CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 6119/21 and 6125/21 Natavan GAFAROVA against Azerbaijan and Valida AHMADOVA against Azerbaijan both lodged on 19 January 2021 communicated on 7 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the torture and death of the applicant’s husband in application no. 6119/21 and of the applicant’s son in application no.   6125/21 during interrogations conducted by the military officers in connection with allegations of treason during military service. Following the deaths criminal proceedings were initiated by the Military Prosecutor’s Office. The authorities concluded that the applicant’s husband in application no. 6119/21 died from injuries sustained after jumping out of a window during interrogation, while the applicant’s son in application no.   6125/21 died from injuries inflicted on him during interrogation. Five perpetrators were subsequently convicted on multiple counts of incitement to suicide, infliction of bodily harm, infliction of bodily harm resulting in death by negligence, infliction of suffering through torture and abuse of office, and were each sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from five to six years. Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that their relatives were tortured and killed during the interrogations and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their relatives’ torture and killing. In particular, they argue that not all alleged perpetrators were charged or convicted, that the domestic courts convicted the perpetrators for the acts of infliction of bodily harm and the incitement to suicide rather than for torture and murder, which resulted in lighter sentences. The applicant in application no. 6119/21 also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the State agents did not allow her to bury her husband herself and visit the grave for some period of time. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicants’ relatives’ right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, did the applicants’ relatives’ deaths result from actions of the State agents for the purposes of paragraph 2 of this Article? Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §   104, ECHR 2000-VII), were the investigations in the present cases by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     Have the applicants’ relatives been subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from torture (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), were the investigations in the present cases by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     In application no. 6119/21, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for that complaint?   4.     Having regard to the allegation that the applicant was prevented from burying her husband herself and from visiting the grave for some period of time, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all the documents, such as forensic reports, procedural decisions, witness statements, photographs, video recordings or any other document relating to the criminal proceedings concerning the deaths of the applicants’ relatives.