CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sAE46E8B1 { height:44.2pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .s67CDEFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.4pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s1A086575 { height:34.85pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s19AB6575 { height:33.25pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s31926575 { height:32.45pt } .s456A1073 { height:23pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 2 July 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no 56317/11 Mahammad MAJIDLI against Azerbaijan and 3 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. They are represented before the Court by various lawyers practising in Azerbaijan (see Appendix). The circumstances of the cases The facts, as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background information The applicants are opposition-oriented activists, members of opposition parties. At the material time the applicants held important positions in their respective parties. The applicant in application no. 56317/11 was the director of the Public Relations department of the Popular Front Party; the applicant in application no. 67932/11 – the chief of the Executive Board of the Musavat Party; the applicant in application no. 27472/12 – the chairman of the Youth Organisation of the Musavat Party; and the applicant in application no. 59661/12 – the deputy chairman of the Popular Front Party. Starting from 2010 a number of opposition parties or groups organised several peaceful demonstrations in Baku. These demonstrations had not been authorised and many participants were arrested. Two of these demonstrations took place on 19 June 2010 and 2 April 2011. According to the applicants, the organisers had given prior notice (on 12 June 2010 and 18 March 2011 respectively) to the relevant authorities about the planned demonstrations. However, by the respective letters of 16   June 2010 and 31 March 2011 the authorities refused to authorise holding of the demonstrations at the places indicated by the organisers, and proposed to hold the demonstrations at various other places on the outskirts of Baku. Nevertheless, the organisers decided to hold the demonstrations in central squares of Baku. Information about the demonstration of 2 April 2011 was disseminated through the press. On 24 March 2011 the organisers (a group of several opposition parties, the so-called Ictimai Palata ) of the demonstration of 2 April 2011 adopted the Manifest of the Demonstration, in which they declared that their intent was to hold a peaceful assembly and urged persons who were going to participate in the demonstration to refrain from any violence, even in response to possible provocation. According to the applicants, this manifest was published in newspapers and on Internet. A day before the demonstration of 2 April 2011, the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office issued a notice addressed to the applicant in application no. 59661/12 and certain other persons – presumed organisers of the demonstration of 2 April 2011 – stating that: “If there is an attempt to hold a public assembly in places not agreed upon with the Baku City Executive Authority, any illegal actions consisting of breach of public order and insubordination to lawful demands of public officers, or causing inconvenience to population, or causing disruption of the normal functioning of transport, enterprises, bodies and organisations, will be prevented in accordance with the law, and prescribed relevant measures will be taken against you as one of the organisers of the public assemblies.” The notice also contained a warning that the mentioned actions entailed criminal responsibility under Article 220 (mass disorder) and Article 233 (organisation or active participation in actions causing a breach of public order) of the Criminal Code. The applicant in application no. 59661/12 refused to sign the notice. The applicants participated (or in case of the applicant in application no.   27472/12, attempted to participate) in the demonstration of 2 April 2011. Prior to this the applicant in application no. 56317/11 had also participated in the demonstration of 19 June 2010. According to the applicants, the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants were demanding free and fair elections, right to freedom of assembly and democratic reforms in the country, and were protesting against politically motivated arrests. However, it appears that during the demonstration of 2 April 2011 several unidentified persons inflicted physical injuries to around twenty-five police officers, damaged two private vehicles, and broke windows of some shops and offices located near the place where the demonstration was held. Also, the demonstration allegedly caused traffic jams. Both demonstrations were dispersed by the police. 2.     The demonstration of 19 June 2010 (submissions by Mr Mahammad Majidli (application no. 56317/11)) The applicant was arrested during the dispersal of the demonstration of 19 June 2010 and taken to a police station. On the day of his arrest, an “administrative offence report” ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) was drawn up in respect of the applicant. The report stated that by participating in an unauthorised demonstration the applicant had deliberately failed to comply with the lawful order of the police, and, by doing so, had committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). The applicant was brought before the Sabail District Court on the day of the arrest. By its decision of 19 June 2010 the court convicted the applicant under Article 310.1 of the CAO, and sentenced him to a fine of 20   Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (approximately 20 euros (EUR)). Both after the arrest and during the first-instance court hearing the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. The first-instance court relied heavily on the administrative offence report issued in respect of the applicant. The applicant lodged an appeal before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that his conviction was in violation of his rights because the demonstration in which he had participated had been peaceful. The applicant asked the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court’s decision in his case. According to the applicant, neither he nor his lawyer was informed about the date and time of the hearing before the Baku Court of Appeal. Therefore, the court examined the case in their absence. By its decision of 23 July 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court. The applicant received the decision of the Baku Court of Appeal only on 28   February 2011, after his complaints against failure to serve the decision in a timely manner. 3.     The demonstration of 2 April 2011 (submissions by all applicants) (a)     The applicants’ arrest and charges against them The applicants were arrested during the dispersal of the demonstration of 2 April 2011 and were brought to various police offices and police stations. (i)     Mr Mahammad Majidli (application no. 56317/11) Mr Mahammad Majidli was arrested on 2 April 2011 at around 2 p.m. He was first brought to a police station then to the Sabail District Police Office. On the same date the applicant was first questioned at the Sabail District Police Office as a witness. He was warned about the criminal responsibility of a witness under the Criminal Code for making false statements. The applicant was not represented by a lawyer. According to the applicant, the record about his arrest ( tutulma haqqında protokol ) was drawn up only at 10.45 p.m. On the same date an official decision about his arrest as a suspect ( şübhəli şəxsin tutulması haqqında qərar ) was adopted. It appears that subsequently the applicant was questioned as a suspect. From submissions of the applicant it is not clear whether he was represented by a lawyer during this questioning. According to the decision on the applicant’s arrest, he was suspected of committing the criminal offences under Articles 233 (organisation of or active participation in actions causing a breach of public order) and 315 (resistance to or violence against a public officer) of the Criminal Code. On 4 April 2011 the prosecution formally charged the applicant with a criminal offence under Article 233 of the Criminal Code. (ii)     Mr Arif Hajili (application no. 67932/11) Mr Arif Hajili was arrested by plain-clothed persons on 2 April 2011 at around 2 p.m. He was brought to the Nasimi District Police Office. From 8 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. on the same date the applicant was first questioned at the Nasimi District Police Office as a witness in presence of his “representatives” (it is not clear whether these representatives were lawyers). It appears that he was warned about the criminal responsibility of a witness refusing to testify (Article 298 of the Criminal Code) and the criminal responsibility of a witness for making false statements (Article 297 of the Criminal Code). After the questioning the applicant was not allowed to leave. According to the applicant, until being questioned he had been kept handcuffed. At 10.30 p.m. on the same date an official decision about the applicant’s arrest as a suspect was drawn up. He was suspected of the criminal offence under Article 233 of the Criminal Code. Later, between 10.35 p.m. to 10.45   p.m., the record about the applicant’s arrest was drawn up. Then the applicant was questioned as a suspect. During his questioning he refused to accept a State-funded lawyer and insisted on hiring lawyers of his own choice. His requests were rejected by the prosecution. On 4 April 2011 the prosecution formally charged the applicant under Article 233 of the Criminal Code. (iii)     Mr Tural Abbasli (application no. 27472/12) Mr Tural Abbasli was arrested by three police officers and one plain ‑ clothed person at around 1.50 p.m. on 2 April 2011, as soon as he started to chant slogans at the demonstration. According to the applicant, on the way towards a bus used for transportation of arrested persons, the police officers used force and hit him. Inside the bus, with the applicant’s arms handcuffed behind his back, the police officers continued to beat him with a rubber truncheon and ripped his clothes. The applicant was brought to the Yasamal District Police Office where he was beaten by the deputy chief of police, J.M., other police officers and plain-clothed persons. On the same date the applicant was first questioned as a witness. The applicant was not represented by a lawyer and was not allowed to leave after questioning. Then an official decision about the applicant’s arrest as a suspect was drawn up. The applicant refused to accept a State-funded lawyer and insisted on hiring lawyers of his own choice. It appears that his request was not granted. On 4 April 2011 the prosecution formally charged the applicant under Article 233 of the Criminal Code. (iv)     Mr Fuad Gahramanli (application no. 59661/12) According to Mr Fuad Gahramanli, he was arrested on 2 April 2011 between 2.30 p.m. and 3 p.m. while he was giving an interview to journalists during the demonstration. He was brought to Police Station no.   37 of the Khatai District Police Office. According to the applicant, until around 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. he was kept handcuffed, without any official record about his arrest. Later such record was drawn up, and the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer. On 4 April 2011 the prosecution formally charged the applicant under Article 233 of the Criminal Code. On 4 April 2011 the applicant was released from detention. He was placed under police supervision as a preventive pre-trial measure. (b)     Pre-trial detention of Mr Mahammad Majidli and Mr Arif Hajili (i)     Mr Mahammad Majidli (application no. 56317/11) On 4 April 2011 the Sabail District Court ordered, upon the prosecution’s request, the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of two months (until 2 June 2011). The judge gave as grounds for this measure the possibility of the applicant absconding and obstructing the investigation, the possibility of his avoiding the criminal responsibility, and the fact that the applicant’s implication in the crime was proved. The applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order of 4 April 2011. He complained that the decision was not substantiated and there was no justification for the application of the pre-trial detention, noting that his social status, family situation, other personal circumstances and the fact that he had never committed a crime before had not been taken into account. The applicant also complained that neither he nor his lawyer was given an opportunity to examine the content of the prosecution’s request for pre ‑ trial detention. The applicant further argued that his detention on 2 April 2011 during the period from around 2 p.m., when he had been de facto arrested, to 10.45 p.m., when the report about his detention was drawn up, had been unlawful. On 14 April 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the detention order. According to the applicant, the decision of the Baku Court of Appeal was never served on him or his lawyer. On 23 May 2011 the prosecution requested an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. On 24 May 2011 the Sabail District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention by two more months (until 2   August 2011) with reference to the possibility of the applicant absconding and obstructing the investigation by illegally influencing participants of the criminal proceedings, the possibility of his avoiding the criminal responsibility, and the nature and circumstances of the criminal offence of which the applicant was accused. The applicant appealed complaining that the first-instance court had failed to justify his continued detention and that various circumstances which he had presented against the application of the pre-trial detention had not been taken into consideration. On 2 June 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the extension order of 24 May 2011. On 14 July 2011 the prosecution requested a further extension of the applicant’s detention. On 15 July 2011 the Sabail District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention by two more months (until 2 October 2011). The judge gave as grounds for this measure the possibility of the applicant absconding from the investigation and the nature and circumstances of the criminal offence of which the applicant was accused. The applicant appealed. On an unspecified date the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the extension order of 15 July 2011. According to the applicant, the decision of the Baku Court of Appeal was never served on him or his lawyer. (ii)     Mr Arif Hajili (application no. 67932/11) On 4 April 2011 the Sabail District Court ordered, upon the prosecution’s request, the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of two months (starting from 2 April 2011). The judge cited as grounds for this measure the nature and gravity of the criminal offence, the possibility of the applicant absconding and obstructing the investigation by illegally influencing participants of the criminal proceedings, and the possibility of the applicant re-committing the offence. The applicant appealed. He complained that the decision was not substantiated and there was no justification for the application of the pre ‑ trial detention, noting that the fact that he was accused of a “less serious” offence ( az ağır cinayət ), his social and professional status, family situation, other personal circumstances and the fact that he had a permanent place of residence had not been taken into account when the court had ordered his detention. Also, the applicant complained that his detention on 2 April 2011 during the period from around 2 p.m., when he had been de facto arrested, to around midnight, when the report about his detention was drawn up, had been unlawful. On 11 April 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal. On 26 April 2011 the applicant lodged a request with the Sabail District Court to change the preventive measure of remand in custody to house arrest. On 27 April 2011 the Sabail District Court rejected the applicant’s request to change the pre-trial detention to house arrest. On 5 May 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision. On 24 May 2011, following the prosecution’s request, the Sabail District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention by two more months (until 2 August 2011) with reference to the possibility of the applicant absconding and obstructing the investigation by illegally influencing participants of the criminal proceedings, the possibility of his avoiding the criminal responsibility, the nature of the offence incriminated to the applicant, and circumstances of committal of the offence. The applicant appealed complaining that the court had failed to justify his continued detention and that there were no circumstances that could justify the extension. On 2 June 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 15 July 2011, following the prosecution’s request, the Sabail District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention by two more months (until 2 October 2011). The judge cited as grounds for this measure the applicant’s character, the possibility of the applicant absconding and obstructing the investigation by illegally influencing participants of the criminal proceedings, the dangerousness and circumstances of committal of the criminal offence of which the applicant was suspected, the fact that the applicant potentially could be sanctioned to more than two years’ imprisonment for this offence, and the possibility of the applicant re ‑ committing the offence. The applicant appealed. On 21 July 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. According to the applicant, the decision of the Baku Court of Appeal was never served on him or his lawyer. (c)     Alleged ill-treatment of Mr Tural Abbasli (application no. 27472/12) On 4 April 2011, when Mr Tural Abbasli was brought before a judge, who was to decide whether to apply a pre-trial detention, he raised a complaint about ill-treatment during his arrest and at the Yasamal District Police Office. The judge transmitted the complaint to the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office for examination. On an unspecified date the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office began examination of the ill-treatment allegations. On 2 and 7 April 2011 two forensic expert reports were issued confirming that on the back side of the applicant’s left leg there was a bruise caused by a blunt object, possibly inflicted on 2 April 2011. On 4 April 2011 the applicant’s lawyer (apparently the same lawyer who represents the applicant before the Court) met him for the first time at the temporary detention facility of the Yasamal District Police Office and noticed numerous traces of injuries on his face. The lawyer requested the investigating authority to allow him to take photographs of the applicant and to allow a doctor of the applicant’s own choice to examine him. According to applicant, this request was not granted. Also, the applicant was not given an opportunity to undergo an alternative forensic expert examination. On 25 April 2011 the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s request to institute criminal proceedings in connection with his allegations of ill-treatment. The decision was based on statements of police officers who had participated in the applicant’s arrest and of those who had checked in and registered the applicant at the Yasamal District Police Office, including the deputy chief of police, J.M. All these police officers denied that there had been any ill-treatment. Also, the decision concluded that the bruise on the applicant’s body identified by the forensic expert reports could have been inflicted during the arrest as a result of his own illegal actions, such as resistance while entering the car. According to the applicant the investigating authority failed to question particular persons, Kh.B. and R.B., who had witnessed the applicant being beaten by the police officers. The applicant complained against the decision of 25 April 2011 of the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office to the Sabail District Court. According to the applicant, he submitted to the court a photograph taken during his arrest and showing him in torn clothes. On 8 September 2011 the court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The applicant appealed complaining that the investigating authority had based the rejection decision only on the police officers’ statements, had failed to conduct his face-to-face confrontation with the questioned police officers, and had failed to question witnesses on his behalf. By a final decision of 23 September 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. The applicant received the decision of the Baku Court of Appeal on 3 October 2011. (d)     The applicants’ trial (i)     Examination of the criminal case on the merits On 29 July 2011 a bill of indictment ( ittiham aktı ) was drawn up in respect of the applicants. On an unspecified date the criminal case against the applicants was sent to the Sabail District Court for examination on the merits. At the court hearing Mr Mahammad Majidli (application no. 56317/11), Mr Arif Hajili (application no. 67932/11) and Mr Fuad Gahramanli (application no. 59661/12) stated that they were not guilty, and that the case against them was politically motivated. Mr Tural Abbasli (application no.   27472/12) refused to give any statement until the court explained the nature of the conviction. However, Mr Tural Abbasli’s statement given at the pre ‑ trial investigation – statement that he was not guilty of an incriminated offence – was read out. The trial court heard a number of prosecution witnesses. According to the applicants, the prosecution witnesses gave a general description of the events of 2 April 2011 and stated that unidentified alleged participants of the demonstration inflicted on them either physical or material damage. None of these statements implicated the applicants. The police officers who participated in the arrest of the applicants testified that the applicants actively participated in the demonstration of 2   April 2011, were leading other participants, and refused to obey orders of the police to stop their participation in the unauthorized demonstration. The court heard some witnesses on the applicants’ side, but dismissed testimonies given by these witnesses as biased. According to the applicants, they submitted to the investigating authority photos and video recordings showing persons who had broken the windows of shops during the demonstration, as well as relevant mass media reports (for example, press reports in which certain persons claimed that they recognised the perpetrators), and asked to investigate the identity of those persons. The investigating authority accepted the applicants’ submissions and request but never gave any information on the outcome of the inquiry. During the trial, the applicants requested the court to obtain information about the outcome of that inquiry. However, no further action was taken. According to the applicants, the trial court examined some edited video recordings of the demonstration, omitting parts showing police violence towards the participants. The applicants’ requests concerning the examination of full video materials had not been satisfied. (ii)     Examination of civil claims against the applicants By its judgment of 3 October 2011 the Sabail District Court left undecided (without examination on merits) civil claims against the applicants. Such claims had been lodged by legal and physical persons who had allegedly suffered financial loss because of traffic jams and those whose property (such as vehicles and windows of shops and offices) had been damaged. The court explained to the alleged victims that they had the right to request payment of compensation for pecuniary damage by lodging a separate civil complaint against the applicants. (iii)     Complaints about the alleged violation of presumption of innocence While the trial against the applicants was ongoing the Sabail District Court delivered its judgment of 25 August 2011 against six other participants of the demonstration of 2 April 2011. The judgment stated that the mentioned persons committed the criminal offences in question under direction ( təşkilatçılıq ) of the applicants and several other persons. On an unspecified date the lawyer of Mr Arif Hajili (application no.   67932/11) submitted a request to the Sabail District Court, which heard the criminal case against the applicants, asking to recognise that the abovementioned judgment of 25 August 2011 had violated the applicants’ right to presumption of innocence. According to the applicants, the court refused to examine the request. It appears that the Court of Appeal failed to give any weight to these complaints, while the Supreme Court in its decisions of 24 April 2012 and 21 June 2012 found briefly that the applicants’ complaints about violation of presumption of innocence were either unsubstantiated or groundless. (iv)     The first-instance judgment The trial against the applicants ended in October 2011. The Sabail District Court found that the applicants had organised and actively participated in actions causing a breach of public order. By a judgment of 3   October 2011, the court convicted the applicants under Article 233 of the Criminal Code and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment ranging from two years to two years and six months (see Annex). The trial court based its judgment exclusively on testimonies of a number of prosecution witnesses. (v)     Appeals The applicants lodged appeals before the Baku Court of Appeal. Noting various defects in the trial the applicants complained that the hearings before the first-instance court had not been fair. They also complained that their arrest had been unlawful and the conviction had been in violation of their right to freedom of assembly. The applicants asked the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court’s judgment of 3 October 2011. On 25 November 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal decided to examine the applicants’ appeals “without a judicial investigation”, that is without a new hearing on points of both fact and law entailing a fresh judicial examination of the evidence and the parties’ legal and factual arguments. On 16 December 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeals against the judgment of 3 October 2011. On 24 April 2012 and 21 June 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ cassation appeals and upheld the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 16 December 2011 (see Appendix). According to the applicants, both the Baku Court of Appeal in its judgment of 16 December 2011 and the Supreme Court in its decisions of 24 April 2012 and 21 June 2012 repeated the trial court’s findings. The courts did not address the applicants’ complaints concerning the various defects in the trial, summarily rejecting those complaints without giving any reasoning. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant in application no. 27472/12 complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest at the demonstration of 2 April 2011 and in the police custody, and that the domestic authorities failed to effectively investigate his allegations of ill ‑ treatment. 2.     Referring to the circumstances of their arrest at the demonstration of 2   April 2011, subsequent detention and conviction the applicants complain that deprivation of their liberty was unlawful in violation of Article 5 of the Convention. Further, the applicants in applications nos. 56317/11, 67932/11 and   59661/12 complain under Article 5 of the Convention that, after their arrest during the demonstration of 2 April 2011, certain periods of their detention were unrecorded. Also, the applicants in applications nos. 56317/11 and 67932/11 complain that there was no necessity for application of pre-trial detention in their respect and that the domestic courts failed to justify their continued pre-trial detention. 3.     In connection with the demonstration of 19 June 2010 the applicant in application no. 56317/11 complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the administrative proceedings did not comply with the requirements of fair trial. In particular, he complains that neither his nor his lawyer’s participation at the appeal hearing was ensured. 4.     In connection with the demonstration of 2 April 2011 the applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them, taken as a whole, were unfair, and that their right to a reasoned judgment was violated. Also, the applicants in applications nos. 56317/11, 67932/11, and   27472/12 complain under Article 6 of the Convention that during the initial stage of the pre-trial questioning they were deprived of effective legal assistance. 5.     In connection with the demonstration of 2 April 2011 the applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the Sabail District Court’s judgment of 25 August 2011, concerning the separate criminal proceedings against six other participants of the demonstration of 2 April 2011, violated their presumption of innocence. 6.     The applicants complain under Article 11 of the Convention that their right to freedom of assembly was violated on account of dispersal of the demonstrations of 19 June 2010 (application no. 56317/11 only) and 2 April 2011, and on account of their arrest and conviction for participation (or attempt to participate) in these demonstrations. The applicants in applications nos. 67932/11, 27472/12 and 59661/12 also rely on Article 10 in this respect.     COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     In connection with their arrest at the demonstration of 2 April 2011 and subsequent conviction, were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     In connection with criminal proceedings following their arrest at the demonstration of 2 April 2011, did the applicants have a fair and public hearing in determining the charge against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Were the proceedings, taken as a whole, fair? Was the applicants’ right to a reasoned judgment respected?   3.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the criminal case against the applicants? In particular, did the judgment of 25 August 2011 – delivered by the Sabail District Court in separate criminal proceedings against six other participants of the demonstration of 2 April 2011 – respect the applicants’ presumption of innocence?   4.     In connection with both demonstrations of 19 June 2010 and of 2   April 2011, has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary, in terms of Article 11 § 2? Was the interference proportionate?   5.     The parties are requested to submit copies of the following: (a)     all documents relating to the administrative and criminal proceedings, including the applicants’ complaints, appeals and requests; any statements made by the applicants during the initial stages of the pre-trial investigation (questioning either as a suspect or as a witness), and the transcripts of the hearings; (b)     all documents relating to the organisation and holding of the demonstrations of 19 June 2010 and of 2 April 2011, in particular the notifications submitted by the organisers of the demonstrations to the relevant local executive authorities, and the official responses the organisers received from the relevant local executive authorities; (c)     where applicable, all documents relating to the applicants’ detention before their being recognised as an accused, including copies of the records on each applicant’s arrest ( tutulma haqqında protokol ) and the decisions on each applicant’s arrest as a suspect ( şübhəli şəxsin tutulması haqqında qərar ); (d)     where applicable, all documents relating to the proceedings concerning the applicants’ pre-trial detention, including all complaints or appeals by the applicants, and all documents and decisions adopted by the authorities.   CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Application no. 56317/11 (in connection with the demonstration of 19   June 2010): Did the applicant comply with the six-month time-limit for lodging the application concerning alleged violation of right to freedom of assembly and alleged unfairness of administrative proceedings against him?   Application no. 27472/12: Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment during his arrest and in police custody on 2 April 2011, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   The parties are requested to submit copies of any and all complaints or appeals by the applicant concerning the alleged ill-treatment lodged with the relevant domestic authorities; decisions or other documents related to the investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment; any evidence confirming the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment, such as forensic expert examination reports (in particular, expert reports of 2 and 7 April 2011), witness statements (in particular, by Kh.B. and R.B., and the applicant’s lawyer who allegedly witnessed injuries on his face), official records, and photographs.   Applications nos. 56317/11 (in connection with the demonstration of 2   April 2011), 67932/11 and 59661/12: Was the deprivation of liberty during the period between each applicant’s arrest at the demonstration of 2 April 2011 and the time when a record on arrest as a suspect was drawn up in his respect compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   Applications nos. 56317/11 (in connection with the demonstration of 2   April 2011) and 67932/11: Did the deprivation of the applicants’ liberty by means of the imposition of a pre-trial detention (remand in custody) after their arrest at the demonstration of 2 April 2011 comply with the requirements of Article 5 §§   1 (c) and 3 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicants’ detention for the purposes of Article   5 § 3 of the Convention?   Application no. 56317/11 (in connection with the demonstration of 19   June 2010): Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the “administrative” proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the right to be informed about and to participate effectively in the proceedings, the possibility to defend oneself in person, and the opportunity to challenge the evidence and to oppose its use?   Applications nos. 56317/11 (in connection with the demonstration of 2   April 2011), 67932/11, and 27472/12: During the initial stage of the pre-trial interrogation were the applicants able to defend themselves through legal assistance of their own choosing, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? Did representation (if any) by a State-funded lawyer constitute an effective legal assistance? When did the applicants get access to a lawyer of their own choice for the first time during the proceedings?     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Dates of original and follow-up submissions Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Notes First-instance decisions Final decisions   56317/11 16/08/2011 16/08/2011 - submissions following administrative case   Mahammad MAJIDLI 1973 Baku   Azer NAGIYEV administrative fine of 20 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) for participation in the demonstration of 19 June 2010 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 19 June 2010 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 23 July 2010 (sent to the applicant on 28 February 2011). 17/10/2011 - submissions following arrest and pre-trial detention 25/12/2012 - submissions following criminal conviction 2 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment for participation in the demonstration 2 April 2011 Judgment of the Sabail District Court of 3 October 2011 Decision of the Supreme Court of 21 June 2012 (received by the applicant on 25 June 2012)   67932/11 10/10/2011 10/10/2011 - submissions following arrest and pre-trial detention 10/07/2012 - submissions following criminal conviction Arif HAJILI 1962   Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE Asabali MUSTAFAYEV 2 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment for participation in the demonstration 2 April 2011   Judgment of the Sabail District Court of 3 October 2011 Decision of the Supreme Court of 24 April 2012   27472/12 02/04/2012 02/04/2012 - submissions about alleged ill-treatment by police   Tural ABBASLI 1982   Anar GASIMLI 2 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment for participation in the demonstration 2 April 2011 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 8 September 2011   Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 23 September 2011 (received by the applicant on 3 October 2011) 20/12/2012 - submissions following criminal conviction Judgment of the Sabail District Court of 3 October 2011 Decision of the Supreme Court of 21 June 2012   59661/12 25/06/2012 25/06/2012 - submissions following criminal conviction Fuad GAHRAMANLI 1975 Baku Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE Asabali MUSTAFAYEV 2 years’ imprisonment for participation in the demonstration 2 April 2011 (changed to conditional sentence with one year probationary period) Judgment of the Sabail District Court of 3 October 2011 Decision of the Supreme Court of 24 April 2012