CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sDD6F64E2 { width:137.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 34133/17 Aslan ISMAYILOV against Azerbaijan   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13   February 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   34133/17) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 May 2017 by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Aslan Ziyaddin oglu Ismayilov, who was born in 1958 and lives in Baku (“the applicant”); the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the Government’s observations; the decision to reject the applicant’s belated observations, pursuant to Rule   38 § 1 of the Rules of Court; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by the police and of interference with his freedom of expression. 2.     The applicant, a lawyer, had referred, R.R., a detainee, to another lawyer to be represented. After being informed by that lawyer that R.R. had been ill-treated and of alleged procedural deficiencies, the applicant made a public statement and called for the resignation of the police officers concerned. 3.     On 30 May 2013 the applicant was contacted by a police officer, an old acquaintance of his, who invited him to the Organised Crime Unit (“the OCU”) to discuss the allegations. The applicant alleged that while there, he had been hit and threatened. 4.     On the same day, the applicant filed a complaint. The prosecutor took statements from: -   the police officer who had contacted the applicant, who stated that after he had asked the applicant, whom he had known for a long time, to provide him with evidence to support his allegations regarding R.R., the applicant had shouted at him and left; -   two other officers who had been on duty at the OCU at the time and who denied that the alleged ill-treatment had taken place; -   the applicant’s driver, who stated that the applicant had been at the OCU for about fifteen minutes and that on his return, he had noticed redness on the applicant’s left arm. 5.     On 12 June 2013, at the request of the prosecutor, the applicant was examined by a forensic expert, who stated in his report that there were traces of redness on the applicant’s left arm, which could have been caused nine to eleven days earlier. 6.     On 28 June 2013 in view of these elements and considering that the redness on the applicant’s arm did not correspond to the date on which he had visited the OCU, the prosecutor decided not to prosecute. Following a series of appeals by the applicant against that decision, it was upheld on 16   November 2016 by a final decision of the Baku Court of Appeal. 7.     Invoking Articles 3, 10 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complained of being hit by the police officers. He also considered that such ill-treatment was related to his public statements and as such constituted a violation of his freedom of expression and his right not to be discriminated against. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 8.     As regards the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court notes that the only sign of injury – redness on the applicant’s left arm – was recorded in an official medical report, obtained belatedly. A failure to secure forensic evidence in a timely manner is one of the most important factors in assessing the overall effectiveness of an investigation into allegations of ill ‑ treatment (see Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan , no.   31805/06, § 59, 17 April 2012). 9.     That being said, the Court observes that the applicant was not arrested or placed in detention. He went to the OCU following an invitation from an officer whom he knew and left the premises shortly after. Hence, he was not in a situation that could have constituted a reasonable obstacle to obtaining a medical report to substantiate his allegations. As such, he did not raise an arguable claim of ill-treatment before the national authorities (compare with Hasanov v.   Azerbaijan [Committee], no.   31793/10, § 35, 22 April 2021), and has not explained to the Court why he did not obtain a medical certificate himself after the alleged events (compare Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§   83 ‑ 84 and 92, ECHR 2015). Likewise, the applicant’s argument according to which no testimonies were taken from the staff of the prosecutor’s office is not adequately presented as it lacks any explanation as to how that could have established the alleged ill-treatment which occurred earlier. His argument related to the lack of recordings from security cameras also remains unsupported in view of his failure to obtain a medical report and the multitude of evidence collected by the prosecutor, namely the testimonies of the police officer who had contacted the applicant, two other officers who had been on duty at the OCU at the time, and even the applicant’s driver who was not an eye-witness of the alleged beating. 10.     In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the applicant raised an arguable claim or made a credible assertion. In view of that conclusion, it cannot be said that the authorities were under an obligation to investigate further the applicant’s allegations (see Bouyid , cited above, §   116; Yağcı and Özcan v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 83646/17, §§ 20-26, 16   October 2018; Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, § 72, 5 February 2013; and Bazjaks v.   Latvia , no. 71572/01, § 79, 19   October 2010). Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 11.     As regards the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, the Court observes that the applicant was not prosecuted for, for example, defamation or acts against the authorities, nor did he himself bring an action concerning his claim based on his freedom of expression. Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 12.     As regards the complaint under Article 14, the Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this part of the application does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention, as the applicant has failed to substantiate his claim. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 7 March 2024.     Liv Tigerstedt   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   Deputy Registrar   President