CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA14D0A47 { width:109.98%; border-collapse:collapse } .s9BEA698C { width:6.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s796A1346 { width:27.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBAAEE09F { width:23.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB6BF200B { width:42.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE452878A { width:6.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s489EFFB3 { width:27.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE6543FB4 { width:23.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDCB7F9CE { width:42.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s76194627 { height:60.2pt } .sE4604AFD { width:11.77pt; display:inline-block } Published on 3 October 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 47347/18 Taleh BAGIROV and Others against Azerbaijan lodged on 28 September 2018 communicated on 12 September 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the individual applicants. It also concerns the alleged breach of the right to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, the alleged breach of the right of individual petition, and the alleged restriction of the applicants’ rights for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. The individual applicants, except for applicant Fuad Gahramanli, are either members or supporters of the applicant organisation, which is an unregistered religious movement called “ Müsəlman Birliyi ” (“the MB”), established in the beginning of 2015 by applicant Taleh Bagirov. Applicant Fuad Gahramanli is a journalist and the deputy chairman of Azerbaijan Popular Front Party. On 26 November 2015 so-called “Nardaran events” occurred, during or in the aftermath of which the individual applicants were arrested. On that day armed police officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the MIA”) carried out an operation (“the operation”) by entering a house of Abulfaz Bunyatov (who is one of the applicants in application no. 365/20 pending before the Court) in Nardaran settlement of Baku, where a number of people, including most of the individual applicants, were attending a religious gathering. According to the police records, the operation was organised based on information that Taleh Bagirov and some other people had been, inter alia , gathering to prepare seizure of power by violent means, mass disorders, terrorist acts, organising armed groups and obtaining weapons. During the operation shootings occurred, killing six people (four Nardaran residents who attended the gathering and two police officers) and injuring many others, including some of the individual applicants. According to the police records, at the scene were found and seized, inter alia , weapons, explosive substances, and booklets containing calls for violence. According to the individual applicants, during the Nardaran events more than seventy people were detained in total. Applicant Fuad Gahramanli was not among those who attended the religious gathering of 26 November 2015. He was arrested on 8   December 2015 for his posts on Facebook, in which he, inter alia , criticised the actions of the authorities during and after the Nardaran events and alleged that the criminal case against Taleh Bagirov had been politically motivated and fabricated. Later all the individual applicants were prosecuted in the framework of the same criminal proceedings. Applicant Fuad Gahramanli was convicted of calls to commit mass disorder, public calls against the State, and incitement of national, racial or religious hostility by using or threatening to use violence. All the other individual applicants were convicted of a number of grave crimes as members or supporters of the applicant organisation, the MB, including intentional murder by an organised criminal group, preparation to commit terrorism, public calls to commit terrorism, calls to commit mass disorder, unlawfully obtaining, keeping and carrying weapons, explosives, etc., violent seizure of power, creation of armed units or groups, public calls against the State by a group of people, incitement of national, racial or religious hostility by an organised criminal group, and resistance or violence against a representative of the authorities. Applicant Abbas Huseynov was in addition convicted of organisation of and participation in actions to breach public order in a group. The individual applicants were sentenced to imprisonment varying between ten and twenty years. On 1 March 2018 the Supreme Court delivered a final decision in the criminal proceedings (made available to the individual applicants’ lawyers on 5   April 2018). Before the individual applicants were convicted, the MIA and the General Prosecutor’s Office made statements to the media about the Nardaran events. All the individual applicants argue before the Court that their conviction was based on fabricated and otherwise unlawful evidence, such as self ‑ incriminating statements obtained under ill-treatment, and complain that the criminal proceedings against them were in breach of various fair-trial guarantees under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention. All the individual applicants also complain under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that their presumption of innocence was violated because the MIA and the General Prosecutor’s Office in their statements to the media had called or portrayed them as criminals, before they were convicted of any criminal offence. Furthermore, all the individual applicants, except for Fuad Gahramanli, complain under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention and Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 6, 9 and 11 that their arrest and charges against them were in breach of their right to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly and association; and that they were arrested and charged for political reasons, their criticism of the authorities, and their link with the MB. The applicants argue that neither they, as members or supporters of the MB, nor the MB itself had violent or otherwise criminal intentions, and that the proceedings against them were fabricated. The applicant organisation, the MB, complains under Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention and Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 9 and 11 that the purpose and effect of the arrest and conviction of the individual applicants as its members or supporters were to prevent the organisation from operating. Applicant Fuad Gahramanli complains under Article 10 of the Convention and Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 6 and 10 that his arrest and conviction were in breach of his freedom of expression and that he was deliberately targeted by the authorities because of his active political opposition to the government. Applicant Abbas Huseynov complains that his right of individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention was violated. He submits in this regard that, while being held in Gobustan prison, he prepared a handwritten statement for the purposes of applying to the Court and gave it to his lawyer, Mr Fariz Namazli. However, the prison authorities confiscated that statement from the lawyer. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned decision and the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? Were the applicants afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against them, and to adduce evidence in support of their line of defence and to have such evidence assessed by the court? 2.     Has there been a public hearing in the present case, as required by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention? 3.     Were the applicants informed promptly and in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, as required by Article   6 §   3   (a) of the Convention? In particular, did the indictment state clearly both the factual and legal basis of the charges against the applicants? 4.     Were the applicants afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? 5.     Was the applicants’ right to legal assistance at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings respected? 6.     Were the applicants able to defend themselves through legal assistance of their own choosing, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention? 7.     Were the applicants afforded an adequate opportunity to communicate confidentially with their lawyers during the trial and to effectively participate in the court hearings? 8.     Were the applicants able to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article   6 § 3   (d) of the Convention? Were the applicants able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on their behalf, as required by Article   6 §   3   (d) of the Convention? 9.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, in particular, in view of the statements made to the media by the MIA and the General Prosecutor’s Office? Regarding this complaint, have the applicants complied with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month rule? 10.     Has there been an interference with the freedom of religion, assembly, and association of all the applicants, except for Fuad Gahramanli, within the meaning of Articles   9 §   1 and 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Articles   9 §   2 and   11 § 2? 11.     In the circumstances of the present case, does   Article 18   apply in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention (see Ilgar Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan (no. 2) , no. 919/15, § 261, 16 November 2017)? 12.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State on all the individual applicants, except for Fuad Gahramanli, purportedly pursuant to Articles 6, 9 and 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention? 13.     Were the restrictions (if any) imposed by the State on the applicant organisation, the MB, purportedly pursuant to Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention? 14.     Has there been an interference with Fuad Gahramanli’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2? 15.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State on Fuad Gahramanli, purportedly pursuant to Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention? 16.     Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of Abbas Huseynov’s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention, on account of confiscation of his handwritten statement from his lawyer, Mr Fariz Namazli?   The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the judgments and decisions of the domestic courts, transcripts of the court hearings and the applicants’ appeals and requests. APPENDIX List of applicants No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth, Nationality, Place of residence Represented by 1. Taleh Kamil oglu BAGIROV 1984 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Zibeyda Sadigova Elchin Sadigov Fariz Namazli Yalchin Imanov Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 2. Shamil Adil oglu ABDULALIYEV 1985 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Zibeyda Sadigova Elchin Sadigov Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 3. Bahruz Rahib oglu ASKEROV 1987 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Yalchin Imanov Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 4. Jahad Bala Huseyn oglu BABAKISHIZADE 1997 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Fariz Namazli Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 5. Farhad Nasraddin oglu BALAYEV 1984 Azerbaijani Masalli Philip Leach Fariz Namazli Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 6. Alibala Javad oglu VALIYEV 1980 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Nemat Karimli Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 7. Abbas Abdulrahman oglu GULIYEV 1995 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Nemat Karimli Fakhraddin Mehdiyev Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 8. Abbas Mammadbagir oglu HUSEYNOV 1987 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Fariz Namazli Yalchin Imanov Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 9. Agil Azer oglu ISMAYILOV 1995 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Yalchin Imanov Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 10. Etibar Rasim oglu ISMAYILOV 1963 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Nemat Karimli Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 11. Jabbar Amirkhan oglu JABBAROV 1985 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Zibeyda Sadigova Elchin Sadigov Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 12. Rasim Mirza Baba oglu JABRAYILOV 1982 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Zibeyda Sadigova Elchin Sadigov Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 13. Ibrahim Mammad oglu KHUDAVERDIYEV 1960 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Yalchin Imanov Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 14. Ramin Maharram oglu YARIYEV 1998 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Zibeyda Sadigova Elchin Sadigov Yalchin Imanov Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 15. Zakir Tapdig oglu MUSTAFAYEV 1977 Azerbaijani Ganja Philip Leach Yalchin Imanov Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 16. Ali Hasrat oglu NURIYEV 1991 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Nemat Karimli Fakhraddin Mehdiyev Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 17. Abbas Hafiz oglu TAGIZADE 1976 Azerbaijani Baku Philip Leach Fariz Namazli Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 18. Fuad Ali oglu GAHRAMANLI 1975 Azerbaijani Mehdiabad Philip Leach Yalchin Imanov Nemat Karimli Fakhraddin Mehdiyev Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite 19. MUSLIM UNITY MOVEMENT   Established in 2015 Baku Khalig Mammad Siyabov (coordinator) Philip Leach Fariz Namazli Jessica Gavron Ramute Remezaite