CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mai 2018

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 29 May 2018   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14 Avaz ZEYNALLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 3 May 2012 and 11 March 2014 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The present two applications concern the pre-trial detention and subsequent criminal conviction of the applicant who was a journalist. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s pre-trial detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to his continued detention?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, did the statement made in the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision, dated 8 December 2011, amount to an infringement of the applicant’s right to the presumption of innocence?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, home or correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the interception of his telephone conversations and messages and the search carried out in his home, office and car? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?   5.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts establish the existence of all the elements of the criminal offence of which the applicant was convicted and provide reasons for their decisions? Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   6.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention as a result of his criminal conviction? In particular, was his criminal conviction related to his journalistic activity? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?   7.     The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the proceedings concerning the applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention.