CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 avril 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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sFBCDBB11 { width:6.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sEAF362F5 { width:15.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9D29F06E { width:16.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E2A199D { width:14.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF01188C { width:22.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF43DD1E7 { width:24.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD9C0EBD0 { width:6.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s92012B74 { width:15.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADC16C1F { width:16.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s667BC995 { width:14.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB7C310AF { width:22.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s74EACC7B { width:24.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 18 May 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 50017/20 Mehdi IBRAHIMOV against Azerbaijan and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 30 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications primarily concern the alleged unlawfulness of the applicants’ pre-trial detention or the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against them. At the material time the applicant Mr M. Imanli was an active member of one of the major oppositional parties, the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan ( Azərbaycan Xalq Cəbhəsi Partiyası – “the PFPA”). The father of Mr   M.   Ibrahimov, the other applicant, was a member of the PFPA’s board and an advisor to the chairman of the party. According to official records, both applicants were arrested on 20 July 2020 on the suspicion that they had breached anti-epidemic and quarantine regimes introduced in connection with the Covid19 pandemic. The applicants were charged with the criminal offence under Article   139 ‑ 1.1 (violation of anti-epidemic, sanitary-hygienic, or quarantine regimes) of the Criminal Code. The proceedings against the applicants were instituted and carried out separately. According to the charges, knowing that they were Covid19 positive, despite the obligation to self-isolate at home and in breach of the anti ‑ epidemic and quarantine regimes, the applicants left their places of residence and moved freely in public. Thus, the applicants respectively intended to create a real threat to the spread of the Covid19 pandemic and created such risk. According to the applicants, they were arrested on 14 July and 16 July 2020 respectively in circumstances different from the official records. Their arrest related to a demonstration held on 14 July 2020 in Baku. On that day around five thousand people gathered to protest in front of the Parliament following the border clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan which happened in the same month in the Tovuz district of Azerbaijan and caused death of several high-ranking military servicemen. Mr   M.   Ibrahimov was arrested during dispersal of the demonstration. Mr M. Imanli, who had participated in the protest but in a different location, was willingly taken to a police station by the police officer whom the applicant knew and who had called him out of his home for a “talk”. Both applicants were held in detention (together with some other detainees) without any documentation, until 20   July and 21 July 2020 respectively. During this period, they were taken to the investigations department of the Prosecutor General’s Office for questioning. Mr M. Ibrahimov was questioned about political activity of his father. Mr M. Imanli was questioned about the demonstration of 14 July 2020 and about the PFPA. During the same period, the applicants were tested positive of Covid19. There was no evidence (such as a test result) demonstrating that the applicants had Covid19 before their arrest or that they had been aware of the infection. Mr M. Imanli submitted that he got infected during his detention as he had been held in close proximity with a number of other detainees, without application of a social distancing and without being provided with protective gear like medical masks. Mr M. Ibrahimov submitted that he did not believe that he had been Covid19 positive; however, even if he had indeed been infected, that had happened during his detention due to, inter alia , lack of protective measures. On 22 July 2020 the relevant first-instance courts ordered the applicants’ pre-trial detention. Appeals against those decisions were unsuccessful. Applicants also lodged requests with the domestic courts to substitute their detention by house arrest. Mr M. Ibrahimov’s request was granted; that of Mr   M. Imanli was refused. In addition, Mr M. Imanli lodged a complaint under judicial supervision procedure provided under Article 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He complained, inter alia , about conditions of his detention being in breach of his right to life. He alleged that in the police station he had been held in a small room together with ten to twelve other detainees, without application of social distancing and without being provided with protective gear like medical masks; that no such protective measures had been applied during his questionings; and that as a result of these poor conditions of detention he had been infected with Covid19 and placed in a hospital of a penitentiary institution. The first-instance court returned this complaint without examination on the merits, on the ground that the applicant’s lawyer had not submitted a certified copy of his ID card and his “service card” proving that he was a lawyer, and a proof that the applicant had been Covid19 positive. The applicant appealed, arguing that the decision was unlawful because he submitted to the court the lawyer’s order ( order ) which normally was a sufficient proof that a lawyer was authorised to represent a person in court. He also argued that his Covid19 test result was in the material collected by the prosecution and at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings that material was not made available to the defence. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. By judgments of 10 February 2021 of the Khatai District Court (concerning Mr M. Ibrahimov) and 1 December 2020 of the Sabunchu District Court (concerning Mr M. Imanli), both applicants were convicted as charged. The applicants were sentenced to one year and three months, and one year of imprisonment respectively. The final sentence in respect of Mr   M.   Ibrahimov was applied conditionally, with application of a probationary period. By judgments of 15 April 2021 (concerning Mr M. Ibrahimov) and 2   February 2021 (concerning Mr M. Imanli), the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the applicants’ conviction. By decisions of 19 January 2022 (concerning Mr M. Ibrahimov) and 24   February 2022 (concerning Mr Mr M. Imanli), the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgments. Before the Court, both applicants (in applications nos. 50017/20 and 8931/21 respectively) complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed any criminal offence. Both applicants (in applications nos. 50017/20 and 8931/21 respectively) also complain that they were held under undocumented detention from 14 to 20 July 2020 and from 16 to 21 July 2020 respectively. Both applicants (in applications nos. 50017/20 and 8931/21 respectively) complain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for their continued pre-trial detentions. Both applicants (in applications nos. 50017/20 and 8931/21 respectively) complain under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that they were not afforded an effective judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention. Mr M. Imanli (in application no. 8931/21) complains under Article 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (i) that as a result of poor conditions of detention he was infected with Covid19, and (ii) that the domestic courts’ refusal to examine his complaint lodged under Article 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was unlawful and in breach of his right of access to a court. In applications nos. 32790/22 and 55837/22 respectively, both applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 that their convictions were based on false and unlawful evidence, and that the criminal proceedings against them were in breach of various fair-trial guarantees (including the right to a reasoned decision and the right to adequate opportunity to contest evidence). Mr M. Ibrahimov (in application no. 32790/22) complains under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that at the initial period of the pre-trial investigation his right to effective legal assistance was violated. Both applicants (in all four applications) complain that their arrests and convictions were politically motivated and were a part of unlawful measures to pressure the PFPA. These complaints – which fall under Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 11 – are raised with reference to Article 6 § 2, Articles 11, 14 and/or 18 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions concerning applications nos. 50017/20 and 8931/21:   1.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular: (i) Was the pre-trial detention of the applicants compatible with Article   5   §   1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion? (ii) Were the applicants held under unrecorded and unacknowledged detention between 14   and 20 July 2020 and between 16 and 21 July 2020 respectively?   2.     Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the continued detention of the applicants, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?   Questions concerning application no. 8931/21:   4.     Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment? In particular, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as a result of the alleged failure by the authorities to take appropriate measures in order to protect the detained applicant’s health in view of the Covid19 pandemic? What measures were put in place by the authorities in this respect?   5.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings under Article 449 (judicial supervision procedure) of the Code of Criminal Procedure – the proceedings brought by the applicant in connection with the material conditions of his detention? If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   Questions concerning applications nos. 32790/22 and 55837/22:   6.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned decision and the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? Were the applicants afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against them, and to adduce evidence in support of their line of defence and to have such evidence assessed by the court?   7.     In application no. 32790/22, was the applicant’s right to effective legal assistance at the initial period of the pre-trial investigation respected? Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?   Questions concerning all four applications:   8.     Has there been a breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article   11 of the Convention? Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicants, purportedly for a legitimate aim pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?   The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the judgments and decisions of the domestic courts, transcripts of the court hearings and the applicants’ appeals and requests.     APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 50017/20 Ibrahimov v.   Azerbaijan 05/10/2020 Mehdi Mammad oglu IBRAHIMOV 1991 Baku Azerbaijani Bakhtiyar Yusif oglu HAJIYEV   Fariz Mubariz oglu NAMAZLI   Agil Tajir oglu LAYIJ 2. 8931/21* Imanli v.   Azerbaijan 06/01/2021 Mahammad Ramiz oglu IMANLI 1992 Baku Azerbaijani Asabali Gurban oglu MUSTAFAYEV   Ruslan Asabali oglu MUSTAFAZADE 3. 32790/22* Ibrahimov v.   Azerbaijan 19/06/2022 Mehdi Mammad oglu IBRAHIMOV [1] 1991 Baku Azerbaijani Agil Tajir oglu LAYIJ 4. 55837/22* Imanli v.   Azerbaijan 13/07/2022 Mahammad Ramiz oglu IMANLI [2] 1992 Baku Azerbaijani Asabali Gurban oglu MUSTAFAYEV   Ruslan Asabali oglu MUSTAFAZADE     [1] The same applicant as in application no. 50017/20. [2] The same applicant as in application no. 8931/21.