A v. AZERBAIJAN and 24 other applications
Doc ref: 17184/18, 17195/18, 17201/18, 17206/18, 17234/18, 17263/18, 17374/18, 17698/18, 17712/18, 17740/18, ... • ECHR ID: 001-192028
Document date: February 26, 2019
- Inbound citations: 1
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
Communicated on 26 February 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 17184/18 A against Azerbaijan and 24 other applications (see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S
The applicants are members of the LGBT community who were arrested during the raids launched by the police in mid-September 2017.
The applicants complain that their arrest and subsequent administrative detention were unlawful and arbitrary, and based solely on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.
They further argue that they were ill-treated by police officers and custodial staff and that the relevant authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into their alleged ill-treatment.
The applicants also complain that they were subjected to forced medical examinations during their detention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by police officers and custodial staff during their arrest and detention, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Did the material conditions of the applicants ’ detention, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment? In particular:
(a) What were the dimensions of the cell? How many persons were detained in that cell at the same time as the applicants? Did the applicants have a separate bed and bedding?
(b) Was the cell adequately lit and ventilated? What were the sanitary conditions inside the cell?
(c) Did the applicants have appropriate provisions of food, water, bedding and other necessities?
3. Have the competent domestic authorities conducted an adequate investigation into the applicants ’ allegations of ill-treatment, as required by the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicants have effective domestic remedies at their disposal for their complaint under Article 3 concerning the alleged ill-treatment, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
5. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants ’ “administrative” detention in compliance with domestic procedural rules (see Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 142-149, 11 February 2016)?
6. Was Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in all cases? In the affirmative, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? Were the applicants afforded adequate facilities to prepare their defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? Were the applicants afforded an opportunity to defend themselves through legal assistance of their own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants ’ right to be defended by a lawyer of their own choice restricted during the questioning at the police station and the proceedings at the first-instance court?
7. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their private life, on account of their alleged forced medical examinations while in detention, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
8. Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of their actual and/or perceived sexual orientation contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, this provision being read in conjunction with Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention?
9. The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings concerning the applicants ’ arrest and administrative detention (including the documents concerning the applicants ’ medical examination, their lawyers ’ requests (if any) for such examination to be carried out and the copy of the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 29 September 2017 in respect of the application no. 17374/18).
No.
Application no.
Lodge d on
Applicant
Year of birth
Represented by
1
17184/18
28/03/2018
A
1990Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
2
17195/18
28/03/2018
B
1996Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
3
17201/18
30/03/2018
C
1999Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
4
17206/18
30/03/2018
D
1993Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
5
17234/18
28/03/2018
E
Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
6
17263/18
26/03/2018
F
1990Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
7
17374/18
29/03/2018
G
1985Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
8
17698/18
30/03/2018
H
1995Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
9
17712/18
30/03/2018
I
1998Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
10
17740/18
30/03/2018
J
1993Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
11
17755/18
30/03/2018
K
1980Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
12
17757/18
28/03/2018
L
1994Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
13
17833/18
28/03/2018
M
1998Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
14
17841/18
02/04/2018
N
1993Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
15
17848/18
28/03/2018
O
1988Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
16
17852/18
28/03/2018
P
1989Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
17
17889/18
28/03/2018
Q
1983Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
18
17901/18
28/03/2018
R
1993Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
19
17951/18
28/03/2018
S
1979Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
20
17963/18
30/03/2018
T
1978Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
21
17999/18
30/03/2018
U
1989Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
22
18009/18
28/03/2018
V
1994Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
23
18017/18
30/03/2018
W
1991Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
24
19503/18
14/04/2018
X
1988Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV
25
21420/18
21/04/2018
Y
1997Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV