CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2024

.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 16 September 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9249/18 Ikram RAHIMOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 15 February 2018 communicated on 26 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal defamation proceedings against the applicant, a journalist. In 2016 online news websites published articles authored by the applicant accusing a businessman (G.) and a high-ranking State official (F.) of tax evasion, fraud and corruption, following which G. instituted criminal proceedings against him and several other persons under the procedure of private prosecution. On 25 November 2016 the Sumgayit City Court convicted the applicant of the criminal offence under Article 147.2 of the Criminal Code (libel by accusation of having committed a serious or especially serious criminal offence) and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The court ordered his immediate arrest in the courtroom. He was initially detained for three days at a police department and then transferred to a detention facility. According to the applicant, while at the police department, he was subjected to ill-treatment, allegedly on F.’s instructions or with his knowledge. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 1 March 2017 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal upheld his conviction, but changed the sentence to nine months’ corrective work. Given that, by that point, the applicant had already been imprisoned for over three months, the court, having held one day of imprisonment as an equivalent to three days of corrective work, found that the sentence had been served by him in full. The applicant was released. The appellate court’s judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 10   October 2017. In the meantime, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint concerning his ill-treatment at the police department. On 25 January 2017 the Sumgayit City Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings on the ground of lack of evidence. Following a series of appeals, on 16 August 2017 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the prosecuting authority. Relying on Articles 3, 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment and that there was no effective investigation into his complaints in this regard, that the criminal defamation proceedings were unfair, and that his right to freedom of expression was breached. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or 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 a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were the principle of equality of arms and the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment respected? Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim? Were the sanctions imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued?   The parties are requested to provide copies of all the medical records relevant to the case, including any medical records made at the police department and the detention facilities where the applicant was detained, the forensic report of 19 January 2017 and any other forensic reports.