CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 1 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB51C47C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.94pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.26pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3E19E58F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.26pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.94pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s980BA375 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC3C29E73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s3FA6240E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:59.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.9pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s6FC64B9D { width:2.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAA38361A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sC3CF963 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9E3753D2 { width:184.63pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s2EDF6575 { height:39.85pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE2CB92E5 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.84pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s493C1799 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFCAED2FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:12pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF HAJI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 3503/10 and 7 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 October 2020   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Haji and others v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Mārtiņš Mits, President,   Latif Hüseynov,   Mattias Guyomar, judges, and Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 8 September 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in eight applications (applications nos.   3503/10, 25216/10, 35563/11, 68351/11, 22906/12, 27680/13, 38323/14 and   19883/15) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eight Azerbaijani nationals, Mr Zamin Vazir oglu Haji (“the first applicant”), Mr Afgan Sabir oglu Muktarli (“the second applicant”), Mr Hakimeldostu Eldostu oglu Mehdiyev (“the third applicant”), Mr Ilgar Elbayi oglu Nasibov (“the forth applicant”), Mr   Ramid Alasgar oglu Ibrahimov (“the fifth applicant”), Mr   Ehtimad Yunis oglu Budagov (“the sixth applicant”), Mr Idrak Telman oglu Abbasov (“the seventh applicant”) and Mr Tapdig Farhad oglu Guliyev (“the eighth applicant”) (“the applicants”), on various dates (see Appendix). 2.     The applicants were represented by various lawyers (see Appendix). The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov. 3.     The applicants complained that they had been ill-treated and that the domestic authorities had failed to investigate their complaints in this connection. They furher complained that their right to freedom of expression had been violated. The fourth applicant also complained of a breach of his right of access to a court and a violation of his right to respect for his private life. The applicants, save the eighth applicant, also complained of a lack of effective remedies in respect of their ill ‑ treatment complaints. 4.     On 11 July 2017 the Government were given notification of the complaints concerning all applicants under Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. The Government were also given notification of the complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention (application no. 68351/11) and the complaint under Article   13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention (applications nos. 3503/10, 25216/10, 35563/11, 68351/11, 22906/12, 27680/13 and 38323/14). The remainder of applications nos.   3503/10, 35563/11, 68351/11, 22906/12, 27680/13 and   19883/15 was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule   54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix. The first applicant, Mr Haji Alleged attack on the first applicant 6.     The first applicant was a columnist with the Yeni Musavat newspaper. 7.     On 12 December 2008 an article by him criticising A.N., the chairman of the Karabakh Liberation Organisation, a local NGO, was published in Yeni Musavat . 8.     On the same day A.N. contacted the applicant, another correspondent and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper, criticising the applicant and threatening him with battery and insisting that they stop writing about him. 9.     At around 6 p.m., following A.N.’s call, the applicant met the former in front of the office of Yeni Musavat . During the conversation A.N. swore at the applicant and insisted that he stop writing about him. A.N. punched the applicant in the face. Three of A.N.’s colleagues, who were waiting behind nearby trees, joined him. One of them twisted the applicant’s arms, while others, including A.N. beat him. The applicant’s glasses were broken. Owing to the darkness and his poor vision without glasses, the applicant could not recognise the three people who had joined A.N. in the attack. 10.     In response to the applicant’s call for help E.M. and V.Z., correspondents who were at the office of the newspaper at the material time, approached and helped the applicant to escape. Later other people from the office of the newspaper, the head of the Musavat Party, I.G., and the editor ‑ in-chief of Yeni Musavat , R.A., appeared at the scene of incident, in whose presence A.N. continued to threaten the applicant. Remedies used by the first applicant (a)    Criminal investigation 11.     On 12 December 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with Binagadi police office no. 5. He complained that A.N. had beaten and insulted him and that several people had witnessed this. The case was transferred to the Binagadi district prosecutor’s office, which opened a criminal case under Article 163 (Obstruction of the lawful professional activity of journalists) of the Criminal Code on 14 December 2008. 12.     On 30 January 2009 he sent a letter to the prosecutor’s office, seeking information on the progress in the investigation and asking, inter alia, to call witnesses on his behalf. The applicant did not receive a response to his letter. 13.     On an unspecified date the applicant’s representative was informed that by a decision of 2 February 2009 the Binagadi district prosecutor’s office had stayed the applicant’s case on the grounds of the necessity to identify the three persons complicit in beating the applicant together with A.N. It also refused the applicant access to the case file on the grounds that it could not be allowed before the conclusion of the investigation. 14.     On 19 March 2009 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Binagadi district prosecutor’s office of the inaction of the investigator, the decision to stay the criminal case and the investigator’s failure to provide him with a copy of the decision. The applicant did not receive any reply to his complaint. (b)    Complaints with the courts 15.     On 18 May 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Binagadi District Court in accordance with the procedure set out in Articles 449 ‑ 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which concerned appeals against actions and decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities. He complained about the decision to stay the criminal case and of not being provided with a copy of the relevant decision and asked the court to find the prosecuting authorities’ failure to examine his complaint unlawful. 16.     By its decision of 29 May 2009 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unsubstantiated. On 4 June 2009 the applicant appealed against this decision. By its decision of 9 June 2009 the Binagadi District Court declared the appeal inadmissible as time-barred. On 3 July 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision of 9 June 2009. 17.     On 2 December 2009 the applicant brought a civil action before the Binagadi District Court, complaining about the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation. By its decision of 14 December 2009 the court refused to admit his complaint, instructing the applicant to file a criminal complaint instead. The applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that he did not have another remedy to complain of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation. 18.     On 23 February 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 19.     By its decision of 27 May 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Baku Court of Appeal, dismissing the applicant’s cassation appeal of 16 March 2010. (c)    Other complaints to the prosecuting authorities 20.     By his letters and applications of 26 October and 30 December 2009, and 7 and 11 June 2010 sent to the investigator in charge of his case, the applicant requested an update on the progress in his case and asked that an effective investigation be conducted. His petitions remained without reply. 21.     On 7 October 2013 the applicant lodged complaints with the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Binagadi district prosecutor’s office and Binagadi district police office, asking them to inform him of the progress of the investigation, including the relevant actions and decisions taken in this connection, and asked to be provided with access to his criminal case files. He did not receive any reply to his complaints. (d)    Further complaints to the court 22.     On 13 October 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Binagadi District Court. He asked the court to order the prosecuting authority to recognise him as a victim; to sever A.N.’s criminal case from the three co-accused until finding them; and to give the applicant a copy of the decision to stay the criminal case. 23.     By its decision of 19 October 2010 the Binagadi District Court rejected the complaint on account of lack of jurisdiction to hear cases regarding inaction on the part of the prosecuting authorities. On 22   November 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that decision. 24.     On 14 October 2013 the applicant lodged a third complaint with the Binagadi District Court. He mainly reiterated his previous complaints. 25.     By its decision of 24 October 2013 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint with regard to quashing the decision on a stay of the case on the grounds that the applicant had missed the time-limit for appealing against that decision. With regard to the complaint on not being given a copy of the decision to stay the criminal case, it held that the applicant did not have the right to obtain a copy of that decision, since he was not recognised as a victim in the case. On 2 December 2013 the applicant appealed against the decision, complaining of the authorities’ failure to carry out any further investigative measures during the four years the criminal case had been stayed. On 11 December 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the first-instance court’s decision. The second applicant, Mr Mukhtarli Alleged ill-treatment of the second applicant 26.     The second applicant was a journalist and worked as a reporter for the Yeni Musavat newspaper. 27.     On 7 January 2009 the applicant was present at a demonstration held in front of the Israeli Embassy in Baku to report on it. He was wearing a special vest identifying him as a journalist. 28.     When the applicant was taking a photograph of a police officer beating one of the participants in the demonstration during its dispersal by the police, the head of the Yasamal district police office, M.H., ordered the police officers to seize the applicant’s camera. In response the applicant presented his press card to the police officers. According to the applicant, two police officers made him sit on the ground by twisting his arms behind his back and around thirty officers started to beat him in the presence of M.H., punching and kicking him on different parts of his body. The applicant submitted that to seize the camera, one of the police officers had sharply turned back the fingers of his right hand so that the applicant was compelled to give up his camera. The police took away the camera. 29.     The applicant was taken to the police car and released after twenty ‑ five minutes on M.H.’s order, following a request by the editor ‑ in ‑ chief of Yeni Musavat to the police. 30.     His camera was returned to him, but it was damaged. The same day the deputy chairman of Baku city police office sent the camera’s memory card to the office of the newspaper. The photos of the beating of the participant of the demonstration by the police had been removed from it. 31.     The applicant submitted that he had suffered pain in different parts of his body, in particular, the baby finger of his right hand and left knee. Allegedly, owing to the pain he took five days’ leave and after a consultation with a private physician on 21-28   January 2009 he received medical treatment at home. No documentation has been submitted in this connection. Remedies used by the second applicant 32.     On 9 January 2009 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Baku city police office, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, requesting the opening of a criminal case into his beating by the police officers. He also asked them, inter alia , to arrange a forensic medical report to confirm the injuries sustained by him, to conduct a confrontation to identify the police officers who had beaten him, and to examine the relevant security-camera recordings of the incident in question. 33.     On an unspecified date the Ministry of Internal Affairs launched an internal investigation. 34.     On 17 January 2009 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination, including an X-ray examination of his right hand and left leg. 35.     On 26 January 2009 he asked the Ministry of Internal Affairs to inform him of the outcome of the X-ray examination. The Ministry replied that it had already sent two letters informing him of the outcome of the investigation into his case. Following the applicant’s reply that he had never received the mentioned letters, on 11 March 2009 he was informed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs that the internal investigation into his case had found his complaints unsubstantiated and that a forensic expert had not identified any injuries, only “the post-traumatic area of deformation caused by an old fracture of a bone in his right hand that had already healed” . 36.     By his letters of 26 March and 27 June 2009 the applicant asked the Ministry of Internal Affairs to provide him with copies of the decision adopted with regard to his case and the forensic report. He has not received a response to his letters. 37.     On 27 June 2009 he complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the failure to investigate his case and to provide him with the documents in that connection, and asked to call as witnesses journalists of Yeni Musavat who had observed his physical condition immediately after the attack. 38.     On 14 August 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sabail District Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs for its failure to investigate his case. By a decision of 24 August 2009 the court rejected the complaint on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction to hear such complaints. 39.     On 25 September 2009 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Baku Court of Appeal, complaining that the first-instance court had unlawfully refused to hear his case. 40.     On 15 October 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint, upholding the decision of the first-instance court. 41.     On not receiving a response to his previous complaint of 10   February 2009 sent to the Yasamal district prosecutor’s office regarding instituting the investigation into his case, on 22 October 2009 the applicant lodged another criminal complaint on 22 October 2009, requesting that the Yasamal district prosecutor’s office update him on the progress of the investigation into his case. 42 .     On an unspecified date the applicant gave an interview, reiterating his complaints. By a decision of 19 January 2010 the Yasamal district prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal case. The decision referred to the testimony of members of the riot-police regiment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Officers R.G., V.H., E.B., and Y.G., who had denied ill ‑ treating the applicant and seizing his camera, and the head of the Yasamal district police office, M.H. 43.     On 27 May 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint against this decision with the Yasamal District Court. He complained that the prosecuting authority had, inter alia , refused to obtain the video recordings and forensic evidence and to examine witnesses. 44.     By its decision of 18 June 2010 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unsubstantiated. 45.     On 29 July 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 21 June 2010. The third applicant, Mr Mehdiyev Alleged attack on the third applicant 46.     The third applicant was a journalist and worked as a regional reporter for the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety, a non ‑ governmental organisation specialising in the protection of journalists’ rights, in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (“the NAR”). 47.     On 31 January 2009 the applicant attended a meeting held by opposition political parties in the regional office of the political party Umid. According to the applicant, during the meeting I.I., a person whom the applicant did not know, attacked the applicant shouting, “Why did you swear at me” and punched him in the face and later threw an ashtray he found on the table at the applicant. Allegedly, it hit the applicant’s cheekbone under the left eye and caused bleeding. The applicant submitted that he had been taken to hospital, where the wound had been stitched up. However, he was allegedly not provided with a medical record of this treatment. According to the applicant, in the aftermath of this he had serious headaches and hearing problems in his left ear. He received medical treatment for this, but was not able to obtain a medical certificate for this treatment, allegedly due to the doctor’s fear of getting involved in his case. 48.     The applicant submitted that on the same day the police had taken statements from the applicant, several witnesses and I.I. about the incident. Remedies used by the third applicant (a)    Criminal proceedings 49.     On 6 February 2009 the applicant met the head of the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, H.A., and asked for information on the investigation into his case; he was not provided with the requested information. There the investigator interviewed the applicant for a second time. 50 .     On 2 March 2009 the applicant lodged complaints with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, the prosecutor’s office of the NAR and the Nakchivan city prosecutor’s office, complaining of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his case. He also asked them to order a forensic medical examination to document his injuries. The applicant did not receive any reply to his complaints. 51.     On 12 June 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nakchivan City District Court concerning the lack of an effective investigation in his case and the lack of information in this connection. On 22 June 2009 the court dismissed the complaint as unsubstantiated and instructed the applicant to lodge a criminal complaint with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR. 52.     On 13 July 2009 the applicant appealed against this decision, complaining that there was no need for him to lodge a separate complaint since the prosecuting authorities, including the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, had already been informed of his case and had even interviewed him. 53.     By a letter of 15 October 2009 sent to the Nakchivan City Court (Judge H.M.) and the Supreme Court of the NAR, the applicant asked for information on the progress on his appeal. 54.     On 26 October 2009 Judge H.M. informed the applicant that the court had not received his appeal. 55.     On 2 November 2009 the applicant resubmitted his appeal, enclosing his previous appeal that he had sent by registered post and the delivery slip confirming the receipt of his appeal of 13 July 2009 by Judge H.M. 56.     By a letter dated 12 November 2009 H.M. informed the applicant that his appeal had been found inadmissible for being lodged outside of the statutory time-limit. On 18 November 2009 the applicant informed the judge that he had lodged the appeal within the statutory time-limit, as confirmed by an enclosed delivery slip. The judge responded by a letter of 1   December 2009 that the applicant had failed to comply with the statutory time-limit, without addressing the delivery slip submitted by the applicant. 57.     By his letter of 28 November 2016 the applicant asked H.M. to provide him with a copy of the decision adopted with regard to his appeal. The judge responded that he had already updated the applicant on the state of his appeal by the previous letters. 58.     On 18 November 2009 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court of the NAR and the Judicial-Legal Council ( Məhkəmə-Hüquq Şurası ) about H.M.’s failure to examine his complaint and asked that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against him. He did not receive any response to his complaints. (b)    Civil proceedings 59.     On 12 November 2009 the applicant brought a civil action before the Nakchivan City Court, complaining of the failure of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, the Nakchivan city prosecutor’s office and Nakchivan city police office to investigate his case. On 28 January 2010 he sent a letter to the judge in charge of his complaint, asking the latter to inform him of any progress in his civil action. He did not receive any response to his complaints. (c)    Other complaints 60.     On 17 July 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, the investigator of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, H.A., Nakchivan city police office, and the Nakchivan city prosecutor’s office, reiterating his previous complaints. He has not received any response to these complaints, nor to his subsequent letter of 12   October 2009 requesting an update on his case. 61.     On 3 February 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nakchivan City Court regarding the failure of the prosecuting authorities to investigate his case. 62.     By letter of 18 February 2010 a judge of the Nakchivan City Court informed the applicant of the rejection of his complaint, on account of a hearing on a similar complaint having been held in the past. The applicant appealed, complaining that at the material time he had received a judge’s letter in response to his complaint, not a court decision. The applicant has not received any response to his appeal. 63.     On 22 February 2010 the applicant lodged a similar complaint with the Nakchivan City Court regarding the prosecuting authorities’ refusal to hear his criminal complaint. By a letter of 10 March 2010 the judge informed the applicant that the investigator H.A. had informed the court that the applicant had never lodged a criminal complaint with the investigator’s office. On 29 March 2010 the applicant informed the judge that he had sent all the relevant documents to the prosecuting authorities by registered post and had delivery slips confirming receipt of his complaints by the investigator as well, and asked the judge to hold a hearing and to adopt the relevant decision in his case, instead of communicating with him by letter. 64.     On 15 March 2010 the applicant lodged complaints with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the prosecutor’s office of the NAR, reiterating his complaints regarding the prosecuting authorities’ failure to investigate his case. He received a response only from the prosecutor’s office of the NAR, informing him by a letter of April 2010 that the applicant’s particular case did not fall within their jurisdiction. 65.     On 6 July 2010 the applicant resubmitted his appeal against the Nakchivan City Court’s decision of 22 June 2009 and asked to have the statutory time-limit for an appeal renewed. He received no response. The fourth applicant, Mr Nasibov Background 66.     The fourth applicant was a journalist based in Nakchivan and worked as a reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. 67.     He was also a human-rights defender and operated an NGO named Resource Centre for Democracy and Development of NGOs. Alleged attack on the fourth applicant 68.     On 14 December 2009 the applicant together with his colleague V.E. was conducting a survey and disseminating awareness-raising fliers on the topic of corruption to students of Nakchivan State University as part of the grant project he was running. The deputy head of Nakchivan State University, M.R., the representative of the Yeni Azerbaijan political party (the ruling party) in the university, E.J., and several other university professors approached them, punched them on different parts of their bodies and told them to leave the area. They called the applicant a “traitor” and a “foreign agent”. In the presence of the applicant, E.J. called for the students of the university to assault the applicant. 69.     At 12.25 p.m. on the same day, the applicant and V.E. ran into M.R., E.J. and up to forty students of the sports faculty of Nakchivan State University, who were waiting for them in the vicinity of the applicant’s house. The applicant called the police to inform them about the possible incident. While the applicant was talking to police, on the orders of M.R. and E.J., the students started to beat the applicant in an attack which lasted fifteen minutes. The applicant’s mobile phone was left on so that the police officer on the telephone line was able to hear the attack. At around 1   p.m. a plain-clothes police officer arrived at the scene of incident. Remedies used by the fourth applicant in respect of an alleged attack against him 70.     On 15 December 2009 the applicant approached the Nakchivan city police office, demanding the institution of a criminal investigation, but the police office refused to accept his complaint and instructed him to lodge a criminal complaint with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR. 71.     On 16 December 2009 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR and the prosecutor’s office of the NAR. 72 .     On 16 December 2009 the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR questioned the applicant. The applicant stated that he had sustained injuries and asked that a forensic medical examination be arranged. His request was not granted. 73.     On 24 December 2009 he underwent a medical examination by a private doctor, who issued a certificate which stated that he had sustained contusion of the soft tissues of the left part of his chest. 74.     On 9 January 2010 he resubmitted the same complaint to the investigator of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, requesting that he open a criminal case and order a forensic medical examination of the applicant. 75.     By his letter of 21 May 2010 he asked the investigator to inform him of the progress in the investigation, in particular about any decision taken in his case. He did not receive any response. 76.     On 10 June 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nakchivan City Court against the inaction of the investigator in his case. 77.     By a letter of 1 July 2010 a judge of the Nakchivan City Court, H.M., rejected the applicant’s complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction to examine the complaint. 78.     On 11 July 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal with an appellate court, complaining that his case had been rejected on the basis of the judge’s letter, not by a court decision. He has not received a response from the appellate court. 79.     On 27 July 2010 the applicant sent a letter to Judge H.M. of the Nakchivan City Court, and the Supreme Court of the NAR, complaining that he had not received any response with regard to his appeal. The applicant has not received a response to his letter. 80.     By his complaints of 5 and 8 October 2010 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court of the NAR and the Judicial-Legal Council of the failure of Judge H.M. to examine his case and asked that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against the judge. He has not received a response to his complaint. Article about the fourth applicant and the remedies used by him 81.     On 18 December 2009 the newspaper Sherg Gapisi , an official organ of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Parliament of the NAR, published a statement of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR about the fourth applicant. The applicant was called, inter alia , “a traitor ..., instigating tension (instability)” in Nakchivan, “who was ready to sell his soul in exchange for the cash of his owners” and that he had “told the students he had interviewed that he had been making money by betraying his country” and that his complaints of attacks on him on 15   December 2009 were not true. 82.     On 21 May 2010 the applicant brought a civil action in the Nakchivan District Court against Sherg Gapisi and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR for defamation. By a decision of 4 July 2010 the court rejected the complaint on the grounds that the applicant had not mentioned the respondents’ postal addresses. On 10 June 2010 the applicant resubmitted the complaint, adding the addresses. 83.     On 24 June 2010 the court rejected the case on the grounds of non ‑ payment of the court fee. On 2 July the applicant resubmitted the complaint, enclosing a receipt confirming the court fee had been paid. 84.     By his letter of 27 July 2010 the applicant applied to a judge of the Nakchivan City Court for an update on his appeal. He did not receive any response to his request. 85.     By his complaints of 5 and 8 October 2010 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court of the NAR and the Judicial-Legal Council of the unlawfulness of the actions of Judge H.M. He has not received any response to his complaint. The fifth applicant, Mr Ibrahimov Alleged attack on the fifth applicant 86.     The fifth applicant was a journalist. He worked for the Bizim yol newspaper. 87.     On 19 April 2011 more than hundred protesters held a demonstration in respect of property claims in front of the Presidential Office in Baku. The police dispersed the demonstration by recourse to force against the participants. 88.     While the fifth applicant was recording the dispersal of the demonstration, an officer of the Special State Security Service, a State body under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, seized his camera and voice ‑ recording equipment and did not return it, although the applicant informed him that he was a journalist covering the event. The fifth applicant continued to record the event with his mobile phone, when one of the police officers hit the applicant’s leg with his knee. The fifth applicant fell to the ground. He escaped the attempted assault by the police officers with the help of the participants in the demonstration. One of the police officers shouted at him, “You are [journalists] not men, otherwise we would treat you properly”. The fifth applicant approached the police officers present at the scene of the incident to complain in this connection. In response the police officers made the police officer who had attacked the applicant leave the scene of the incident. 89.     Following the seizure of his camera, the fifth applicant continued to record the event with his mobile phone. An officer of the Special State Security Service then seized the fifth applicant’s mobile phone as well. Remedies used by the fifth applicant 90.     On 21 April 2011 the fifth applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Sabail district police office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Prosecutor General’s Office, complaining under Articles 163 (Obstruction of the lawful professional activity of journalists) and 221 (Hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. He asked that the persons who had beaten him and seized his equipment to prevent him from covering the event as a journalist be identified. 91.     On 4 July 2011 he applied to the Sabail district police office, enquiring about progress in his case and requested access to security-camera recordings from the scene of the incident and that witnesses present at the scene of the incident be called for interview. He has not received any response to his request. 92.     On 29 July 2011 the fifth applicant brought a civil action in the Baku Economic-Administrative Court No. 1, requesting that the court impose an obligation on Sabail district police office no. 9 to conduct an effective investigation into his case. On 25 August 2011 the court found his action inadmissible on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction to review the complaint against the inaction of the prosecuting authorities in the criminal proceedings. 93.     On 29 July 2011 the fifth applicant lodged a complaint with the Sabail District Court against the failure of Sabail district police office to investigate his case. 94.     On 3 August 2011 the Sabail District Court found the complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the judicial review of the prosecuting authority’s inaction was not allowed. 95.     On 8 September 2011 the fifth applicant appealed against the Sabail District Court’s decision. On 16 September 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the fifth applicant’s appeal, upholding the first-instance court’s decision. 96.     On 30 September 2011 he requested an update on the progress of the investigation into his case from Sabail district police office, but received no response. 97.     On 19 October 2011 he lodged a complaint with the head of the Internal Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, M.H. By a letter of 22 October 2011 he was informed that his complaint had been sent to Baku police office for further investigation. 98.     By letter of 15 November 2011 Baku police office informed the fifth applicant that Sabail district police office no. 9 had adopted a decision refusing to open a criminal case and that the investigator of that police office, F.M., who had been in charge of the fifth applicant’s case, had been given a warning for the failure to investigate the case at issue, and the head of Sabail district police office had been instructed to conduct a fresh inquiry into the case. 99.     In October 2011 the fifth applicant was summoned to the Sabail district police office, where he made a statement. 100.     By his letters of 12 December 2011 and 10 January 2012, the fifth applicant requested that Baku city police office inform him of updates in the investigation into his case. He did not receive any response to his requests. The sixth applicant, Mr Budagov Alleged attack on the sixth applicant 101.     The sixth applicant was a journalist and worked as a photographer for Turan Information Agency in Baku. 102.     On 2 April 2012 he was taking photographs, documenting the massive demolition of the buildings on S. Badalbayli Street in Baku and the residents’ forced eviction and the ensuing confrontation in this connection. The sixth applicant wore a journalist’s vest and had a press card. 103.     The sixth applicant submitted that when he had been taking a photograph of A.I., a resident evicted from her building, the deputy head of the administration of Baku City Executive Authority, Z.I., who was supervising the demolition and forced evictions, told the applicant to stop taking photos. According to the applicant, when he refused, Z.I. swore at him and punched him in the face and abdomen multiple times. The residents present there helped the applicant to escape. Allegedly, Z.I. ordered the people in plain clothes surrounding him to beat the applicant. The sixth applicant further submitted that they had attacked him, swore at him, and tried to take his camera from him. They pushed him away and one of them broke his camera. When Z.I. went to hit the applicant again, one of the residents, A.I., who had been trying to separate them, was hit instead. Allegedly, the applicant suffered physical and psychological damage. According to him, he had complained to the police officers present at the scene of the incident o f having been beaten and having had his camera broken and was instructed to apply to the relevant law-enforcement authorities. Remedies used by the sixth applicant 104.     On 4 April 2012 the sixth applicant complained to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor General’s Office, Nasimi district police office, and Baku City Executive Authority, against unlawful actions of the employees of Baku City Executive Authority and that this was in breach of his freedom of expression as well. 105.     On 19 April 2012 he lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, requesting that a criminal case be opened. 106.     On an unspecified date Nasimi district police office launched a criminal inquiry into the case of the sixth applicant and of several residents who had also raised similar complaints. The applicant gave a statement, complaining that he had been attacked on account of his journalistic activity, that he had sustained injuries, but had not sought medical treatment, and refused to undergo a forensic medical examination owing to the disappearance of the marks of his injuries twenty-two days after the attack. He also submitted a video recording, claiming that it confirmed that the attack on him had taken place, and asked to call N.F. and D.B., journalists present at the scene of the incident at the material time, as witnesses. 107.     One of the residents subject to eviction, A.I., stated that when the applicant had been taking a photograph of her, Z.I. had tried to take the applicant’s camera away, pushing and kicking him. When she had intervened to stop the altercation, Z.I. had instead punched her in the face and had later kicked her in the abdomen. 108.     Another resident, R.A., stated that he had seen Z.I. arguing with the applicant and seizing his collar, that people around had helped the applicant to escape and that the police present there had not addressed his complaints in this connection. 109.     Z.I. denied any ill-treatment of the applicant and causing any damage to the applicant’s camera. F.M., E.M. and P.R., questioned as witnesses, who had been helping with the demolition in question, also denied the applicant’s allegations without mentioning their status or position. 110.     J.B., an officer of Nasimi district police office, was questioned as a witness and stated that owing to the conflict which had arisen in the course of the eviction and demolition, he, and two other police officers, A.R., and F.A., had been present in the area in question. However, they had neither witnessed the attack on the applicant by Z.I., nor any act causing damage to the applicant’s camera. They added that the applicant had not approached them at the material time. 111.     On 27 April 2012 Nasimi district police office refused to open a criminal case. The decision stated that the applicant had not sustained injuries and the witnesses’ statements had not confirmed the attack, that the video recording submitted by the applicant indicated there had been an altercation, rather than an attack on the applicant, and that by refusing to submit his camera to the prosecuting authority the applicant had prevented the examination of his claims in respect of that device. 112.     On 15 August 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nasimi District Court against the refusal to open a criminal case, mentioning that the investigator had not questioned witnesses on his behalf, nor conducted a confrontation, nor examined his broken camera, and asked the court to question D.N. and N.F. as witnesses and to send his camera for an expert examination. 113.     On 3 September 2012 the Nasimi District Court dismissed his complaint as unsubstantiated. 114.     By decision of 14 September 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of 5 September 2012 lodged by the applicant. The seventh applicant, Mr Abbasov Background 115.     The seventh applicant was a journalist and worked as a reporter for the Ayna-Zerkalo newspaper. 116.     On 18 April 2012 he was recording the protest of the residents of the Sulutepe area of the Binagadi district against their eviction and the demolition of their houses on land claimed by the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (“SOCAR”), a State-owned oil company. The