CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 22 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s945796C9 { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s3756EA5F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sF5DC77FC { margin-left:2.81pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s565315DD { font-family:Arial; color:#949494 } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5E1F8B46 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCCF7C909 { width:19.85pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s3B2F4E5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .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 } .s53CE0290 { width:176.96pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF AVAZ ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14)     JUDGMENT Art 5 § 3 • Reasonableness of pre-trial detention • Authorities’ failure to give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the need for the journalist’s pre-trial detention Art 6 § 2 • Presumption of innocence • Statement made in the Court of Appeal’s decision amounting to a declaration of the applicant’s guilt in the absence of a final conviction Art 8 • Private life and home • Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Searches and seizures carried out in the applicant’s home, workplace and vehicle not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued Art 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 (d) • Absence of an opportunity for the applicant to examine or have examined witnesses at any stage of the proceedings rendering the trial as a whole unfair   STRASBOURG 22 April 2021 FINAL   22/07/2021     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O'Leary, President,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Lado Chanturia,   Arnfinn Bårdsen,   Mattias Guyomar, judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   37816/12 and 25260/14) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Avaz Tapdig oglu Zeynalov ( Əvəz Tapdıq oğlu Zeynalov - “the applicant”), on 3 May 2012 and 11 March 2014, respectively; the decision to give notice to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the alleged lack of justification for the applicant’s pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3), the alleged violation of his right to the presumption of innocence as a result of the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 8 December 2011 (Article 6 § 2), the alleged violation of the applicant’s rights as a result of the searches and seizures carried out in his home, workplace and vehicle and the interference with his telephone calls and messages (Articles 8 and 10), the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him (Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)) and the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression as a result of his criminal conviction (Article 10) and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 30 March 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present two applications concern the pre-trial detention and subsequent criminal conviction of the applicant who alleges that his rights protected under Articles 5 § 3, 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d), 6 § 2, 8 and 10 of the Convention were breached by the domestic authorities. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Baku. He was represented by Mr E. Sadigov and Mr R. Hajili, lawyers based in Azerbaijan and France, respectively. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov. institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant and his REMAND IN CUSTODY 4.     The applicant was a journalist, and the founder and editor-in-chief of the Xural newspaper. 5.     On 20 October 2011 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Articles 311.3.3 (receiving a large amount as a bribe) and 311.3.4 (receiving a bribe, committed with the use of a threat) following a complaint submitted to the prosecuting authorities by G.A., a member of the Parliament at that time, who claimed that the applicant had requested from her 10,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (approximatively 9,300 euros (EUR) at the material time) in return for not publishing in his newspaper compromising information that he had about her. A CD-ROM containing an audio recording of conversations between two persons was enclosed to G.A.’s complaint. 6.     On 28 October 2011 the applicant was arrested and charged under the above provisions. 7.     On the same day the investigator questioned the applicant who denied the accusations. He stated that he had normal relations with G.A. who had been involved in a dispute since June 2011 with the former editor-in-chief (N.A.) of the Mərkəz newspaper, founded by G.A. As he also had a good working relation with N.A., both of them, G.A. and N.A. had asked for his help for the normalisation of their relations, but their dispute had continued. In July 2011 N.A. had left Azerbaijan for Turkey and had sent to the applicant an article about her conflict with G.A. who had learnt about it. The article in question had been about the relations between G.A. and N.A. and the origin of their conflict and had not contained any information which might cause damage to the reputation of G.A. However, the latter, having learned about the article, had repeatedly asked the applicant not to publish it or any other article about her. Moreover, when G.A. had come to his office, she had tried to speak to him about financial aid she could offer, but he had not allowed her to do so. He had never demanded a bribe from G.A. and the article in question had not been published in the newspaper. 8.     On 28 October 2011 the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of three months, by citing the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released he would abscond and obstruct the investigation by influencing participants in the criminal proceedings, or hiding or falsifying the material that was decisive for the investigation. 9.     On 31 October 2011 the applicant appealed, arguing that there was no justification for his detention. 10.     On 3 November 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, reiterating the reasons given by the lower court. Interference with the applicant’s telephone calls and messages 11.     Following a request submitted by the prosecutor in charge of the case, on 26 October 2011 the Nasimi District Court authorised, relying on Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”), the prosecuting authorities to obtain from two mobile telephone operators the list of incoming and outgoing telephone calls relating to three mobile telephone numbers used by the applicant covering the period between 1   January and 20 October 2011, as well as the content of SMS sent and received during the period in question by those mobile telephone numbers. The court relied in particular on the prosecutor’s request referring to G.A.’s complaint (see paragraph 5 above) and stating that there was a likelihood that the applicant had obtained or demanded similar bribes from others. 12.     On 31 October 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, claiming a breach of his rights protected by Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. 13.     On 10 November 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Searches AND SEIZURES carrieD out in the applicant’s home, workplace and VEHICLE 14.     Following a request submitted by the prosecutor in charge of the case, on 28 October 2011 the Nasimi District Court authorised, relying on Articles 177, 242 and 243 of the CCrP, a search and seizure operation at the applicant’s places of residence and work, without specifying the list of items or documents to be searched for or seized. The court decision referred to the prosecutor’s request according to which there was information that the applicant had hidden material evidence concerning bribes and there was a likelihood that large amounts of money and relevant false documents were kept there. 15.     On the same day a search was carried out at the applicant’s home. According to the record, it was conducted in the presence of a family member and two attesting witnesses, but in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer. The investigator seized various documents and items, including video cassettes, audio and video discs, diaries and different books and documents, as well as professional cards and a diary of the applicant’s wife. 16.     On 28 October 2011 the investigator also conducted a search at the office of the Xural newspaper in the presence of the director and deputy editor-in-chief and two attesting witnesses, but in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer. The investigator seized numerous documents and items contained in nine different boxes and a computer processor which were in the applicant’s personal office and in other offices of the newspaper. 17.     On 29 and 30 October 2011 the investigator drew up two records on inspection of boxes seized during the search ( axtarış zamanı götürülmüş qutulara baxış keçirilməsi haqqında ), conducted in the presence of the director of the Xural newspaper. The seized boxes contained a number of documents such as interviews, articles, letters, manuscripts, administrative documents, diaries, discs, photographs and so on. 18.     On 29 October 2011 the investigator also carried out an inspection of a vehicle in the applicant’s use, which was parked at the courtyard of the office of the Xural newspaper, and seized various documents and items belonging to the applicant. The investigator drew up an inspection record ( baxış keçirilməsi haqqında protokol ) and referred to the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 28 October 2011 as a legal basis for the inspection. 19.     On 31 October 2011 the applicant appealed against the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 28 October 2011 (see paragraph 14 above), claiming that the searches and seizures carried out at his places of residence and work, as well as in the vehicle in his use, had been unlawful and unjustified. He claimed that his rights protected under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention had been breached since the court decision authorising the searches and seizures had been very broad, without specifying the items to be searched for and seized, and had not protected his journalistic sources. The applicant also asked the court to provide him with a copy of the court order which authorised the search and seizure in the vehicle in his use. 20.     By a decision of 3 November 2011, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the first-instance court’s decision had been lawful and justified. The appellate court did not address the applicant’s particular complaints. Extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention 21.     On 30 November 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the Nasimi District Court, asking to be released on bail or put under house arrest. 22.     It appears from the documents in the case file that on 1 December 2011 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant’s application. Despite the Court’s explicit request to the parties to submit copies of all documents relating to the domestic proceedings, they failed to provide a copy of that decision. 23.     On 2 December 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision. 24.     On 8 December 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal, whose decision was not amenable to appeal, upheld the first ‑ instance court’s decision. The relevant parts of the text of the decision read as follows: “It appears from the case file that the accused Zeynalov Avaz Tapdig oglu was charged with the criminal offences under Articles 311.3.3 and 311.3.4 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In accordance with Article 155.3.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the preventive measure of remand in custody or an alternative preventive measure may be imposed on a person who is charged with a criminal offence which carries a punishment of more than two years’ imprisonment. As it appears, the accused Zeynalov Avaz Tapdig oglu is a person who is charged with criminal offences which carry a punishment of more than three years’ imprisonment. The panel of the court considers that the first-instance court, for the purpose of ensuring the normal course of the investigation, did not grant on a justified basis the application [of the accused] asking to be released on bail or put under house arrest rather than being held in pre-trial detention, having regard to the degree of public dangerousness of the criminal offence committed by Zeynalov Avaz Tapdig oglu, its nature, the likelihood that he would abscond, hide from the investigation and the court, influence the normal course of the investigation, as well as the fact that the investigation was pending. As the arguments put forward in the appeal do not constitute grounds for quashing   the decision, the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 1 December 2011 no.   4(006)-661/11 refusing to replace the preventive measure of remand in custody applied in respect of Zeynalov Avaz Tapdig oglu by the preventive measures of release on bail or house arrest, should remain unchanged and the appeal should not be allowed. In view of the above considerations and having regard to Articles 452 and 453 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the panel of the court Decided: The Nasimi District Court’s decision of 1 December 2011 no. 4(006)-661/11 should remain unchanged. The appeal lodged by Sadigov Elchin Ali oglu, the counsel for the accused Zeynalov Avaz Tapdig oglu, should not be allowed. The decision is final, not amenable to appeal and protest.” 25.     Between 17 January and 20 April 2012 the relevant district and appellate courts, in decisions extending the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention or rulings on his appeals, examined three times the justification for the applicant’s continued detention and maintained it essentially referring to the gravity of the charges, the fact that the investigation was still pending and that the initial grounds for the detention were still valid. Despite the Court’s request, the parties have not submitted copies of all documents in relation to the above proceedings. criminal investigation and the applicant’s trial 26.     Following the applicant’s arrest, on various dates three people (S.T., A.M. and A.H.) informed the prosecuting authorities that the applicant had previously asked and obtained amounts of money from them in exchange of not publishing articles. 27.     On 4 November 2011 the investigator questioned the applicant who denied the accusations against him, reiterating that he had never requested money for not publishing an article. 28.     Referring to the above additional complaints, on 4 November 2011 the investigator charged the applicant with the criminal offence under Article 311.3.2 of the Criminal Code (receiving a bribe, repeatedly committed). 29.     On 8 December 2011 the investigator ordered a phonoscopic and linguistic expert examination ( məhkəmə-fonoskopik və linqivistik ekspertiza ) of the audio recording of the conversations between a man and a woman contained in a CD-ROM submitted by G.A. (see paragraph 5 above). In particular, the investigator asked the expert to establish the content of the conversations and to identify whether the voices of the persons in question corresponded to the applicant and G.A. 30.     On 9 January 2012 the expert issued a report, finding that the audio recording corresponded to various conversations between the applicant and G.A. and that there was no trace of editing of the audio recording. The expert report also established the content of the conversations between the applicant and G.A. According to the transcript of the conversations, G.A., who insistently asked the applicant not to publish an interview with N.A. already announced in the newspaper, proposed to provide the applicant with financial assistance for publication costs of his newspaper for a period of one year and asked him to indicate an amount of money in that connection. In reply, the applicant said that he would not indicate any amount since G.A. herself was from the media sector. In the subsequent part of the conversation, G.A. asked him whether she could give him AZN 10,000 and, in reply, the applicant stated: “I do not know, do as you want”. 31.     On 14 March 2012 the investigator drew up a record examining SMS messages exchanged between the applicant and G.A. It appears from the record that while on 6, 11, 12 and 13 August 2011 G.A. sent to the applicant numerous messages in which she insistently asked him to answer her telephone calls, not to publish an article about her and described her difficult financial situation, the applicant answered only twice to her messages indicating the time of their incoming meetings. 32.     On 13 April 2012 the investigator made a decision on assessment of evidence ( sübutların qiymətləndirilməsi ). By that decision, relying on the results of a tax inspection concerning the activities of the Xural newspaper covering the period between 1 January 2008 and 20 October 2011 and the submissions from the enforcement officers from the Ministry of Justice, the investigator additionally charged the applicant with new criminal offences under Articles 306.2 (non-enforcement of a court judgment, committed by an official) and 213.1 (tax evasion of significant amounts) of the Criminal Code. The investigator also decided not to institute criminal proceedings against G.A. and the other persons who accused the applicant of bribery on the grounds that they had voluntarily informed the relevant State authorities and that the bribes had been requested from them by the applicant through the use of threats. Furthermore, the investigator ordered the return of the documents and items seized during the searches carried out at the applicant’s places of residence and work, and in his vehicle. 33.     On 26 April 2012 the investigator issued a bill of indictment and filed it with the Baku Court of Serious Crimes (“the BCSC”). 34.     During the trial stage of the proceedings, the BCSC examined the justification for the applicant’s continued detention on 18 and 31 May and on 26 September 2012 and considered that he should remain in detention since no grounds were established for changing the preventive measure of remand in custody. 35.     It appears from the transcripts of the court hearing on the merits of the criminal charges held on 2 July 2012 that when the applicant learned that G.A. would appear before the BCSC, he objected, arguing that he could not prepare his defence in respect of G.A.’s questioning and asked for the postponement of the hearing. The court decided to proceed with G.A.’s testimony. G.A. made the same statements as those she had made during the investigation. The prosecutor questioned G.A. and the applicant then asked her one question, stating that he will question G.A. further at the next court hearings. However, in his observations submitted to the Court, the applicant denied that he had asked G.A. any question as indicated in the transcripts. According to the applicant, following his objections to G.A.’s appearance on that date, his lawyer had left the courtroom in protest and he had not asked G.A. any question. 36.     According to the transcripts of the court hearing of 2 October 2012, S.T. appeared before the BCSC and stated that he had given money to the applicant like financial aid, and not as a bribe. He was subsequently questioned by the prosecutor, the applicant’s lawyer and the applicant himself and answered various questions, but during the questioning he stated that his state of health deteriorated and left the courtroom. 37.     On 9 October 2012 A.H. also appeared before the BCSC. According to the transcripts of that court hearing, when A.H. was making his statement, a scandal broke out between A.H. and those present at the court hearing, and A.H. left the courtroom without permission of the court, arguing that his state of health deteriorated. There is no indication in the transcripts of the court hearing that A.H. was questioned by the applicant or any other participant in the proceedings. 38.     It appears from the transcripts of the court hearing of 7 November 2012 that the court clerk contacted G.A. by phone requesting her to appear again before the court, but her assistant answered that she would not be able to attend the court hearing for health reasons. On the same date the BCSC decided to take measures to bring G.A. to the court hearing. A.H. also failed to appear before the BCSC on that date but provided the court with a medical document concerning his state of health. 39.     The transcripts of the court hearing of 7 November 2012 do not contain any further information about the medical document provided by A.H. or about A.H.’s state of health. No medical document concerning A.H.’s state of health was available in the case file submitted by the Government to the Court. 40.     It appears from the transcripts of the court hearing of 14 November 2012 that the court clerk again contacted G.A. by phone requesting her to appear before the court, but her assistant answered that she would not be able to attend the court hearing for health reasons and she would provide the court with a medical document in that connection. 41.     No further information is available as regards any medical document concerning G.A.’s state of health in the case file submitted by the Government to the Court. 42.     On 12 March 2013 the BCSC found the applicant guilty under Articles 213.1, 306.2, 311.3.2, 311.3.3 and 311.3.4 of the Criminal Code. The BCSC sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment for bribery related criminal offences (Articles 311.3.2, 311.3.3 and 311.3.4), to three years’ imprisonment for non-enforcement of a court judgment, committed by an official (Article 306.2) and to one year and six months’ imprisonment for tax evasion of significant amounts (Article 213.1) and sentenced him to a total of nine years’ imprisonment with deprivation of the right to hold head and financial position in commercial legal entities for a period of one year, by merging the sentences. As regards the bribery accusations, the BCSC found the applicant guilty in respect of all four episodes: bribe requests from G.A., S.T., A.M. and A.H. In that connection, the court’s judgment based on the witness statements made by G.A., S.T., A.M. and A.H. during the investigation and at the court hearings, the audio recording of the conversations contained in CD-ROM submitted by G.A., the content of the messages exchanged between the applicant and G.A., as well as the hearsay evidence made at the trial by several witnesses . 43.     On appeal, the applicant argued that the criminal case against him had been fabricated and politically motivated and asked the appellate court to summon G.A., S.T. and A.H. to appear before it since he had been deprived of the possibility to question them at the hearings before the BCSC. 44.     On 13 May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The appellate court did not summon G.A., S.T. and A.H. and its judgment made no mention of the applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged impossibility for him to question them at the hearings before the BCSC. 45.     On 2 July 2013 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal, reiterating his previous complaints. 46.     On 11 September 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 13 May 2013, without addressing the applicant’s particular complaints. 47.     On 29 December 2014 the applicant was released from serving the remainder of his sentence after being pardoned by a presidential decree. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 48.     The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code provided as follows at the time of the events: Article 213.     Tax evasion “213.1.     Evasion of payment of significant amounts ( xeyli miqdarda ) of taxes or mandatory State social security contributions, is punishable by a fine in the amount of one thousand to two thousand manats, or correctional work for a period of up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of up to three years, with or without deprivation of the right to hold a certain position or to engage in a certain activity for a period of up to three years. ...” Article 306. Failure to execute judgment, decision or another act of the court “306.1. Malicious non-execution of a judgment, decision, ruling or order of the court that has entered into force, or impeding with the execution of those acts of the court, ... 306.2. If the same acts were committed by an official, is punishable by a fine in the amount of four thousand to six thousand manats, or correctional work for a period of up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of three to five years, with or without deprivation of the right to hold a certain position or to engage in a certain activity for a period of up to three years.” Article 311. Receiving a bribe (passive bribery) “311.1. Receiving a bribe, that is the request or receipt by an official directly or indirectly, in person or through an intermediary, of a material or another asset, advantage or concession, as well as the acceptance of a proposal or promise in that connection, for himself or for third persons, for any action (inaction) in connection with the performance of his job duties (functions) or in return for general patronage or indifference, ... 311.2. Receiving a bribe by an official for illegal actions (inaction), ... 311.3. If the acts specified in Articles 311.1 and 311.2 of this Code were committed, ... 311.3.2. repeatedly committed; 311.3.3. in a large amount; 311.3.4. with use of threat, is punishable by imprisonment for a period of eight to twelve years.” 49.     Article 15 of the Criminal Code classifies criminal offences by degree of gravity into (i) offences which do not pose a major public threat, (ii) less serious criminal offences, (iii) serious criminal offences, and (iv) especially serious criminal offences. According to Article 15.4, a serious criminal offence is an offence committed deliberately or negligently, for which the maximum punishment does not exceed twelve years’ imprisonment. Under those criteria, the criminal offences under Articles   311.3.2, 311.3.3 and 311.3.4 of the Criminal Code fall into the category of serious criminal offences. 50.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) concerning pre-trial detention are described in detail in the Court’s judgments in Farhad Aliyev v.   Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, §§ 83-102, 9   November 2010) and Muradverdiyev v.   Azerbaijan (no. 16966/06, §§   35 ‑ 49, 9 December 2010). 51.     The relevant provisions of the CCrP concerning witness and forcible appearance, and search and seizure provided as follows at the time of the events: Article 95: Witness “95.1.     A person who is aware of any important circumstances of the case may be summoned and questioned as a witness by the prosecution during the investigation or the court hearing and by the defence during the court hearing. ... 95.4.     The witness shall fulfil the following duties in accordance with this Code in the circumstances provided for by it: 95.4.1.     attend and participate in the investigation and other procedures as required by the prosecuting authority and answer questions fully and correctly on all facts known to him; ... 95.4.6.     comply with the instructions of the preliminary investigator, investigator, prosecutor and court president; 95.4.7.     be at the disposal of the court, and not go elsewhere without the permission of the court or without notifying the prosecuting authority of his whereabouts; ...” Article 177.     Right to carry out coercive investigative measures “177.1.     The authority conducting criminal proceedings may carry out coercive investigative measures in order to ensure the normal course of the investigation ... 177.2.     If the conduct of an investigative measure is not authorised by the person concerned and the coercive conduct of such a measure requires a court decision, the prosecutor supervising the preliminary investigation, after acceding to a reasoned request by the investigator, applies to the court with a petition. 177.3.     The coercive conduct of the below investigative measures requires, as a general rule, a court decision: 177.3.1.     conduct of inspection, search, seizure and other investigative measures in a residential place, office or industrial buildings; ... 177.3.5.     interception of conversations held by telephone and other means as well as of information sent via telecommunications and other technical means; ... 177.4.     inspection and other investigative measures in a residential place, service or industrial buildings as well as the investigative measures provided by Articles 177.3.6 and 177.3.7 of this Code may be conducted only on the basis of a court decision. The investigator may forcibly conduct on the basis of his own decision and without a court decision the following measures: 177.4.1.     inspection, search and seizure in a residential place, office or industrial buildings – on the grounds and under the circumstances provided by Article 243.3 of this Code; ... 177.5.     ... The decision of the investigator shall justify the necessity and the urgency of the conduct of an investigative measure without a court decision ...” Article 178: Forcible appearance “178.1.     Forcible appearance shall entail bringing a person by force to the authority conducting criminal proceedings and forcibly ensuring his participation in investigative or other procedures. 178.2.     This measure may be applied to a person participating in criminal proceedings and summoned by the authority conducting criminal proceedings only in the following circumstances: 178.2.1.     if he fails to attend in response to a compulsory summons of the authority conducting criminal proceedings without good reason; 178.2.2.     if he evades receipt of the summons from the authority conducting criminal proceedings; 178.2.3.     if he hides from the authority conducting criminal proceedings; 178.2.4.     if he has no permanent place of residence. 178.3.     Children under the age of fourteen, pregnant women, persons who are seriously ill and victims bringing a private criminal prosecution may not be forcibly brought before the authority conducting criminal proceedings. ...” Article 236.     Inspection “236.1.     An investigator inspects the crime scene, buildings, documents, items and human and animal corpses in order to find traces of the crime and other material objects of potential evidentiary value and to determine the circumstances of the crime and other circumstances relevant for the case. ... 236.4.     An investigator inspects visible objects on condition of not breaching citizens’ rights...   ... 236.9.     The inspection of a residential place, service or industrial buildings and objects visible therein is carried out if there are grounds and facts provided by Article 243.3. of this Code and in compliance with the requirements of Articles 177.2.-177.6. of this Code.” Article 242.     Conduct of a search or seizure “242.1.     Where the available evidence or material obtained following an investigation gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that a residential place, service or industrial buildings or other place contains, or that certain persons are in possession of, items or documents of potential significance to a case as evidence, the investigator may conduct a search. ...” Article 243.     Grounds for conducting a search or seizure “243.1.     As a rule, the search or seizure shall be carried out by a court decision. The court shall deliver a decision on conducting a search or seizure following a reasoned request from the investigator and the submissions from the prosecutor in charge of the investigation. The search or seizure is carried out in compliance with the requirements provided by Articles 177.2.-177.6. of this Code. 243.2.     The decision on the search or seizure should provide the following: 243.2.1.     The delivering date, time and place of the decision; 243.2.2.     The name, surname, patronymic and position of the person delivering the decision; 243.2.3.     The justification of the objective facts and motives constituting grounds for conduct of the search or seizure; 243.2.4.     The name, surname and patronymic of the person in respect of whom the search or seizure is to be conducted; 243.2.5.     The exact place (residential, service or industrial buildings, its address or situation) where the search or seizure will be conducted; 243.2.6.     If a decision on the seizure is adopted, also the items and documents to be seized. 243.3.     The investigator may conduct in urgent circumstances a search or seizure without a court decision only if there is exact information giving rise to a likelihood of the following: 243.3.1.     Hiding in a residential place of an item or document confirming the commission of a criminal offence against a person or State authority or its preparation; ... 243.4.     In the circumstances provided for by Article 243.3 the investigator delivers a reasoned decision on the search or seizure. The investigator’s decision should be in compliance with the requirement of Article 243.2 of this Code taking into account the grounds for necessity and urgency of the conduct of a search or seizure in the absence of a court decision.” Article 244.     Participants in the search or seizure “ 244.2.     Counsel for the suspect or accused is entitled to participate in the conduct of a search or seizure concerning him or her. If counsel for the defence, having been informed by the investigator that this investigative measure will be carried out, expresses the wish to participate in the search and seizure, the investigator shall take steps to guarantee his right. ... 244.4.     During a search or seizure steps shall be taken to guarantee the presence of the person concerned by the search and seizure, adult members of his family or those who represent his legal interests. If it is impossible to secure the participation of the above-mentioned people, a representative of the relevant housing organisation or local executive authority shall be invited.” THE LAW Scope of the applications 52.     In his submissions of 10 December 2018 in reply to the Government’s observations, the applicant complained for the first time about the alleged violation of Article 18 of the Convention. 53.     In the Court’s view, this new complaint does not constitute an elaboration or elucidation of the applicant’s original complaints, on which the parties have commented. The Court does not therefore find it appropriate to examine that matter in the present context (see Sadkov v.   Ukraine , no. 21987/05, § 77, 6 July 2017; Aliyev v. Azerbaijan , nos.   68762/14 and 71200/14, § 97, 20 September 2018; and Petukhov v.   Ukraine (no. 2) , no. 41216/13, § 116, 12 March 2019). JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 54.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment, pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 55.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to justify the need for his pre-trial detention and to provide reasons for his continued detention. Article   5 § 3 of the Convention reads as follows: “Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” Admissibility 56.     The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions 57.     The applicant maintained his complaint. 58.     The Government submitted that there had been a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious corruption-related criminal offences and that he had been “on many occasions” held responsible for administrative offences related to his “socially dangerous behaviour”. Also, the complexity of the criminal case necessitated a number of investigative actions. The Court’s assessment 59.     The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law and set out in the judgment Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC] (no.   23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016), which are equally pertinent to the present case. 60.     As regards the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes of Article 5 § 3, the Court notes that this period commenced on 28 October 2011, when the applicant was arrested, and ended on 12 March 2013, when the BCSC convicted him. Thus, the applicant was held in pre-trial detention for one year, four months and twelve days in total. 61.     The Court observes that the domestic courts, in their decisions on the applicant’s detention, used a standard template and limited themselves to repeating a number of grounds for detention in an abstract and stereotyped way, without giving any reasons why they considered those grounds relevant to the applicant’s case. They also failed to mention any case ‑ specific facts relevant to those grounds and to substantiate them with relevant and sufficient reasons. The Court has repeatedly found violations of Article 5 § 3 in previous Azerbaijani cases where similar shortcomings were noted and analysed in detail (see Farhad Aliyev v.   Azerbaijan , no.   37138/06, §§   191 ‑ 94, 9   November 2010; Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 16966/06, §§ 87-91, 9   December 2010; and Zayidov v.   Azerbaijan , no.   11948/08, §§   64-68, 20   February 2014). 62.     In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the legal issue raised in the present case under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention is of repetitive nature and it does not see any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion.   Therefore, the Court considers that the authorities failed to give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to justify the need for the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 63.     Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION 64.     The applicant complained that the statement made in the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 8 December 2011 (see paragraph 24 above) had infringed his right to the presumption of innocence. Article   6 §   2 of the Convention provides as follows: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” Admissibility 65.     The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits The parties’ submissions 66.     The applicant argued that the statement “the degree of public dangerousness of the criminal offence committed by [the applicant]” unequivocally purported to indicate that he had committed a criminal offence and that this statement was made in the absence of any final decision declaring him guilty. 67.     The Government submitted that the statement in question, which was made only in the expository part of the decision, cannot be taken out of the context of the whole decision which referred to the applicant as an accused person. They also noted that the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 8   December 2011, which contained the impugned statement, had not caused any prejudice to the applicant since none of the subsequent decisions of the domestic courts had referred to it.   The Court’s assessment 68.     The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence will be violated if a judicial decision or a statement by a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before his guilt has been proved according to law. It suffices, even in the absence of a formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official regards the accused as guilty, and a premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the principle. However, a distinction should be made between statements which reflect the opinion that the person concerned is guilty and statements which merely describe “a state of suspicion”. The former infringe the presumption of innocence, whereas the latter have been regarded as unobjectionable in various situations examined by the Court (see Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia