CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } Published on 11 October 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 61239/17 Jabbar Amirkhan oglu JABBAROV against Azerbaijan and 8 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 20 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES All the present applications concern the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants and the absence of an effective investigation in that respect. Applications nos. 61239/17, 72963/17, 84594/17, 17978/18, 29326/19 and   31745/19 also concern alleged lack of effective remedies in respect of the applicants’ complaints of ill-treatment. All the applicants were arrested in connection with the so-called “Nardaran events” in 2015, when members or perceived members of unregistered religious movement, Muslim Union, were arrested in Nardaran settlement of Baku or in other cities and prosecuted for a number of grave crimes. The applicants complain before the Court that they had been subjected to ill-treatment during their arrest, transportation and (or) detention, and that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in that respect. In all the cases the applicants complained to the prosecuting authorities about the alleged ill-treatment. However, the prosecuting authorities refused to open criminal investigations. The applicants’ complaints against the decisions of the prosecuting authorities lodged before the domestic courts were unsuccessful. The applicants in applications nos. 61239/17, 17978/18, 30138/18, 9558/19, 23033/19, 29326/19 and 31745/19 complain, in particular, that the purpose of the ill-treatment was to extract self-incriminating statements from them or statements incriminating other persons arrested in connection with the Nardaran events. In addition, the applicants in applications nos.   61239/17, 72963/17, 84594/17, 17978/18, 29326/19 and 31745/19 complain under Article 13 of the Convention, that they did not have effective remedies for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES IN ALL APPLICATIONS 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present cases by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents concerning investigations into the alleged ill-treatment (complaints, decisions and other relevant documents). CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Applications nos. 61239/17, 72963/17 and 17978/18 Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicants’ injuries were caused (see Selmouni , v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, §   100, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §   83 and further, ECHR 2015)? In particular: -     did the State agents plan the arrest operation in advance? Did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the arrest? Was the recourse to physical force during the arrest made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct (see Rizvanov   v.   Azerbaijan , no. 31805/06, §   49, 17 April 2012)? -     did the police officers report to their supervisor about the use of physical force or/and special means during the arrest (see Shamardakov v.   Russia , no. 13810/04, § 133, 30 April 2015)? Did the reports provide detailed explanation about the circumstances of the applicants’ arrest, including the use of force against them? -     Were the applicants given access to a doctor and, if so, when? In particular, were the applicants taken without delay before a medical professional, notably with a view to record the injuries sustained by them during the arrest ( Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 34445/04, § 65, 11 January 2007) and to provide an appropriate medical care? Applications nos. 61239/17, 72963/17, 17978/18, 9558/19, 23033/19 and 31745/19 What were the conditions of transport of the applicants to the temporary pre-trial detention facility of the Organised Crime Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or to the Ganja city Police Department after their arrest? Applications nos. 61239/17, 72963/17, 17978/18, 30138/18, 9558/19, 23033/19, 29326/19 and 31745/19 The Government are requested to address, inter alia , the following points concerning the circumstances surrounding the applicants’ alleged ill ‑ treatment: -     Were they given the possibility of informing their families about their arrest and detention and, if so, when? -     Were they given access to a lawyer and, if so, when? Was a lawyer on duty invited by authorities or a lawyer of the applicants’ own choice? If given initially a State-appointed lawyer, when did the applicants receive access to a lawyer of their choice? -     How long were the applicants held at the temporary pre-trial detention facility of the Organised Crime Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or at the Ganja city Police Department? On which legal grounds (the national legislation and (or) court orders) were the applicants held at those places? Application no. 84594/17 How long was the applicant held incarcerated at the Baku Pre-Trial Detention Facility and at the Gobustan prison? On which legal grounds (the national legislation and (or) court orders) was the applicant held at those places?   Applications nos. 61239/17, 72963/17, 84594/17, 17978/18, 29326/19 and 31745/19 Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 61239/17* Jabbarov v. Azerbaijan 14/08/2017 Jabbar Amirkhan oglu JABBAROV 1985 Baku Azerbaijani Elchin SADIQOV 2. 72963/17* Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan 16/09/2017 Etibar Rasim oglu ISMAYILOV 1963 Baku Azerbaijani Nemat KARIMLI 3. 84594/17* Huseynov v. Azerbaijan 11/12/2017 Abbas Mammadbagir oglu HUSEYNOV 1987 Garadag Azerbaijani Yalchin IMANOV Fariz NAMAZLI 4. 17978/18* Khudaverdiyev v. Azerbaijan 30/03/2018 Ibrahim Mammad oglu KHUDAVERDIYEV 1960 Baku Azerbaijani Yalchin IMANOV 5. 30138/18* Agayev v. Azerbaijan 12/06/2018 Elman Seydamir oglu AGAYEV 1979 Lankaran Azerbaijani Akif ALIYEV 6. 9558/19 Seyfullayev v. Azerbaijan 05/02/2019 Ramil Suliddin oglu SEYFULLAYEV 1983 Baku Azerbaijani Shahla HUMBATOVA 7. 23033/19 Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan 23/02/2019 Mubariz Eyyub oglu IBRAHIMOV 1979 Baku Azerbaijani Shahla HUMBATOVA 8. 29326/19* Aliyev v. Azerbaijan 19/05/2019 Jabir Sabir oglu ALIYEV 1975 Baku Azerbaijani Shahla HUMBATOVA 9. 31745/19 * Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan 21/05/2019 Ruzi Khalig oglu ISMAYILOV 1983 Ganja Azerbaijani Shahla HUMBATOVA