CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 August 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 74142/16 Amrah Vusal oglu SALMANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 30 November 2016 communicated on 15 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the pre-trial detention of the applicant, who was a minor, arrested on suspicion of complicity in a theft. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts failed to justify his pre-trial detention. Relying on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, he also complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment in police custody after his arrest and there was no effective investigation in that regard despite the existence of evidence confirming injuries on his body. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from 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.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   3.     Did the domestic courts give   sufficient   and relevant reasons for the applicant’s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to his continued detention?