CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 décembre 2022

.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 2 January 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 34582/16 Taleh Kamil oglu BAGIROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 1 June 2016 communicated on 8 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case concerns the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicant, who is a religious leader. In November 2015, the applicant was arrested on a suspicion of his committing several grave crimes. By an order of the Nasimi District Court he was detained for four months pending his trial and, subsequently, the detention was prolonged by another four months. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision extending the pre-trial detention. During both the first ‑ instance and appellate courts’ hearings, the applicant was held in a metal cage in the courtroom. Later the applicant unsuccessfully requested the Nasimi District Court to order his release on bail or, alternatively, place him in house arrest. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to degrading treatment because he was held in a metal cage during the first-instance and appellate courts’ hearings concerning the extension of his pre-trial detention. Further, relying on, inter alia , Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that there had been no sufficient and relevant reasons for his continued pre-trial detention. He also complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the presumption of innocence was violated on account of a statement made by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the General Prosecutor’s Office to the media prior to his conviction in which the applicant had been called or portrayed as a criminal. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom (see, among other authorities, Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.   32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Natig   Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 64581/16, §§ 37-40, 7 November 2019)?   2.     Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s continued detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan , no.   49192/08, §§   51-63, 6 March 2014, and Mammadov and Others v.   Azerbaijan , no.   35432/07, §§ 95-100, 21 February 2019)?   3.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, in particular, in view of the statement made to the media by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the General Prosecutor’s Office? Regarding this complaint, has the applicant complied with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month rule?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings concerning the applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention.