CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 October 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 13390/24 Ramil BAKIROVI against Azerbaijan and Georgia lodged on 30 April 2024 communicated on 16 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an incident in which the applicant received a gunshot injury to his head. According to the applicant, on 6   December 2019 he was shot by the Azerbaijani border officers located on the Azerbaijani territory while he was herding sheep on the Georgian territory. He alleges that the said officers then crossed into Georgian territory, took him to a hospital in Azerbaijan, and eventually handed him over to the Georgian authorities on 3   February 2020. A criminal investigation was opened by the Georgian authorities in respect of attempted murder and unlawful deprivation of liberty. According to the applicant, the investigating authorities addressed their Azerbaijani counterparts with a request for cooperation. It is unclear whether the request was answered. On 16   November 2022 the applicant was granted the procedural status of a victim by the Georgian authorities. In the applicant’s submission, he was not permitted to make a copy of the criminal case file. The investigation is ongoing. The applicant relies on Articles   2, 5 and 13 of the Convention. In so far as Azerbaijan is concerned, the applicant alleges that the Azerbaijani border officials shot him, transferred him to a hospital in Azerbaijan and deprived him of his liberty for almost two months. As far as Georgia is concerned, the applicant complains that the criminal investigation opened by the relevant authorities has been ineffective. He also claims that Azerbaijan failed to respond to the cooperation request within the context of the criminal investigation opened by Georgia. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions to the Azerbaijani Government and the applicant 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of each of his complaints lodged with the Court?   2.     Has there been a violation of the substantive and procedural aspects of Article   2 of the Convention? In particular, (a)   was the applicant shot in the circumstances described by him? (b)   did the authorities carry out an effective criminal investigation into the matter? (c)   did the relevant authorities cooperate with their Georgian counterparts within the context of the criminal investigation ongoing in Georgia?   3.     Is Article 5 of the Convention applicable in the present case? Namely, was the applicant “deprived of his liberty” within the meaning of the provision in question (see, for instance, Aftanache v. Romania , no.   999/19, §§   81-82, 26   May 2020)? If so, was his deprivation of liberty compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Question to the Georgian Government and the applicant Has the criminal investigation opened by the Georgian authorities been effective, within the meaning of the procedural aspect of Articles   2 and 5 of the Convention? Question to both respondent Governments and the applicant Has the applicant had at his disposal effective domestic remedies in relation to the alleged violations of his Convention rights, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?