Communicated on 9 April 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 6180/15 Orkhan Ibrahimajdar Oglu AYYUBZADE against Azerbaijan lodged on 6 December 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Orkhan Ayyubzade , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1994. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Mustafazade , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

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

The applicant is a member of NIDA civic movement (“NIDA”), a non-governmental organisation established in 2011. He was active on social media and published various articles criticising the Government and actively participated in the demonstrations for which he was arrested on several occasions.

On 7 May 2014 the applicant was convicted for participation in an unauthorised demonstration and sentenced to twenty days ’ administrative detention (see Khalilova and Ayyubzade v. Azerbaijan , nos. 65910/14 and 73587/14, 6 April 2017).

According to the applicant, on 15 May 2014, while serving his sentence in the Detention Unit for Persons under Administrative Arrest, he asked police officers to allow him to make a telephone call. In response, the officers insulted him and then shackled his hands and placed him in a solitary confinement for two hours where he was forcibly stripped naked and threatened with rape.

The applicant ’ s detention was due to expire on 26 May 2014 and he was supposed to be released on that day. However, on the very same day the applicant was escorted by the police to the Binagadi District Prosecutor ’ s Office where he was formally charged under Article 315.1 of the Criminal Code (resistance to or violence against public officials without threat to their life or health).

It follows from the prosecutor ’ s decision to institute criminal proceedings issued on 26 May 2014 that on 15 May 2014 the applicant, while serving his sentence in the D etention Unit for Persons under Administrative Arrest , allegedly failed to comply with police orders concerning his disorderly behaviour and offered resistance to police officers.

On 27 May 2014 the Binagadi District Court, relying on the prosecutor ’ s request for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant ’ s detention for a period of one month. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the existence of preliminary evidence giving rise to a “reasonable suspicion” against the applicant, the gravity of the charge and the likelihood that if released the applicant might abscond from the investigation.

On 29 May 2014 the applicant appealed against this decision, arguing that his detention had been unlawful and unjustified. He claimed, in particular, that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. He argued that the evidence relied on by the prosecution was dubious because it consisted only of the testimonies of the police officers who incriminated him in order to conceal their own unlawful actions.

On 10 June 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and found the first-instance court ’ s decision lawful.

On 24 June 2014 the Binagadi District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention for a period of one month. The applicant appealed.

On 30 June 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision.

On 3 July 2014 the applicant applied to the Binagadi District Court, requesting the substitution of remand with house arrest.

On 5 July 2014 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s request.

On 15 July 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the lower court ’ s decision.

There is no information about further developments in the case.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful because there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complains that the domestic courts failed to justify the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in his respect and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention.

The applicant complains under Article 18 of the Convention that the real purpose of his arrest and detention was to punish him for his opposition activity.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion? What material was examined by the courts to verify whether such reasonable suspicion existed?

2. Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant ’ s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to his continued detention?

3. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?

4. The Government are requested to provide relevant procedural and other documents in support of their answers, including the decisions concerning the institution of the criminal proceedings and to charge the applicant; the prosecutor ’ s request for remand in custody; decisions ordering and extending the applicant ’ s detention and all documents relating to the evidence available in the criminal case-file in relation to the applicant ’ s alleged involvement in the crime he was accused of.