CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2013

.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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIRST SECTION Application no. 16626/09 Ruslan ALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 24 February 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ruslan Aliyev, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Sumgayit. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Mustafayev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 9 November 2007 the applicant was involved in a car accident in Baku. The applicant’s car struck a pedestrian who was crossing the street. The applicant immediately took the injured pedestrian to hospital, however the latter died as a result of her injuries. Criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 263.2 (violation of traffic rules and operation of a vehicle causing death by negligence) of the Criminal Code. During the pre-trial investigation, the applicant was at liberty, subject to an undertaking not to abscond. In August 2008 the case was sent to the court for trial. At the hearings held in August and September 2008 the trial judge left “unchanged” the undertaking not to abscond applied in respect of the applicant. At the trial hearing held on 6 November 2008 the Yasamal District Court, relying on an oral request of the prosecutor, decided to substitute the applicant’s obligation not to abscond with the preventive measure of remand in custody. The judge justified his decision by the fact that the only form of punishment provided by Article 263.2 of the Criminal Code was imprisonment and that there was a likelihood that the accused would prevent the enforcement of the court judgment in the future. The decision did not specify any term for the applicant’s detention. The applicant was arrested in the court room and was taken to a pre-trial detention facility. The trial court’s decision was not subject to appeal in accordance with Articles 173 and 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 12 November 2008 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a request asking for the replacement of the applicant’s pre-trial detention by house arrest. On 21 November 2008 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the request and found that the preventive measure should be left “unchanged”. Relying on an expert report of 3 December 2008 which concluded that the applicant could not have technically prevented the accident, on 21 January 2009 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a new request asking for the applicant’s release. On 22 January 2009 the Yasamal District Court ordered a new technical expert examination in connection with the examination of the merits of the case. However, the judge did not consider the applicant’s request for release and the decision was silent on this point. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, replacing the previously applied undertaking not to abscond, was unlawful and unjustified, because he always complied with the investigator’s orders and judicial summons and the domestic court failed to provide sufficient and relevant reasons for his detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was it justified by one or more reasons mentioned in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Did the court give sufficient and relevant reasons within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for changing the preventive measure and ordering the applicant’s detention? Did it consider alternative measures to ensure the applicant’s appearance at trial?