CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF9FB9744 { width:162.44pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIRST SECTION CASE OF ELDAR HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 12058/21)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive) • Inhuman and degrading treatment • Inadequate medical treatment provided to a former Prosecutor General and former ambassador for his illnesses while in detention during the period between his arrest and his first transfer to a prison medical facility • Resulting prolonged mental and physical suffering diminishing the applicant’s human dignity • Medical treatment during subsequent detention adequate Art 5 § 3 • Reasonableness of pre-trial detention • Domestic courts’ failure to give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons justifying extension of applicant’s pre-trial detention Art 34 • Hinder the exercise of the right of application • State’s failure to comply with initial interim measures indicated by the Court under Rule   39 and excessively long delays in complying with subsequent such measures Art 18 (+ Art 5) • Restriction for unauthorised purposes • Existence of ulterior purpose not established • Manifestly ill-founded   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 10 October 2024   FINAL   10/01/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Eldar Hasanov v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Alena Poláčková,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström,   Alain Chablais , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   12058/21) 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 Eldar Humbat oglu Hasanov ( Eldar Hümbət oğlu Həsənov – “the applicant”), on 19 February 2021; the decision to give notice of the application to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns an alleged lack of adequate medical treatment provided to the applicant when he was in detention, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, and the alleged lack of justification for the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention, in breach of Article 5 of the Convention. It also raises issues under Articles 18 and 34 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1955 and is serving a prison sentence in Baku. The applicant was represented by Mr J.   Javadov, Mr E.   Abbasov and Mr   E.   Aslanov, lawyers based in Baku. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç.   Əsgərov. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND 5.     The applicant is a former Prosecutor General (from March 1995 to April 2000), the former Ambassador of Azerbaijan to Romania (from March 2001 to March 2013), and the former Ambassador of Azerbaijan to Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina (until 17 August 2020). 6.     According to the applicant, prior to and around the time of the events of the present case, various local media sources published a number of articles concerning him, in which it was claimed, inter alia , that he had links to the political opposition and had political ambitions, and that accusations had been made that when he was an ambassador he had failed to take action about recently reported sales of arms by Serbia to Armenia which had come to light in or about July 2020. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT AND HIS PRE-TRIAL DETENTION 7.     In July 2020 the State Security Service (“the SSS”) established a special investigation team and initiated criminal proceedings in connection with suspected instances of embezzlement, abuse of official authority and bribery by officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Five senior officials of the Ministry were arrested and charged with the above-mentioned criminal offences. It appears that the preliminary investigation in that case also gave rise to suspicions against the applicant. 8.     On 9 August 2020 the applicant, who was then still the ambassador to Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, arrived in Baku for an official visit to Azerbaijan by a Serbian government delegation. 9 .     On 12 August 2020 the Sabail District Court authorised the SSS to conduct searches of residential premises and personal vehicles belonging to the applicant following a request by the SSS based on information received from the Ministry of Finance on suspected unlawful expenditure, overspending of State funds and a lack of financial accountability in the Azerbaijani Embassy in Serbia. 10 .     On the morning of 13 August 2020 SSS officers arrived at the applicant’s flat in Baku and presented the search warrant. Following the search, the applicant was arrested on the same day and detained as a suspect. Subsequently, on 17 August 2020, he was dismissed from his position of the Ambassador. 11 .     On 14 August 2020 the SSS formally charged the applicant with criminal offences under Article 308.2 (aggravated abuse of official authority) and Article 308-1.1 (using State funds otherwise than for their designated purpose) of the Criminal Code. In particular, the applicant, as the ambassador responsible for Embassy expenditure and the efficient use of public funds who was accountable to the relevant State authorities for the proper implementation of budgetary instructions, was accused of overspending public funds beyond the designated amounts by abusing his official powers in order to gain an illegal advantage for himself and third parties and deliberately using his official powers against the interests of the public service, including overspending on specified numbers of budget line items in successive years: six budget line items in 2015, six in 2016, four in 2017, six in 2018, nine in 2019, and two in the remaining period up to 3   July 2020. In total, the overspending had been calculated to amount to 180,802.05 euros (EUR) (equivalent to 318,229.20 Azerbaijani manats (AZN)) during the entire audit period, including EUR 102,728.88 (equivalent to AZN   180,802.82) of overspending during the period from 3   May 2016 (the date of entry into force of Article 308-1 of the Criminal Code) to 3 July 2020. 12.     On the same day, 14 August 2020, following a request lodged by the SSS investigator, the Sabail District Court ordered the applicant to be remanded in custody until 3 November 2020. During the hearing, the applicant and his lawyer argued, inter alia , that the accusations against him did not have any basis and were arbitrary, and asked the court to take into account the fact that he had never been convicted before, that he had children and grandchildren, that he suffered from serious health problems and had to adhere to a strict regime of prescription medications, and that he was planning to have surgery in September 2020. The court justified its decision as follows: “The court, having had regard to the nature of the criminal offences with which [the applicant] has been charged ..., the valid and real possibility that [his release] could evoke negative emotions in society and that [if released] he would illegally influence persons who have worked as his subordinates for a long period of time, considers that the preventive measure of remand in custody should be applied in respect [of the applicant]...”. 13.     The applicant appealed. In his written grounds for appeal and oral submissions at the appellate hearing, he and his lawyer argued that the material in the case file did not give rise to a “reasonable suspicion” that he had committed a criminal offence, that the gravity of the alleged offences could not be a main factor in ordering pre-trial detention, that the first ‑ instance court had not given relevant or sufficient reasons for ordering his detention, and that it had not taken into account such factors as the applicant’s advanced age, his poor health, his long-term public service in high-ranking positions, the awards he had received for his service, his numerous publications in the legal field, and so on. During the appellate hearing, the applicant also asked the court to substitute the remand in custody with the preventive measure of house arrest. 14 .     In their submissions to the appellate court, the prosecuting authorities noted that they had received “operative information” that on 13   August 2020 an employee of the Embassy in Serbia (unnamed in the court decision) who had a close personal relationship with the applicant had made a phone call to the Embassy driver and instructed him to go immediately and take certain items, including documents, from the applicant’s residence and hide them at another address. The prosecuting authorities submitted that they were taking steps to have that unnamed employee brought to Azerbaijan. In view of the above, they asked the appellate court to uphold the detention order to prevent the risk of the applicant obstructing the investigation. 15 .     On 20 August 2020 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s detention order. It noted that the “reasonable suspicion” against the applicant had been confirmed by the preliminary evidence in the case file, including evidence concerning the overspending of public funds as well as a statement of the Embassy’s financial attaché (named in the court decision) indicating that the excess spending on the budget line items referred to in the financial audit had been executed on the direct instructions of the Ambassador. As to the risk that the applicant could illegally influence his ex-subordinates, the court noted that the prosecuting authorities had clearly explained that that possibility was the reason for seeking the applicant’s remand in custody and that they had supported their submissions by the evidence included in the case file. This preliminary evidence was presented to the other party and to the courts in compliance with the requirements of confidentiality. While the court agreed with the defence’s submissions that the gravity of the criminal charges did not in itself constitute a key factor in choosing a pre-trial preventive measure, it observed that the choice of the preventive measure of remand in custody had been based on the risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation. As to the applicant’s arguments concerning his health, the court noted that no documents had been presented to it showing that he had been under constant medical supervision. As to the non ‑ custodial preventive measures such as house arrest, the court held that “in the current situation” choosing such measures was not appropriate and that there was a need to isolate the accused from society in the initial stages of the investigation. The court observed that, nevertheless, in the event that grounds established by law for a non-custodial preventive measure were to arise, the defence would have a right to apply to the first-instance court in that regard. The court concluded that it agreed with the first-instance court’s conclusion that there was a valid and real possibility that the applicant would obstruct the investigation by illegally influencing participants in the proceedings. 16.     On 21 August 2020 the criminal case against the applicant was transferred to the Prosecutor General’s Office. 17 .     On 7 September 2020 the applicant applied to the Nasimi District Court asking to be released on bail, reiterating his previous arguments and asserting, in particular, that he was suffering from a number of serious health conditions. On 12 September 2020 the Nasimi District Court rejected the applicant’s request, holding that a number of further investigative steps were still to be carried out and that there was a risk that the applicant, if released, would obstruct the investigation by using his broad personal connections to illegally influence relevant persons both within the country and abroad in order to suppress evidence, information and documents necessary for establishing the objective truth. 18 .     The applicant appealed, relying largely on the same arguments, and complaining that the first-instance court’s finding that there was a risk that he would obstruct the investigation was not supported by or based on any specified factual circumstances suggesting there was such a risk. On 22   September 2020 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, reiterating the first-instance court’s reasoning. 19 .     In the meantime, on 18 September 2020 the Prosecutor General’s Office, in addition to the charges under Articles 308.2 and 308-1.1 of the Criminal Code, charged the applicant with criminal offences under Article   193-1.3.2 (laundering of money or other assets, in large amounts), Article 313 (forgery by an official), Article 178.3.2 as in force before 1   December 2017 (fraud causing large-scale loss) and Article 179.3.2 (embezzlement or squandering in large amounts) of the Criminal Code. In   particular, the applicant was accused of the following: (a)     in December 2012, while he was still Ambassador to Romania and had also recently been appointed Ambassador to Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina with an official residence then in Bucharest, during the process of purchasing a building in Sarajevo for the Azerbaijani Embassy’s office in Bosnia and Herzegovina, he had deliberately overstated the purchase price and related expenses to a commission sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for that purpose. He had interfered in a visit to the property by the members of the commission, obstructed their attempts to meet the seller of the property in person, and had deceived the members of the commission by indicating that a total amount of EUR 4,905,000 needed to be allocated from public funds for the purpose whereas he had already privately agreed a purchase price of EUR 1,800,000 with the seller. Following the transfer of EUR 4,905,000 to the bank account of the Embassy in Romania, in 2013 he concluded a purchase agreement with the seller for an overstated purchase price, while actually paying EUR   1,800,000 for the property. The difference of EUR   3,105,000 was subsequently transferred in parts, using documents forged by the applicant as false justifications for the transfers and with the aid of accomplices including B.A. (a relative of the applicant’s personal driver) and others whose identities were still being investigated, to various bank accounts in Türkiye, Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina, some of which belonged to various private companies registered offshore, as well as in Romania and in Türkiye, but which belonged de facto to the applicant. Thereafter, EUR   2,700,000 of this money was laundered in Türkiye by various means with the aid of the applicant’s accomplices; (b)     after his appointment in 2013 as the Ambassador to Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina, his official residence being in Belgrade, in 2018 the applicant overstated the costs of urgent repairs to the fence around the courtyard of the Embassy in Serbia and embezzled public funds in the amount of EUR 36,800 with the aid of accomplices and by way of forged official documents; (c)     in 2019, with the aid of accomplices and by way of forged official documents, he overstated the costs of installation of new security cameras for a monument erected in Belgrade at the expense of the Azerbaijani government and embezzled public funds in the amount of EUR 102,100; and (d)     he committed unlawful overspending of public funds on multiple occasions, which was the basis for the initial criminal charges summarised in paragraph 11 above. 20.     B.A., who was identified as one of the applicant’s accomplices, was also charged with criminal offences under Articles 178.3.2 and 193 ‑ 1.3.2 of the Criminal Code and a warrant was issued for his arrest. 21 .     On 23 October 2020, at the request of the prosecuting authority, the Nasimi District Court extended the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention by three months to 3 February 2021. During the hearing, the applicant’s lawyers had reiterated their previous arguments in favour of the applicant’s release. Without expressly addressing their arguments, the court justified its decision by observing that the investigation period had been extended because there was a need to carry out various investigative and procedural steps; it also found that the grounds for the applicant’s detention “had not ceased to exist”. 22 .     The applicant appealed, reiterating his previous arguments and complaining that the first-instance court’s extension order was not based on any specific factual grounds justifying the applicant’s continued detention. On 2 November 2020 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that “the first-instance court [had] correctly concluded [that the period of pre-trial detention should be extended] given the possibility of [the applicant] absconding or obstructing the investigation by illegally influencing the participants in the criminal proceedings”. 23 .     On 29 January 2021, at the request by the prosecuting authority, the Nasimi District Court further extended the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention by another three months, to 3 May 2021. Without expressly addressing the defence’s arguments, which were essentially similar to those raised in previous hearings, the court justified its decision by providing essentially the same brief reasoning as in its previous extension order (see paragraph 21 above), observing in particular that there was a need to carry out various investigative and procedural steps and finding that the grounds for the applicant’s detention “had not ceased to exist”. The applicant appealed, essentially reiterating his previous arguments. On 4 February 2021 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, providing the same reasoning as in its earlier decision of 2 November 2020 concerning the preceding extension order (see paragraph 22 above). 24 .     On 30 April 2021 the Binagadi District Court further extended the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention by another three months, to 3   August 2021. While the applicant essentially reiterated his previous submissions, the court held that there was a need to carry out various investigative and procedural steps, that a large amount of investigation material had been collected, and that there was a possibility that the applicant would abscond or would obstruct the investigation by illegally influencing the participants in the criminal proceedings. On 8 May 2021 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant, finding summarily that the arguments raised in the appeal (which were essentially similar to the applicant’s previous arguments) were not a basis for quashing the decision of the first-instance court and that that decision had been lawful. 25.     On 17 May 2021 the prosecuting authority reclassified the charges against the applicant as falling under Articles 179.3.2, 193-1.3.2, 308.2, 308 ‑ 1.1 and 313 of the Criminal Code, dropping the charge under Article   178.3.2 of the Criminal Code. 26 .     On 25 June 2021 the applicant applied to the Binagadi District Court asking for the substitution of his pre-trial detention with house arrest. He asked the court to take into account his poor health, his need for specialised medical treatment, his age, and the fact that the investigation was nearing completion. He also argued that his arrest and continued detention were motivated by ulterior purposes, namely by the alleged hostile and vengeful attitude towards him of A., a high-ranking official of the Presidential Administration responsible for working with the law-enforcement authorities. He alleged that A. had harboured that attitude since a relative of his had been detained and convicted when the applicant was Prosecutor General. He further argued that a biased attitude towards him was also held by the Government Agent before the Court, who had previously been A.’s subordinate at work. 27.     On 5 July 2021 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant’s request. It noted that the applicant had been transferred to the Hospital of the Military Medical Department (“the MMD”) of the SSS for inpatient medical examinations and treatment (see paragraph 59 below) and that he had failed to support his request for house arrest with any relevant or substantive arguments. On 16 July 2021 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld this decision observing, inter alia , that the grounds for ordering the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention “had not ceased to exist”. 28 .     On 23 July 2021 the Binagadi District Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 13 September 2021. On 30 July 2021 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The parties’ submissions and the reasoning provided by the courts were essentially the same as in the proceedings concerning the previous extension (see paragraph 24 above). 29 .     The criminal case was sent for trial. The hearing began in September 2021, and by a judgment of the Baku Court of Serious Crimes of 21 January 2022 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The conviction was subsequently upheld by the Baku Court of Appeal. THE APPLICANT’S HEALTH AND MEDICAL TREATMENT The applicant’s health before and after his arrest and the medical care given 30.     The applicant submitted that prior to his arrest he had been diagnosed with and suffered from various chronic conditions and illnesses, including multiple spinal disc herniations and protrusions, spinal cord compressions, osteochondrosis, various heart and cardiovascular conditions, hypercholesterolemia, a colon problem (polyps), hyperuricemia, type 2 diabetes, immunodeficiency, Vitamin D deficiency, and so on. He had been examined twice a year and treated by a Swiss cardiologist. He noted that he had undergone seven (unspecified) surgeries in the six years preceding his arrest, and at the time of his arrest and during his pre-trial detention he was taking up to twenty different medications daily. 31.     Following his arrest in August 2020, the applicant was detained on remand in the SSS detention facility. From the documents submitted by the Government, it appears that on 14 August 2020, following the applicant’s arrest, the detention facility started keeping separate medical records (a “medical record book”) about him. For the period between that date and 30   September 2020, the record book contains around twenty handwritten entries made at intervals of one to four days. From the signatures, it appears that most of the entries were made by the same doctor. The first entry was relatively lengthy and, in so far as it was legible, contained results of an ultrasound examination which did not reveal anything of concern. The remaining entries were brief and essentially recorded the applicant’s complaints. The applicant appeared to often complain about back pain, decreased mobility in his right leg, insomnia, general weakness, dizziness, diarrhoea and constipation, chest pain and palpitations, shortness of breath, anxiety, and so on. It was noted that he had refused to undergo a colonoscopy, an electrocardiogram (“ECG”), and an examination by a neurosurgeon, with some of those entries specifying that the reason was his lack of trust in doctors whom he did not know. Several entries indicated that he was continuing to take his own medications which had been prescribed to him before his arrest, and one entry listed thirteen such medications that he was taking on a daily basis. A couple of entries indicated that he had been offered a few medications, apparently (in so far as they were legible) for musculoskeletal and gastric pain and breathing problems, some of which he refused. On 23   September 2020 blood tests showed that his HB (haemoglobin), HCT   (haematocrit) and sugar levels were within the appropriate norms. On 30   September 2020 the applicant underwent an ECG   test, the results of which were recorded in a handwritten note in the medical record book which is not fully legible. 32 .     The medical record book available in the case file, submitted by the Government, contained no entries between 30 September 2020 and 12   March 2021, when the applicant was seen by a therapist, who observed that the applicant’s overall health, blood pressure and pulse were satisfactory and that he had been given a Covid-19 vaccination. The following entry was by a neurologist and dated 30 March 2021, consisting of just a few handwritten words, of which only “neuropathy” was legible. 33 .     Separate medical reports dated 16, 19 and 28   October 2020 indicated that the applicant had been examined by three specialists. An examination by a cardiologist on 16 October 2020, apparently conducted both in person and also with reference to medical records and information provided by the applicant, resulted in diagnoses of, inter alia , progressive angina pectoris, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, hyperuricemia, Vitamin D deficiency, and sciatica in connection with vertebral pathology. It was observed that he had a left ventricular hypertrophy and that his left ventricular function was at 52%. The cardiologist recommended, inter alia , inpatient treatment, in isolation because he was in a high-risk group for Covid-19. Moreover, as the medications that the applicant was taking were not fully adequate given the deterioration of his health, the cardiologist recommended joint comprehensive examination and treatment by a group of specialists including a cardiologist, an endocrinologist, a neuropathologist and a gastroenterologist. 34.     An examination by a gastroenterologist on 19 October 2020 resulted in, inter alia , a recommendation that the applicant undergo a colonoscopy. It was observed that he had had gastrointestinal problems for around eight years and was complaining of widespread pain in the abdominal area, bloating, nausea, constipation, blood in the stool, occasional vomiting, and so on. He had had surgery for the removal of polyps several years before, but had not had a colonoscopy in four years. A neurosurgeon who examined him on 28   October 2020 observed that the applicant had osteochondrosis, several cervical and lumbar disc herniations and protrusions, and narrowing of the spinal canal. He recommended conservative drug treatment and physiotherapy for cervical herniations, a laminectomy and transpedicular fixation surgery for the L4-L5 disc, and the removal of herniations in the lumbar area. 35 .     On 26 October 2020 the applicant had cervical and lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”) scans at the MMD Hospital. The scan revealed multiple pathological conditions, including several herniated discs, narrowing of the spinal canal and compression of the spinal cord, narrowing of neural foramina, compression of nerve roots, cervical osteochondroma, and so on. 36 .     On 9 December 2020 the applicant’s lawyer referred to the above ‑ mentioned medical reports and asked the prosecuting authorities to lift the preventive measure of remand in custody imposed on the applicant and to order a forensic medical examination. On 11 December 2020 the prosecuting authorities partly granted the request and ordered a forensic medical examination. 37 .     On 27 December 2020 the applicant had an ECG test at the MMD, which revealed sinus tachycardia. On 28 December 2020 the applicant underwent thyroid and lung examinations, which do not appear to have revealed any serious conditions or pathologies in those organs. A 7mm fibrous nodule was detected in the subpleural area of the lower right lung. On the same day, biochemical and blood tests were carried out, which showed that most factors were within the normal ranges, except for slightly raised haemoglobin and blood glucose levels, high VLDL cholesterol, and a slightly raised prothrombin time (measured in seconds). 38.     Following the prosecuting authorities’ decision of 11 December 2020 (see paragraph 36 above), on 14 January 2021 a forensic report on the applicant’s health was issued by a committee of experts who had seen him on 11   January 2021. According to the applicant, this examination was carried out for a “formalistic purpose” and “from a distance, without even a physical examination”, by “incompetent” persons who merely briefly questioned him, with the result that it contained “incorrect and inconsistent” diagnoses. 39.     The forensic report of 14 January 2021, issued by the above ‑ mentioned expert committee of six physicians and forensic experts, stated that the forensic examination had been carried out between 15   December 2020 and 14   January 2021. The questions put to the committee by the prosecuting authorities mainly related to their assessment of the seriousness of the health problems, whether those problems were compatible with detention, and whether they required specialised treatment or could be treated at the detention facility or a prison medical facility. It appears that the examination had mainly been based on the applicant’s medical records, although the experts had seen the applicant in person on 11   January 2021. The report summarised the applicant’s medical history before and after his arrest, and repeated the diagnoses made following the earlier examinations (see paragraphs 33-35 and 37 above). The committee concluded that the applicant’s current state of health was not incompatible with detention, did not preclude his participation in the investigation and did not require any emergency surgery or other urgent specialised medical interventions. On the basis of observations of the dynamics of his illnesses, it also concluded that “an adequate course of treatment could be found”, and that, if necessary, any medical treatment could be provided either at the place of his pre-trial detention or at the Medical Facility of the Prison Service of the Ministry of Justice. 40 .     On 23 February 2021 the applicant’s lawyer asked the Prosecutor General’s Office to approve the examination of the applicant by three private doctors of his own choice at his own expense. The lawyer asserted that the applicant’s health was deteriorating. 41 .     On 26 February 2021 the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office decided to postpone consideration of the request “until the circumstances relevant for deciding on the request”. It observed that on 11   January 2021 the applicant had been examined by a committee of medical experts which had issued a forensic report on 14 January 2021. It further observed that less than two months had passed since that examination and that therefore a request had been sent to the   SSS   detention facility enquiring whether there had been a material change in the applicant’s health condition since then. 42 .     It appears that on 18 March 2021 the applicant’s lawyer re-sent the request which had been made on 23 February 2021. In response, on 30   March 2021 the Prosecutor General’s Office sent the lawyer a copy of its decision of 26 February 2021, without any information as to whether there had been any further decisions. 43 .     In April 2021 the applicant appealed against the postponement decision of 26 February 2021 (see paragraph 41 above) under the judicial supervision procedure set out in Article 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”), arguing that it was unlawful because the procedural rules did not allow for the postponement of a decision on an urgent request and that it was in breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention. By decisions of 21   and 27 April 2021 the Binagadi District Court and the Baku Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as inadmissible, finding that the type of decision challenged by the applicant was not among those which could be challenged under the judicial supervision procedure, which were exhaustively listed in Article 449.3 of the CCrP. 44.     The case material does not include any documents relating to medical examinations or any medical records from between mid-January to early April 2021 (except two brief handwritten entries in the medical record book, referred to in paragraph 32 above). The applicant submitted that during this period he had been treating himself with the medication prescribed before his arrest. That medication had been given to the detention facility staff by his relatives and then given to the applicant by the medical staff of the detention facility without any supervision, intervention or medical advice. From February 2021 his health had started to deteriorate, and after the end of March 2021 it started to worsen significantly day by day. He met his lawyer four or five times in April   2021 and complained to the lawyer on each occasion that he had stomach and back pains; had to use a cane to walk; that he had often lost his balance while standing or walking and by that time had fallen on the floor over seventy times, falling several times a day because of pain (sciatica) and cramps in his legs; and that he had intestinal obstructions. 45.     On 2 and 3 April 2021 the MMD Hospital carried out biochemical and general blood tests on the applicant, the results of which mostly appeared to be within the normal range, with slight deviations in MCV (mean corpuscular volume), MCH (mean corpuscular haemoglobin), thrombocytes, fibrinogens, and prothrombin time (measured as a percentage). 46.     On 7 April 2021 an investigator from the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office considered the applicant’s lawyer’s request of 23 February 2021 (see paragraphs 40 and 42 above) and dismissed it, finding (based on a submission received in the meantime from the SSS concerning the MMD Hospital) that the MMD Hospital was appropriately equipped to examine and treat the applicant and was staffed with the specialised and experienced physicians needed in the applicant’s case. 47.     On 28 April 2021, after the applicant’s request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see paragraphs 48-49 below), additional medical examinations were carried out by the MMD Hospital, including consultations by (a) a neurosurgeon, who diagnosed the applicant with osteochondrosis of the neck and spine, several spinal disc herniations, spinal stenosis, chronic pain syndrome and diabetic neuropathy, and recommended conservative treatment and prescribed two medications; (b) cardiologists, who diagnosed him with coronary heart disease and angina pectoris and prescribed three medications; (c) a gastroenterologist, who observed that the applicant had had a polypectomy two years before and that as recently as two weeks previously had had blood in his stool, and recommended a colonoscopy and a computed tomography (“CT”) scan of the gastrointestinal tract; it was noted that the applicant had stated that he would decide whether to follow this recommendation after “consulting his personal doctor”. ECG, ultrasound and cardiac ultrasound examinations and blood tests were also performed. The Court proceedings and the applicant’s subsequent medical treatment First decision on interim measures 48 .     On 19 April 2021 the applicant requested the Court to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that he should be placed in a specialised private clinic for medical treatment, including surgery, and given access to the specialists of his own choice named in his domestic request of 23 February 2021 (see paragraph 40 above). 49 .     On 20 April 2021 the Court (the duty judge) adjourned the decision under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court pending receipt of information from the respondent Government. The Government were requested under Rule   54 §   2   (a) of the Rules of Court to provide detailed information about the applicant’s state of health and any medical treatment provided to him during his detention. In reply, the Government submitted the information requested, supported by medical records as summarised above. The applicant was given an opportunity to comment on the Government’s submissions; these comments, where relevant, are also included in the above summary. 50 .     Having considered the parties’ submissions, on 7 May 2021 the Court (the duty judge) made the following indication to the Government: “- that, at the earliest possible date, the applicant be transferred on an inpatient basis to the Military Hospital of the Military Medical Department of the State Security Service, or the Medical Institution of the Penal Service of the Ministry of Justice, or a similar specialised medical facility within the penal system, for a new comprehensive assessment by the facility’s specialist doctors of his current health condition, determination of any need for inpatient treatment and/or supervised outpatient treatment, assessment of necessity of any urgent interventions (such as spinal fixation surgery, colonoscopy or other interventions relevant to the conditions the applicant is suffering from) and, in the event of such necessity, carrying out such urgent interventions; - the Government are requested to inform the Court, by 11 June 2021 at the latest, of the measures taken as indicated above and of any treatment provided, and to submit a plan of any future inpatient and/or outpatient treatment.” 51.     By a letter of 11 May 2021, sent to the Court on 12 May, the Government expressed their “deep concern” about the Court’s above ‑ mentioned decision, saying that it had been “apparently taken solely on the basis of the applicant’s submissions”. Arguing that the parties’ submissions up to that date had not suggested that the applicant suffered from any urgent or life-threatening conditions, the Government asked the Court to lift the interim measures indicated on 7 May 2021. On 17 May 2021 the Court (the duty judge) refused the Government’s request and notified the parties that the interim measure indicated on 7 May 2021 continued to apply. 52.     On 18 May 2021 the applicant informed the Court that the Government were refusing to place him on an inpatient basis to a penal medical facility. The letter was forwarded to the Government for information. 53 .     By a letter dated 25 May but sent to the Court on 26 May 2021 the applicant informed the Court that he had still not been transferred to a prison medical facility and was not receiving any outpatient treatment, medical examinations or interventions, and that his health was deteriorating. Enclosed with this letter was, inter alia , a copy of a letter of 22 May 2021 sent by the prosecuting authorities to the Head of the SSS detention facility asking them to comply with the Court’s decision of 7 May 2021 by ensuring that the applicant was examined again, within a short period of time, by the medical staff of the MMD Hospital and sending the results of the examination to the prosecuting authorities. Enclosed with the letter was also a copy of the applicant’s own typewritten letter dated 22   May 2021 to the SSS detention facility in which he referred to the prosecuting authorities’ above ‑ mentioned letter of 22 May 2021 and argued that in that letter the prosecuting authorities were actually asking for an outpatient examination rather than a transfer to a hospital on an inpatient basis. He emphasised that the Court had indicated that he should be transferred to a hospital as an inpatient and stated that he had refused to undergo any short-term outpatient medical examination. In a handwritten note on that typewritten letter, the applicant also accused A. and the Government Agent (see paragraph 26 above) of “non-compliance” with the interim measures. The applicant’s letter, together with the enclosures, was forwarded to the Government for information. 54 .     On 11 June 2021, the deadline indicated by the Court (see paragraph   50 above), the Government informed the Court that following the Court’s decision of 7 May 2021 the medical staff of the MMD Hospital and the SSS pre-trial detention facility had offered to transfer the applicant to the MMD Hospital as an inpatient for him to undergo a comprehensive medical examination. However, “the applicant [had] refused to be transferred to the hospital without providing any plausible reasons”. In this connection, the Government referred to the applicant’s above-mentioned letter of 22 May 2021. The Government also submitted a copy of a statement dated 24 May 2021 and signed by the staff of the SSS detention facility and the MMD (though not signed by the applicant), which indicated that on 24 May 2021 they had “again” offered to transfer the applicant to the MMD Hospital as an inpatient but he had refused to be transferred, claiming that the prosecuting authorities’ letter of 22 May 2021 (mentioned in paragraph 53 above) “had not fully reflected the European Court’s decision [of 7 May 2021]”. 55 .     The Government’s letter, together with its enclosure, was forwarded to the applicant for comment. By a letter of 18 June 2021, the applicant submitted that he had never refused to be transferred to the MMD Hospital, but that he had merely refused any out