CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 novembre 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 } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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   856 29.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Hummatov v. Azerbaijan (application nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention; and, a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Hummatov 12,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,090 (less EUR   701 granted by way of legal aid) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Alakram Alakbar oglu Hummatov, is a stateless person who was born in 1948 in Azerbaijan and currently lives in The Hague (the Netherlands).   The case concerned Mr Hummatov’s complaints about inadequate medical treatment in prison and the unfairness of criminal proceedings against him.   In 1988 the applicant became involved in politics and, in June 1993, he put forward a proposal, to which central Government opposed, for political autonomy in certain parts of southern Azerbaijan, including Lenkoran. In August 1993 he and his supporters announced the creation of “Talysh-Mugan Autonomous Republic” (“ Talış-Muğan Muxtar Respublikası ”). The applicant was elected its “President”. At the same time, he attempted to take charge of military units located in Lenkoran, as well as to depose and arrest certain regional public officials. Public disorder ensued and people were killed.   At the end of 1993 the applicant was arrested and detained on charges of, among other things, high treason and use of armed forces against the State. In February 1996 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to death. In February 1998, following the abolition of the death penalty in Azerbaijan, the applicant’s sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.   From June 1996 the applicant was detained in the 5 th Corpus of Bayil Prison, the equivalent of “death row” in Azerbaijan. He was detained in a cell with five other prisoners who were seriously ill with tuberculosis and who have all subsequently died. In February 1997 he started to complain of chest pain and suffered from severe weight loss. In April 1997 he was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis. He was prescribed with anti-bacteriological medication but his condition severely deteriorated and, from March to May 2000, he was hospitalised.   In January 2001 the applicant was transferred to Gobustan High Security Prison where he continued to complain of breathlessness, headaches, coughing and chest pain and was prescribed similar medication as before. At his request he was frequently examined by doctors who declared his condition to be satisfactory. Hospital treatment was not considered necessary. He was prescribed various treatments, and, on one occasion, was advised to go on a special diet and take warm sitz baths.   The applicant alleged that he was not provided with adequate medical care given that he had a number of serious diseases, including tuberculosis, and that he depended on relatives to provide him with medication or to bribe the prison authorities to ensure his treatment.   At the applicant’s request, the Medical Commission of the Azerbaijani National Committee of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly drew up an independent medical opinion (the “HCA Opinion”) based on the applicant’s medical records. The report concluded that the applicant had received grossly inadequate medical treatment from 1996 to 2003.   Between 2001 and 2004 the applicant made numerous unsuccessful attempts, including three lawsuits against the Ministry of Internal Affairs, to obtain compensation for the damage caused to his health.   In the meantime, Mr Hummatov’s case, which received wide media coverage, was routinely mentioned in reports by international organisations, including the Council of Europe, which, in 2000, recognised him as a “political prisoner”. Given Azerbaijan’s undertaking to the Council of Europe to either release or re-try political prisoners, the Court of Appeal decided to grant the applicant’s request for a new investigation and a public hearing.   More than 20 hearings took place in Gobustan Prison from January 2002 to July 2003. A number of hearings were postponed. Gobustan is a considerable distance from Baku and not served by public transport or easily accessible by other forms of transport. The applicant and independent observers submitted that no regular shuttle bus service was provided and access to hearings was severely restricted as permission had to be obtained first from the presiding judge and then the prison authorities. Observers who were granted access were subjected to a body search before entering the prison’s courtroom.   In July 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction and again sentenced him to life imprisonment. Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal and dismissed his complaint about the lack of publicity of the appeal proceedings.   On 3 September 2004 the applicant was issued with a presidential pardon. He was released from prison on 5 September and, after requesting the termination of his Azerbaijani citizenship (according to the applicant, under duress), was immediately taken to the airport where he boarded a flight to the Netherlands.   According to medical examinations carried out in 2004 and 2005 in the Netherlands, Mr   Hummatov was still suffering from pains in the chest, shortness of breath, coughing, headaches, dizziness and lack of concentration.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 March 2003 and 31 March 2004. On 5 July 2005 the Court decided to join the applications. They were declared partly admissible on 18 May 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President , Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 3 and 13, Mr Hummatov alleged that the Azerbaijani authorities had knowingly and willingly contributed to a serious deterioration in his health by denying him adequate medical treatment in prison. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 that, in particular, the appeal proceedings had not been fair or public.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court found that, given the facts of the applicant’s case and statistics indicating that tuberculosis in Azerbaijani prisons was nearly 50 times higher than the national average, it was apparent that the applicant had contracted tuberculosis in Bayil Prison.   Accordingly, by the time of the Convention’s entry into force in Azerbaijan on 15 April 2002, the applicant had already suffered for several years from a number of serious illnesses, including tuberculosis. The fact that he had continued to complain about those illness until his release in September 2004 indicated that he had still needed regular medical care after 15   April 2002, which was the period within the Court’s competence.   The Court found that there was convincing evidence to raise serious doubts as to whether that medical care had been adequate. Firstly, it appeared that the applicant had only been attended to at his specific request and with significant delays. The applicant had mainly been treated for his symptoms; no comprehensive therapeutic strategy to cure his illnesses had been prescribed. Certain treatments prescribed had been difficult to follow through. For example, it was difficult to see how the sitz bath treatment had been possible in a prison where there had been no hot water and showers had only been allowed once a week. The diet had been equally difficult to adhere to as it had not been indicated what the diet should be or for how long. Secondly, the Court accepted the applicant’s claims that he had often had to rely on his relatives to provide him with medication. The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment issued a report in 2002 concerning the Azerbaijani prison system which corroborated such claims. Lastly, the Court considered the conclusions of the HCA Opinion, the only independent and comprehensive report available, to be credible. The Government had not submitted any convincing report to contradict that opinion.   In conclusion, the Court found that the medical care provided to the applicant in Gobustan Prison in the period after 15 April 2002 had been inadequate and must have caused him considerable mental suffering which had diminished his human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment. Consequently, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   3.   Article 13   The Court found that the Government had not shown that, in the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case, the applicant had been given an opportunity to have recourse to a remedy which had been available and effective both in law and in practice. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that the Government had not provided evidence to prove that the public and media had been informed about the time, including postponements, and place of the hearings before the Court of Appeal or been given instructions on how to reach Gobustan Prison.   Moreover, the Court accepted the claim that there had been no shuttle bus provided. The fact that it had been necessary to arrange costly means of transport and travel to a remote destination, as opposed to attending the Court of Appeal’s courtroom in Baku, had clearly been a disincentive for those wishing to attend the applicant’s trial. The strict rules concerning access to the hearings had been equally discouraging.   In sum, the Court of Appeal had failed to adopt adequate compensatory measures to counterbalance the detrimental effect of the closed area of Gobustan Prison on the public character of the applicant’s trial.   The authorities had given no justification, such as a security risk, for such a lack of publicity.   The Court concluded that the applicant had not had a public hearing, in violation of Article 6   §   1.     ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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 Convention, 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.