CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A88938C { width:154.5pt; display:inline-block } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s15D92DFC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right }       FIRST SECTION Application no. 54204/08 Uzeyir JAFAROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 July 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Uzeyir Jafarov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Hajılı and Mr E. Sadigov, lawyers practising in Baku. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was an independent journalist and worked at the relevant time at the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper which was a strong critic of the Government. At the time of the events described below, criminal proceedings were pending against the editor-in-chief of the newspaper for publication of some articles. The applicant regularly published the articles in which he severely criticised the Government’s security and defence policies, as well as the activities of various senior military officers. On 20 April 2007 an article entitled “Comrade General, I am ready to ransack the army” (“ Yoldaş general, ordunu çapıb-talamağa hazıram ”) and signed by the applicant was published in the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper. In the article, the applicant criticised a colonel of the army (F.M.) accusing him of corruption and illegal activities. On the same day, at approximately 11.45 p.m., when the applicant left the newspaper’s office he was subjected to a violent attack by two men. The applicant was hit several times on head with a hard blunt object. He was also punched by his aggressors. Having heard the applicant’s screams, his colleagues came out of the office. At this time, the assailants left the scene of the incident by car. The applicant was immediately taken to hospital where, owing to the gravity of his injuries, he received in-patient treatment for a period of eight days. On 21 April 2007 the Yasamal District Police Office instituted criminal proceedings under Article 132 (beating) of the Criminal Code in connection with the attack on the applicant. The applicant was questioned by the investigator in the hospital. He stated that he did not know the assailants, however he gave their detailed physical description. He also submitted that he would recognise one of them, if he saw him again. On 1 May 2007 while the applicant was watching a video recording of a court hearing on the criminal proceedings against the editor-in-chief of the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper, he recognised one of the two assailants. This person (N.R.) was a police officer of the Yasamal District Police Office. The applicant’s colleagues also recognised N.R. as a person whom they saw standing outside the newspaper’s office on the day of the attack. The applicant immediately informed the investigator about the identification of N.R. requesting for an official identification of N.R. and questioning of his colleagues as witnesses. The applicant also submitted that, as one of the assailants was a police officer, he suspected F.M. of being the person behind the attack on him. Therefore, he asked the investigator to check whether F.M. had called N.R. by phone prior to or on the day of the attack and to obtain the video recordings of security cameras situated in the proximity of the scene of the incident. No action was taken by the investigator. In the meantime, in a newspaper interview on 3 May 2007, the Minister of Internal Affairs was questioned about the attack on the applicant and stated that the attack in question had been organised by the applicant himself. On 3 May 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General complaining of the police authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation. He asked the Prosecutor General to remove the investigation from the police and to order the prosecution authorities to conduct an effective investigation. On 8 May 2007 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert who found numerous injuries on his person. The expert also concluded that these injuries caused minor harm to the applicant’s health. Following the forensic examination, the criminal proceedings were continued under Article 228 (deliberate infliction of minor injury to health) of the Criminal Code. On 23 June 2007 the investigator issued a decision suspending the criminal proceedings until the identification of perpetrators.   The applicant was not informed of the decision suspending the investigation. On 1 October 2007 the applicant lodged a new complaint with the Prosecutor General. The applicant complained of the investigator’s failure to conduct an effective investigation. On 14 December 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Yasamal District Court. He asked the court to declare unlawful the investigator’s failure to carry out an effective investigation and to deliver a special ruling in this respect. At the hearing before the court, the applicant became aware of the investigator’s decision suspending the investigation. On 27 December 2007 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint finding that he should have complained to the prosecutor and not to the court concerning the actions of the investigator. On 11 January 2008 the applicant appealed against this decision reiterating his previous complaints. He also complained about the decision to suspend the investigation, noting that the investigator had failed to take relevant procedural steps aimed at identifying the perpetrators. On 28 January 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Yasamal District Court’s decision of 27   December   2007. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that State agents were behind the attack on him and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation in this respect. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that he was subjected to a violent attack because of his journalistic activity.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, were State agents involved in the attack on the applicant of 20 April 2007? Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.   Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the attack on the applicant of 20 April 2007 related to his journalistic activity? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10   § 2?