CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 février 2023

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 6 March 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9965/17 Ali Binnat oglu INSANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 30 January 2017 communicated on 15 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case concerns the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant and his pre-trial detention. The applicant is a politician and a former Minister of Health Care. At the material time he was serving a prison sentence for several crimes (the criminal proceedings relevant to that sentence were the subject of the Court’s examination in Insanov v.   Azerbaijan (no. 16133/08, 14 March 2013). His prison sentence was to expire on 20 October 2016. On 24 August 2016 the applicant was charged with new criminal offences for illegally obtaining and holding medicaments, including those containing psychotropic substances, and violently resisting an officer of the penal facility. By a decision of 24 August 2016, the Garadagh District Court ordered the applicant’s transfer from a penal to a pre-trial detention facility until 20   October 2016. On 11 October 2016, the Garadagh District Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending his trial, until 11 January 2017. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. Subsequently, the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention was prolonged by another two months, until 11 March 2017. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision extending the pre-trial detention. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that the proceedings against him had been fabricated. Relying on the same Article of the Convention, he also complains that there had been no sufficient and relevant reasons for his continued pre-trial detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion (see, among many other authorities, Ibrahimov and Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan , nos. 63571/16 and 5 others, §§ 113-30, 13 February 2020)?   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.     The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the institution of the new criminal proceedings against the applicant and the proceedings concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention.