CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 janvier 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 22 11.1.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) v. AZERBAIJAN   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Mammadov (Jalaloglu) v. Azerbaijan (application no. 34445/04).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards the ill-treatment of the applicant in police custody; a violation of Article 3 as regards the lack of effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,817 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Sardar Jalal oglu Mammadov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1957 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan).   More commonly known as Sardar Jalaloglu in political circles, he was the Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan, one of the opposition parties that considered the presidential elections of 15 October 2003 to be illegitimate.   On 18 October 2003 several masked police officers, armed with machine guns, forced their way into the applicant’s home, arrested him and took him into custody in order to interrogate him in connection with a demonstration two days earlier. The demonstration had taken place in the Azadliq Square in the centre of Baku to protest against the results of the elections and had turned violent.   On 19 October 2003, the applicant was charged with “organising public disorder” and “use of violence against state officials”.   Banned from seeing his lawyer for three days, the applicant finally met with him on 22   October 2003 complaining that he had been ill-treated by police officers. The lawyer filed a petition requesting a medical examination, then on 27   October 2003, having received no reply, filed a complaint.   The applicant alleged that he had been ill-treated during his arrest, while being transported to the detention centre and during police custody, notably on 19 October 2003 when he claimed to have been beaten on the soles of his feet ( falaka ) by two masked policemen with truncheons, tortured and threatened with rape. After the beating, he temporarily lost the ability to walk unaided and was placed in a poorly-ventilated cell where the threats of rape continued and from where he could hear the cries of other detainees being ill-treated.   Following his transfer on 22   October 2003 to a remand facility, he again complained of poor detention conditions and intimidation. Upon arrival at the remand facility, doctors observed two bruises on his right calf and right heel.   On 29 October 2003 a medical examination was ordered, which concluded that the bruising observed on the applicant’s left elbow joint, his right calf and right heel had been caused by a hard blunt object.   On 8 January 2004 the investigation authorities found that the medical report did not establish conclusively that the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted while in police custody and, having questioned four police officers who denied all the allegations of ill-treatment, refused to institute criminal proceedings.   The several complaints filed by the applicant to local district courts, were finally dismissed as unsubstantiated.   The applicant was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. It was found that, although the applicant had not been present at the demonstration of 16 October 2003, he was one of the organisers. He was, however, released early by way of a presidential pardon.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 September 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained about ill-treatment by the police, the absence of an effective investigation and effective domestic remedies, and discrimination on the ground of his political opinion. He relied on Article 3, Article 13 and Article 14.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaints about his ill-treatment during his arrest and the conditions of his detention in the remand facility.   Ill-treatment in police custody The Court considered that the applicant could not have sustained injuries during the demonstration in Azadliq Square because he had not been present. Also, on arrival at the detention facility on 18 October 2003, no injury was found on the applicant’s body and no other plausible explanation as to the origin of his subsequent injuries had been provided by the Government. Furthermore, the Court considered that the specific nature of the applicant’s injuries were consistent with the application of falaka and were unlikely to have been caused either accidentally or during street clashes with riot police. The Court noted that the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture had received reports that falaka was one of the forms of ill-treatment used in Azerbaijani temporary detention centres. Given that accountability lay with the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for injuries to those within their custody, the Court concluded that the applicant’s injuries could only be attributable to a form of ill-treatment for which the authorities were responsible.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the violence inflicted on the applicant, administered with the aim of extracting information, was of such a serious and cruel nature that it could be characterised as torture. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Lack of effective investigation The Court considered that the authorities failed to gather forensic evidence in a timely manner. The applicant was not allowed to see his lawyer for the first three days of his detention and it then took a further seven days for a medical examination to be carried out.   Furthermore, the authorities limited their investigation to studying the medical report and questioning four police officers. No other witnesses were interrogated concerning the applicant’s injuries, in particular his cellmates who had seen him immediately after the beating, or concerning his alleged presence at Azadliq Square. Notably, the authorities failed to take into account the key statement of the warden who testified to the applicant’s good health on arrival at the temporary detention facility.   Having regard to those flaws and omissions, the Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13 The Court found that the domestic courts simply endorsed the criminal investigation, without assessing independently the facts of the case, and so were insufficiently thorough and ineffective. Therefore, the Court held that the applicant had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of his ill-treatment by the police, and, consequently, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Article 14 The Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 on the grounds that he had submitted insufficient evidence that he had been tortured or otherwise ill-treated on account of his political opinions.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.