CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 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 } .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 16 February 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4534/22 Bakhtiyar oglu HAJIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 6 January 2022 communicated on 27 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawful deprivation of the applicant’s liberty and his ill-treatment by police, lack of effective investigation in that regard and lack of effective domestic remedy in respect of the applicant’s complaints. According to the applicant, on 7 October 2021 he was unlawfully arrested and detained by police when he tried to film a road closure (the road apparently was closed by police). During his arrest and detention, he was ill ‑ treated by the officers of police office no. 27 (“police office”). Then he was released without any charges brought against him. Following the release, the applicant when to a hospital to report his injury and then sent a letter to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the MIA”) complaining about the incident (the applicant did not submit to the Court a copy of this complaint). By its letter dated 15 November 2021, the Baku Main Police Department under the MIA (“the Department”) informed the applicant that the Department had examined his allegations of unlawful actions on the part of the police officers and “rejected them”. In the same letter, the Department also informed the applicant that he could lodge a complaint before the domestic courts about the outcome of this investigation. Following this, the applicant lodged a complaint before the domestic courts against the actions of the police officers under the judicial supervision procedure provided by Article 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”). He made a reference to the Department’s reply and complained, inter alia , that his allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty and ill-treatment had not been properly examined and that he had medical evidence supporting his allegations of ill-treatment. He also complained that the authority which examined his complaint failed to comply with the requirements of Article 207 of the CCrP, according to which the prosecuting authority – that is a person (a police officer) in charge of preliminary inquiry or investigation ( təhqiqatçı ), an investigator or a prosecutor – must, inter alia , adopt a decision either instituting criminal proceedings or refusing to open a criminal case (Article 207.1.3). On 3 December 2021 the Yasamal District Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible. The first-instance court held in particular that the judicial supervision procedure dealt only with complaints against decisions and procedural actions of the prosecuting authorities. It further held that “[the applicant’s complaint did] not concern procedural actions or decisions of the [authorities] specified under Article 449.1 [of the CCrP], nor [did the complaint concern the issues] listed under Article 449.3”. Without reference to any specific domestic provision, the first-instance court also concluded that the applicant’s complaint should have been considered first by the prosecutor exercising procedural supervision over the preliminary investigation. On 9   December 2021 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first ‑ instance court. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and subjected to ill-treatment by the police, that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in that regard, and that there was no effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention? In particular: (i) Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints as required by Article 13 of the Convention? What was the effective remedy in the national legal system in respect of the applicant’s complaints concerning (a) the alleged unlawful actions of the police officers (namely the alleged unlawful deprivation of the applicant’s liberty and his ill ‑ treatment); and (b) the alleged failure by the Baku Main Police Department to conduct effective investigation into the applicant’s complaints and to comply with the requirements of Article 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? (ii) Were the inadmissibility decisions adopted by the domestic courts in compliance with the relevant domestic law? 2.     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)? 3.     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? 4.     Was the applicant arrested and deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did his deprivation of liberty 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 Mammadov and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 1172/12, §§ 42-54, 8 July 2021)?