CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }   Communicated on 4 September 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34015/17 Sardar Akif oglu BABAYEV against Azerbaijan and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASEs The applications principally concern the applicants’ pre-trial detention. The applicants lodged complaints against the court decisions ordering and extending their remand in custody with the domestic courts. The domestic courts dismissed the applicants’ complaints concerning the alleged lack of justification for their pre-trial detention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention? In particular, within which paragraph of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention did the deprivation of liberty of the applicant in application no.   57948/17 fall? Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicants’ detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   2.     Was the procedure by which the applicant in application no. 34015/17 sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   3.     Was the applicant in application no. 34015/17 subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom?   4.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in application no. 34015/17?   5.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article   9 §   1 of the Convention in application no. 34015/17? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   9 §   2 of the Convention?   6.     Has the applicant in application no. 34015/17 been subjected to a difference in treatment in enjoyment of his rights under Article 9 of the Convention, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim, and did it have a reasonable justification?   7.     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 application no.   34015/17? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 of the Convention?   8. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention in application no. 34015/17? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2 of the Convention?   APPENDIX     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   34015/17 02/05/2017 Sardar Akif oglu BABAYEV 12/03/1974 Masalli   Javad JAVADOV   37714/17 18/05/2017 Samir Samandar oglu ALIYEV 20/05/1981 Baku   Zamina ALIYEVA   57948/17 04/08/2017 M.J. 10/06/1974 KONYA   Agil LAYIJOV