FIRST SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 34553/02 by Letif GULIYEV and Cerulla RAMAZANOV against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr C.L. Rozakis , President , Mr P. Lorenzen , Mrs S. Botoucharova , Mr A. Kovler , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , Mrs E. Steiner , Mr K. Hajiyev, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 September 2002 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Letif Guliyev and Mr Cerulla Ramazanov, are Azerbaijani nationals who, respectively, were born in 1947 and 1951 and live in Baku and Sumgayit.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

A. The alleged interference with the applicants ’ political activities.

The applicants were members of the “Adalet” political party, which was in opposition to the current government. As it appears from the case file, at the time of the events in question, the party was not registered with the Ministry of Justice and, therefore, its activity was deemed illegal by the authorities.

The party had a regional office in Sumgayit. According to the applicants, on 30 August 2001 some people related to the authorities removed from the office ’ s entrance door the signboard featuring the party ’ s name. On 10 September 2001 several police officers arrived in the office, destroyed some of the assets in the premises, forcefully expelled the party members from the premises and sealed up the office door.

On 19 September 2001 the police again unexpectedly arrived in the party ’ s office in Sumgayit and interfered with the meeting which was held there at that time. The police explained that they had been called by the people in the neighbourhood complaining of the disturbance and noise coming out from the office. The meeting participants objected to such interference. Following a dispute between the policemen and the meeting participants, the police took ten men to the police station for search and interrogat ion . After a few hours of being held at the police station, all arrested were released except for the applicants and one other person .

During and after these events, in September 2001, the “Adalet” party applied to the Sumgayit City Executive Authority (the “SCEA”) with several requests for permission to hold a manifestation in protest of the applicants ’ arrest and the authorities ’ alleged interference with the party ’ s activities. These requests were rejected. On 14 November 2001 the SCEA sent a letter to one of the party members, explaining that “Adalet” was not registered with the Ministry of Justice as a political party and, therefore, the permission to hold a manifestation could not be granted because “Adalet” did not function in accordance with the requirements of the Law On Political Parties .

B. The applicants ’ remand and conviction.

While in police custody, the applicants were refused to see a doctor and to have a lawyer. Their relatives and friends were not informed immediately about the applicants ’ whereabouts. On 22 September 2001 the investigation department of the Sumgayit City Police Station instituted criminal proceedings against the applicants and issued a bill of indictment, accusing the applicants of resistance to police and violation of public order. Based on the bill of indictment, on 23 September 2001 the Sumgayit C ity Court ordered the applicant s ’ detention on remand for one month pending the trial. On 28 September 2001 the Court of Appeal upheld the detention order.

In detention, the applicants were held at the same police station as in the case of their arrest. The cell was dirty and in bad hygienic condition. Despite a number of requests, the applicants were not transferred to the detention centre, where accused persons were normally supposed to be held.

On 24 December 2001 the Sumgayit City Court convicted the applicants for hooliganism, including the breaking of the public order, assault and resistance to the police authorities. According to the applicants, although a number of witnesses had testified in their favour, the court relied only on testimonies of seven police officers, all of whom testified against the applicants. The court sentenced each applicant to a one year and six months ’ term of imprisonment.

The applicants appealed against this judgment , complaining that the case had been fabricated, that the first instance court had violated a number of procedural rules, and that it had failed to give legal assessment to the testimonies of the defence witnesses . On 13 February 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants ’ request and upheld the district court ’ s judgment. The Court of Appeal found that the applicants ’ guilt was sufficiently proven by the witness testimonies admitted by the first instance court. Nevertheless, taking into account the mitigating circumstances of the case, the Court of Appeal found it reasonable to commute the applicants ’ imprisonment sentence to a conditional sentence. The applicants were therefore released.

The applicants lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court , seeking acquittal . On 9 July 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal and upheld the lower courts ’ decisions.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subject to inhuman and degrading treatment while under arrest and in detention on remand. Specifically, they allege that, during the first 32 hours of arrest, they were not given anything to eat or drink, that they were held in unhygienic conditions, that they were refused to see either a doctor or a lawyer, and that none of their relatives was informed of their whereabouts.

2. The applicants further complain under Article 5 of the Convention that they were not promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest and that the fact of their arrest was not reported to the supervising prosecutor in time. They also allege that the detention order was unlawful and fabricated, because there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed a crime.

3. The applicants a lso complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings were unfair. According to the applicants, the domestic courts relied only on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, all of whom were the police offi cers involved in the incident of 19 September 2001 . Despite the fact that several defence witnesses had testified before the court in the applicants ’ favour, their testimonies were neither considered nor even mentioned in the judgment. The court even failed to provide reasons for its omission to consider defence witnesses ’ testimonies as evidence in the case.

4. The applicants also complain that the police intrusion in their office during the party meeting was unlawful and unjustified, and that the criminal case against them was fabricated and politically motivated. They contend that the only reason for their conviction was their affiliation with a political party that was in opposition to the government.

5 . Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that their right to respect for private and family life was violated by the authorities. They contend that, as a result of their persecution and conviction, their families were discredited in the eyes of the public and isolated from the society. Furthermore, Mr Ramazanov alleges that his children were barred from attending the university and that his son had to leave the country because of the fear of persecution.  

6 . The applicants complain under Article 9 of the Convention that the alleged politically motivated persecution by the authorities constituted a violation of their freedom of thought and conscience.

7 . Invoking Article 11 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the authorities violated their freedom of peaceful assembly. Specifically, they submit that the authorities unlawfully rejected their party ’ s requests , made in September 2001, to hold peaceful manifestations in protest of their unlawful arrest.

8 . Finally, the applicants invoke Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with the above complaints , alleging that their conviction was politically motivated and, therefore, claim that they were discriminated on the ground of their political opinion .

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings were unfair because their conviction was based solely on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and that the domestic courts have failed to consider as evidence the testimonies of the defence witnesses (cf. complaint no. 3).

The applicants also complain that the police interference with their meeting was unjustified, that the criminal case against them was fabricated and that they were convicted only because they were members of an opposition party (cf. complaint no. 4). The Court considers that, in substance, this complaint should be analysed from the standpoint of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

Invoking Article 14 of the Convention, the applicants also complain that, by instituting fabricated criminal proceedings against them with the aim to interfere with their political activities , the authorities discriminated them on the ground of their political opinion (cf. complaint no. 8 ).

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government .

2. Invoking Articles 3, 5 and 11 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the authorities violated procedural rules during their arrest and detention pending trial, that they were ill-treated while in police custody and that they were unlawfully refused to hold political manifestations (cf. complaints nos. 1, 2 and 7 ).

The Court notes that it is only competent to examine complaints of violations of the Convention by virtue of acts, facts or decisions that have occurred after the Convention had entered into force with respect to the High Contracting Party concerned (see e.g. Kazimova v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 40368/02, 6 March 2003 ). The Court further notes that the events giving rise to the applicants ’ above-mentioned complaints occurred prior to 15 April 2002 , the date of the Convention ’ s entry into force with respect to Azerbaijan . No domestic proceedings specifically relating to these complaints were instituted after that date.

Therefore, the Court finds that these complaints are outside its competence ratione temporis and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

3 . Having examined the applicants ’ remaining c omplaints (cf. complaints nos. 5 and 6 ) in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 § § 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants ’ complaints concerning the right to a fair trial , the alleged violation of freedoms of expression and assembly, and the alleged discrimination on the ground of political opinion ;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President