CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 August 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 50432/18 Babak HASANOV against Azerbaijan communicated on 22 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was the chairman of a district branch of an opposition party. The application concerns his arrest and detention and restrictions imposed by the prosecuting authorities on his contacts with persons other than his lawyer while detained in a pre-trial detention facility. In May 2018 the applicant was arrested and charged with aggravated illegal entrepreneurship and aggravated laundering of money or other assets under Articles 192.3.2, 193-1.3.1 and 193-1.3.2 of the Criminal Code. The Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention which was subsequently extended twice. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first ‑ instance court’s decisions ordering and extending the applicant’s detention. During the Baku Court of Appeal’s hearings of 31 May and 22   November 2018, the applicant was held in a metal cage. On 26 May 2018 the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs made a public statement about the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant. It was noted in the joint statement that sufficient evidence about the applicant’s involvement in laundering of money obtained through illegal entrepreneurship had been collected. According to the applicant, while he was in detention, from 29 May 2018 his contacts with persons other than his lawyer were restricted in practice. On 2 August 2018 the applicant complained about the restrictions to the domestic courts. On 16 August 2018, the investigator in charge of the case restricted, by a formal decision, the applicant’s right to visits, telephone conversations and correspondence with persons other than his lawyer. Additionally, restrictions were imposed on the applicant’s use of the internet and social networks, as well as his right to receive newspapers. Following a series of appeals by the applicant, by a final decision of 3 September 2018, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed his complaints about the restrictions. The applicant died on 21 November 2023. By letter of 3 January 2024 his wife informed the Court of her wish to pursue his application. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his placement in a metal cage in the courtroom amounted to degrading treatment. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention, he complains that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence, that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention and that he was not afforded an effective judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, he complains that the public statement made by the law-enforcement authorities had amounted to an infringement of his right to the presumption of innocence. He also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the restrictions imposed on him by the prosecuting authorities while he was detained were unjustified. Relying on Article 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his rights under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention were restricted for an ulterior purpose, in particular to punish him for his political activity and his work at the opposition party. 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 Natig Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 64581/16, §§ 37-38, 7 November 2019)?   2.     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 Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 69981/14, §§ 114-18, 17   March 2016)?   3.     Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to his continued detention (see Farhad   Aliyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 37138/06, §§ 184-87, 9 November 2010)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 §   4 of the Convention (see Farhad Aliyev , §§ 203-04, and Rasul Jafarov, §§   140-42, both cited above)?   5.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, did the joint public statement made on 26 May 2018 by the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs amount to an infringement of the applicant’s right to the presumption of innocence (see Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan , no.   16966/06, §§ 102-04, 9 December 2010)?   6.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life or correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the restrictions ordered while he was in detention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Mirgadirov v.   Azerbaijan and Turkey , no. 62775/14, §§ 115-25, 17 September 2020)?   7.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly permitted under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?   In support of their submissions, the parties are requested to provide any necessary documentary evidence which has not been previously submitted to the Court.