CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 septembre 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2020)178 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Three cases against Azerbaijan   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 September 2020 at the 1377bis meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 15172/13 ILGAR MAMMADOV 22/05/2014 29/05/2019 (46 § 4) 13/10/2014 29/05/2019 919/15 ILGAR MAMMADOV (No. 2) 16/11/2017 05/03/2018 69981/14 RASUL JAFAROV 17/03/2016 04/07/2016   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”, and under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 5, of the Convention, which provides that when in proceedings under Article 46, paragraph 4, the Court finds a violation of Article 46 paragraph   1 the case is referred back to the Committee for consideration of the measures to be taken;   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established mainly on account of their arrest and detention in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence (violations of Article 5 § 1(c)), the lack of a genuine review of the lawfulness of their detention (violations of Article 5 § 4), and of the Court’s findings that the actual purpose of the criminal proceedings was to punish them for their activities or to prevent their further work and that the restriction of their rights was applied for purposes other than those prescribed by the Convention (violations of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5);   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the individual measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2020)365 );   Recalling that in its judgment in the case of Ilgar Mammadov under Article 46, paragraph 4 of the Convention the Grand Chamber considered that the essential question that had been referred to it by the Committee was whether there had been a failure by Azerbaijan to adopt the individual measures required to abide by   the Court’s judgment regarding the violation of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5, and concluded that the judgment required in essence that the negative consequences of the imposition of the impugned criminal charges on Mr Mammadov be eliminated.   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved, given that the applicants were released and following the Court’s judgment under Article 46 paragraph 4 of the Convention the Supreme Court quashed their convictions and awarded them compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from their unlawful arrest and imprisonment and that thereby all negative consequences of the abusive criminal proceedings have been eliminated;   Noting, in this context, also the most recent communications from the applicants, thanking the Committee and asking for their cases to be closed (see DH-DD(2020)486 and DH-DD(2020)593 );   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in the present judgments continues to be examined within the framework of the Mammadli group (Application No. 47145/14) of cases and that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures in relation to the problem of misuse of the criminal law against government critics and human rights defenders and to the need to ensure the independence of the judiciary and the prosecuting authorities;   Further recalling, in this context, the important precedent set by the Supreme Court in its decisions of 23   April 2020 on the Ilgar Mammadov and Rasul Jafarov cases for the Convention-compliant interpretation and application of national legislation;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases as regards the individual measures and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.