CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2026

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 2 February 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 24420/20 Ilkin SULEYMANOV against Azerbaijan communicated on 14 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention, as well as his alleged ill-treatment by the police and ineffective investigation of those allegations. On 21 November 2019 N.G., aged ten, disappeared from her home. On 6   January 2020, N.G.’s burned body was found in an open area in her home village, near the applicant’s house. According to the applicant, he was detained as a suspect immediately after the finding of the body on 6 January 2020 and was kept at the police station without any formal record until 10 January. The applicant further alleges that during this period he was subjected to ill-treatment and was forced to make self-incriminating statements about having committed the crime. On 11 January 2020 the Tovuz District Court, relying on the charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request to apply the preventive measure, ordered his pre-trial detention. The domestic courts subsequently extended his pre-trial detention several times. By a final judgment dated 5 June 2023, the Ganja Court of Serious Crimes found the applicant guilty under Articles 120 (murder), 133 (torture) and 144 (kidnapping) of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment. At the time of lodging of the application, the applicant’s appeals against his conviction were pending before the domestic courts. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint about the alleged ill-treatment. The prosecuting authorities rejected this complaint as unsubstantiated. By a final decision dated 19 June 2020, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the prosecuting authorities’ decision. The applicant also lodged complaints with the domestic authorities regarding his alleged undocumented and unlawful detention between 6 and 10 January 2020. Following the applicant’s complaint before the domestic courts about the prosecuting authorities’ alleged inactivity, by a final decision dated 23 October 2020, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed it as inadmissible, holding that the prosecuting authorities were still in the process of examination of the applicant’s complaints about his detention. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment by the police and forced to make self-incriminating statements. He complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty without documentation between 6 and 10   January 2020. Further, relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts did not provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention. He additionally complains under Article 5 § 4 that he had no opportunity to effectively challenge the lawfulness of his detention. He also complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to presumption of innocence was violated on account of a statement made by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the General Prosecutor’s Office to the media at the time of his arrest, in which he was allegedly called and portrayed as a criminal. Lastly, the applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective domestic remedy for his complaints concerning ill-treatment and deprivation of liberty. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Mustafa   Hajili v.   Azerbaijan , no. 42119/12, §§ 34-37, 24 November 2016)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita , cited above, § 131, and Mustafa Hajili , cited above, §§ 47-48), was the investigation in the present case in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   3.     Was the applicant arrested and deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty during the period between 6 and 10 January 2020 fall within one of the sub-paragraphs of this provision? Was the applicant’s arrest and detention in accordance with a procedure “prescribed by law” (see   Nagiyev v.   Azerbaijan , no. 16499/09, §§ 54-57, 23 April 2015)?   4.     Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicants’ detention for the purposes of Article 5 §   3 of the Convention (see Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 37138/06, §§ 184-94, 9   November 2010, and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan , no. 11948/08, §§ 55-69, 20   February 2014)?   5.     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 Mammadli v.   Azerbaijan , no.   47145/14, §§   72-74, 19 April 2018 )?   6.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, did the joint statement made by the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the press dated 10 January 2020 amount to an infringement of the applicant’s right to the presumption of innocence (see Yunusova and   Yunusov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) , no. 68817/14, §§ 122-26, 16   July 2020)?   7.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 3 and 5 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (for general principles, for example, Iustin   Robertino Micu v. Romania , no. 41040/11, § 105, 13 January 2015)?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings concerning the applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention which have not yet been submitted.