CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Communicated on 2 February 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 71200/14 Intigam ALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 6 November 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Intigam Aliyev, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Absheron. He is represented before the Court by Ms R. Remezaite and Mr J. Javadov, lawyers practising, respectively, in London and Azerbaijan. The applicant is a well-known human rights advocate and civil society activist. He is the chairman of the Legal Education Association, a non ‑ governmental organisation specialising in legal education. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant and his remand in custody On 8 August 2014 the applicant was arrested at the premises of the Prosecutor General’s Office following an interrogation and he was charged under Articles 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.1 (large-scale tax evasion) and 308.2 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code. On the same day the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of three months. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from the investigation and influence other participants in the criminal proceedings. On 11 August 2014 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that his detention was unlawful. He stated, in particular, that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. He pointed out in this respect that the court had failed to justify his detention on remand and to take into account his personal circumstances, such as his social and family status, his state of health and his age, when it ordered his remand in custody. On 13 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision was lawful. On 3 September 2014 the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking the court to release him on bail or to place him under house arrest in lieu of being remanded in custody. On 12 September 2014 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of remand in custody. On 22 September 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. On 24 October 2014 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s remand in custody by three months, until 8 February 2015. The court substantiated its decision by the fact that it needed more time to complete the investigation and that the grounds for the accused’s detention had not changed. On the same day the Nasimi District Court also dismissed the applicant’s request to release him on bail or to place him under house arrest in lieu of being remanded in custody. On 27 October 2014 the applicant appealed against these decisions, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to justify his continued detention. He further asked the court to order his medical examination by a forensic expert, stating that he had fainted in the court room on 24   October   2014 and that his right leg had been blocked. On 29 October 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decisions of 24 October 2014. As regards the applicant’s request for his medical examination by a forensic expert, the appellate court held that the applicant’s request had been forwarded to the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office following an examination by the first-instance court. B.     The applicant’s conditions of detention and his medical treatment in detention 1.     The applicant’s conditions of detention in the detention facility Following his arrest, the applicant was admitted to the Baku Pre-trial Detention Facility of the Ministry of Justice situated in Kurdakhani. From 8 to 12 August 2014 he was detained in a small cell together with eight other detainees. The cell was not adequately ventilated and, although all the detainees were smokers except the applicant, there was no special place for smoking. The temperature inside the cell was very high. There was no bathroom and the sanitary conditions were very bad. Water supply was available only two hours per day. The light was always on. On 12 August 2014, following a visit of a delegation from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the applicant was transferred to another cell. He was then detained in a cell measuring 12 sq. m. together with three other detainees. The cell was not adequately ventilated and the temperature inside the cell was very high in August and September and very low in the cold season because the central heating system started functioning only after 15 November. Hot water was available only twice per week. The light was never switched off contributing further to the lack of sleep. The food served in the detention facility was meagre and of poor quality and was supplemented with food sent by the applicant’s family. However, the applicant was entitled to receive only one parcel of food per week and there was no possibility to keep food fresh because of the absence of a refrigerator. 2.     The applicant’s state of health and medical treatment in detention The applicant suffered from a number of diseases before his arrest. In particular, he suffered from osteochondrosis of the vertebral column, dysfunction of blood pressure, thrombophlebitis, prostatic hyperplasia, insomnia and headaches and had neurological and urological problems. According to the applicant, his state of health has significantly deteriorated since his arrest because of interruption and postponement of medical treatment that he had undergone before his arrest. On 24 October 2014 during a hearing at the Nasimi District Court the applicant felt unwell. He then fainted in the courtroom and his right leg was blocked. The applicant’s lawyer immediately lodged a request with the judge asking for the applicant’s examination by a forensic expert in order to establish whether his state of health was compatible with his detention. The judge decided to forward the request to the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office, without taking further action. On 24 October 2014 the applicant’s lawyer also lodged a request with the head of the detention facility asking for the applicant’s adequate medical treatment. It appears from the documents in the case file that on 25 and 27 October 2014 the applicant underwent medical examinations, including a MRI scan of brain and vertebral column in the National Oncological Centre in Baku. According to the results of the scan, there was no pathology in the brain and the vertebral column. The results of the scan revealed the existence of osteochondrosis of the vertebral column, hernias in the vertebral column and disc protrusions in the following areas of the vertebral column: C 4-5, C   5-6, C 6-7, L 2-3, L 4-5. The doctors, however, concluded that none of these hernias or disc protrusions required surgery or stationary treatment and prescribed conservative treatment for him. The applicant was also subjected to a specific prostate blood test, PSA (Prostate-Specific Antigen), in order to determine whether there was pathological process in the prostate and the result of the test was satisfactory. On 28 October 2014 the applicant asked the head of the detention facility to inform him of the results of the medical examinations. On 31 October 2014 the applicant was officially informed of the results of the medical examinations. However, he was not provided with copies of these results. On 11 November 2014 the applicant’s lawyer asked the head of the detention facility to provide him with the copies of the results of the applicant’s medical examinations. By a decision of 14 November 2014, the investigator in charge of the case dismissed the applicant’s request for examination by a forensic expert, finding that the applicant had undergone relevant medical examinations and there was no need for his examination by a forensic expert. On 20 November 2014 the applicant lodged a request with the prosecution authorities and the administration of the detention facility asking them to allow his medical examination by two independent doctors, I.H. and A.G. By a decision of 28 November 2014, the investigator in charge of the case dismissed the applicant’s request, finding that he had failed to substantiate his request. By a letter of 2 December 2014, the medical department of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that he had undergone relevant medical examinations and a conservative treatment had been prescribed for him. 3.     The applicant’s conditions of transport and the conditions of detention in the courthouse The applicant was transported several times to and from the Baku Pre ‑ trial Detention Facility. The distance between the detention facility and the courthouse is about 15-20 kilometres. The applicant and other detainees were transported in special vans and the journey usually lasted about one hour. The vehicles were in bad conditions and there was no appropriate place to sit or stand inside. No ventilation or air conditioning was available. On 24 October 2014, the last time when he was taken to the courthouse, the applicant together with nine other detainees were transported in a van designated for eight persons. The conditions in the rooms of the courthouse, where the applicant was detained waiting for his hearing, were harsh. On 24 October 2014 the applicant was detained in a room situated in the basement of the Nasimi District Court’s building. The room was not ventilated and was deprived of daylight. There was only one little window which had metal bars and was not open. The room was small and measured 4-5 sq. m. The applicant shared this room with four detainees all the day waiting for his hearing. He was not provided with food and water. COMPLAINTS Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was not provided with adequate medical treatment in detention and that his state of health was incompatible with detention. The applicant further complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his conditions of detention in the detention facility and in the courthouse were harsh and that his conditions of transport from and to the detention facility were inhuman and degrading.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the detention itself compatible with the applicant’s state of health? Was the applicant provided with adequate medical treatment in detention? Was the applicant provided with the copies of the results of the medical examinations that he underwent in detention?   2.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Baku Pre-trial Detention Facility and in the building of the courthouse compatible with Article   3 of the Convention? Was the applicant detained in a cell in the detention facility and in the building of the courthouse? If yes, as regards the applicant’s detention, in respect of the cell where the applicant was detained: (a)     What were the dimensions of the cell? How many persons were detained in that cell at the same time as the applicant? Did the applicant have a separate bed and bedding? (b)     Was the cell adequately lit and ventilated? What were the sanitary conditions inside the cell? (d)     Did the applicant have appropriate provisions of food, water, bedding, clothing and other necessities?   3.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s transport from and to the Baku Pre-trial Detention Facility compatible with Article   3 of the Convention?   4.     The Government are requested to inform the Court what kind of medical examination the applicant underwent during his detention, what diagnoses were established, what medical treatment was recommended in respect of the diagnoses established, and what medical treatment he received in detention. The Government are also requested to provide the Court with information about the conditions in the Baku Pre-trial Detention Facility and this facility’s capabilities in terms of providing the applicant with adequate medical treatment (such as the availability of specialised medical personnel, necessary equipment, and so on).