall be notified that his or her application will be rejected in the event that he or she fails to remedy the deficiencies within the specified time-limit in the absence of a valid excuse. (3)     In circumstances where the application has not been lodged within the legal time ‑ limit [or] does not comply with the formal conditions set out in sections   59 and   60, and [where] identified deficiencies have not been remedied within the specified period, it shall be rejected by the head of the Commission Rapporteurs and the applicant shall be notified of that [decision]. An objection to the decision can be filed with the Commission within seven days of the applicant being notified of the decision. Decisions made by Commissions in this regard shall be final.” C.     Relevant provisions of the Foreigners and International Protection Act (Law no. 6458) 68.     On 11 April 2014 the Foreigners and International Protection Act (Law no. 6458) entered into force. A detailed description of the relevant provisions of Law no. 6458 concerning the procedure for the removal of foreign nationals from Turkey, the administrative detention of foreign nationals pending removal, and the judicial review of removal and detention orders can be found in the case of Sakkal and Fares v. Turkey ((dec.), no.   52902/15, § 24, 7 June 2016). D.     Relevant provisions of the former Regulation on Press Cards (no.   24351) 69.     Section 45 of the Regulation on Press Cards, in force at the material time, read as follows: The return and revocation of [press] cards “Upon his or her assignment expiring, or [the location of] his or her workplace changing, a foreign journalist is obliged to return his or her press card. The cards of those who do not comply with this obligation shall be revoked. The Directorate General may revoke a press card as it deems necessary.” THE LAW I.     COMPLAINTS AGAINST AZERBAIJAN A.     Alleged violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention concerning the whole period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention 70.     Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been arrested and detained in Azerbaijan in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. He further complained that the domestic courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the need for his pre-trial detention. The relevant parts of Article   5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention read as follows: “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.” 1.     Admissibility 71.     The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     The parties’ submissions (i)     The applicant 72.     The applicant maintained that the accusations against him had been groundless and that the prosecuting authorities had not been in possession of any objective evidence or information that could have given rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the criminal offence of high treason.   He further submitted that when the domestic courts had ordered and subsequently extended his detention pending trial, they had failed to examine any evidence, except for the statement which he had given when he had been questioned, in which he had denied the accusations of high treason against him. As regards the video-recordings of the applicant’s meetings with alleged agents of foreign intelligence services, the individuals whom he had met were representatives of Armenian non-governmental organisations, and those video-recordings had not been submitted to the trial court until December 2015. 73.     The applicant further argued that the domestic courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying his pre-trial detention. In particular, he submitted that when the domestic courts had ordered and repeatedly extended his detention, they had merely cited the relevant legal provisions without assessing his particular circumstances. (ii)     The Azerbaijani Government 74.     The Azerbaijani Government submitted that the applicant had been detained on reasonable suspicion of having committed high treason, which constituted a very serious criminal offence. The existence of reasonable suspicion had been corroborated by information and evidence, including video-recordings concerning the applicant’s meetings with representatives of foreign intelligence services and his receipt of money from them. It appeared from the procedural decisions that the prosecuting authorities had been in possession of such information and had submitted it to the domestic courts, indicating in particular some specific dates and venues of those meetings. In that connection, the Azerbaijani Government submitted that there had been sufficiently specific information in the present case to raise a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence. 75.     The Azerbaijani Government further submitted that the domestic courts had provided relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the need for the applicant’s pre-trial detention. (iii)     The third party 76.     Third-party comments submitted by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Human Rights House Foundation and Freedom Now mainly concerned the situation of human rights defenders and journalists in Azerbaijan. Relying on the Court’s case-law, the third parties expressed their concern about the Azerbaijani courts’ widespread practice of imposing pre-trial detention on such persons in the absence of any reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of a criminal offence. (b)     The Court’s assessment 77.     The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law set out in the judgments of Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no.   69981/14, §§ &#