Communicated on 12 March 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 64581/16 Natig JAFAROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 October 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Natig Jafarov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Javadov , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

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

The applicant is a political activist and is known for his critical articles published on Facebook with regard to economic and social problems in the country. He is a co-founder and a member of the Board of Directors of the Republican Alternative Civic Movement (REAL).

On 22 April 2014 the Prosecutor General ’ s Office instituted criminal proceedings under Articles 308.1 (abuse of power) and 313 (forgery by an official) of the Criminal Code in connection with alleged irregularities in the financial activities of a number of non-governmental organisations. The applicant was questioned as a witness in connection with these proceedings on several occasions.

On 12 August 2016 the applicant was arrested and charged under Articles 192.1 (illegal entrepreneurship) and 308.2 (aggravated abuse of power) of the Criminal Code. The applicant was accused of failing to register with the relevant executive authority the grants received from the United States of America ’ s National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

On the same date the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor ’ s request for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant ’ s detention for a period of four months. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released he might abscond and obstruct the investigation.

On 15 August 2016 the applicant appealed this decision, claiming that his detention was unlawful. He stated, in particular, that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. The applicant further complained relying on Article 18 of the Convention that the charges brought against him were politically motivated and the real purpose of his detention was to silence him.

On 17 August 2016 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and found the first-instance court ’ s decision lawful. During the hearing the applicant was confined in a metal cage.

On an unspecified date the prosecutor in charge of the case applied to the Nasimi District Court and requested to annul the preventive measure of remand in custody as the grounds justifying the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention no longer existed.

On 9 September 2016 the Nasimi District Court granted the prosecutor ’ s request and ordered the applicant ’ s immediate release.

There is no information about further developments in the case.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about his detention in a metal cage in the courtroom.

2. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful and unjustified, that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that the domestic courts failed to carry out an effective judicial review of his detention and to justify it by relevant and sufficient reasons.

3. The applicant complains under Articles 11 and 18 of the Convention that his arrest and pre-trial detention were intended to silence him for his political activities.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?

2. 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?

3. Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant ’ s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

5. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of association within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?

6. 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 those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?

The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s arrest and pre-trial detention.