CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 juin 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sECBC4952 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#eaeaea } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF9D612BE { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#eaeaea } .sD125012E { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#eaeaea } .sB3A7671E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sF4EDB80C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s689ACF7B { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s4121890B { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s41D34707 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sDF759458 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 17 July 2023   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 32457/18 and 39664/18 Ali Hummat oglu HUSEYNOV against Azerbaijan and Agil Azer oglu ISMAYILOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 25 June 2018 and 11 August 2018 respectively communicated on 27 June 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE These applications concern the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants, the absence of an effective investigation in that regard, and the lack of effective remedies in respect of the applicants’ complaints of ill-treatment. The applicants were arrested in connection with the so-called “Nardaran events” in 2015, when members or perceived members of an unregistered religious movement, the “ Muslim Union ” (“ Müsəlman Birliyi ”), were arrested in Nardaran settlement of Baku or in other cities and later prosecuted for grave crimes. The applicants allege that they had been subjected to ill-treatment during their arrest, transportation (only the applicant in application no. 39664/18) and detention, and that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in that respect. They complained to the prosecuting authorities about the alleged ill-treatment. However, those authorities refused to open a criminal investigation in application no.   32457/18 and ignored the complaint altogether in application no.   39664/18. The applicants’ respective domestic complaints were unsuccessful. The applicants argue, 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. They submit that the ill-treatment happened at the Organised Crime Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where they were held in excess of the period provided by law while having no access to a lawyer of their own choosing and no contact with their family. In addition, the applicants 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 BOTH 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 in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 3.     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? On which legal grounds (the national legislation and (or) court orders) were the applicants held there? 4.     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? 5.     Were the applicants given adequate medical care during their detention? 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 IN APPLICATION NO. 39664/18 1.     Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicant’s 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)? 2.     What were the conditions of transport of the applicant to the temporary pre-trial detention facility of the Organised Crime Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs after his arrest? APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 32457/18 Huseynov v.   Azerbaijan 25/06/2018 Ali Hummat oglu HUSEYNOV 1955 Baku Azerbaijani Zibeyda Sohbat gizi SADIGOVA (ZAKARYAYEVA) 2. 39664/18 Ismayilov v.   Azerbaijan 11/08/2018 Agil Azer oglu ISMAYILOV 1995 Baku Azerbaijani Yalchin Jamil oglu IMANOV