Communicated on 11 July 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 3503/10 Zamin HAJI against Azerbaijan and 7 other applications (see list appended)

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

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

A. Haji v. Azerbaijan, no. 3503/10

1. Alleged attack on the applicant

The applicant was a columnist with the Yeni Musavat newspaper.

On 12 December 2008 his article criticising A.N., the chairman of the Karabakh Liberation Organisation, a local NGO, was published in Yeni Musavat .

On the same day A.N. contacted the applicant, another correspondent and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper, criticising the applicant and threatening the applicant with battery and insisting that they stop writing about him.

At around 6 p.m., following A.N. ’ s call, the applicant met the former in front of the office of Yeni Musavat . During the conversation A.N. swore at the applicant and insisted that he stop writing about him. A.N. punched the applicant in face. A.N. ’ s three colleagues waiting behind nearby trees joined him. One of them twisted the applicant ’ s arms, while others, including A.N. beat him. The applicant ’ s glasses were broken. Owing to the darkness and his poor vision without glasses, the applicant could not recognise the three people who joined A.N. in the attack.

In response to the applicant ’ s call for help, E.M. and V.Z., correspondents who were at the office of the newspaper at the material time, approached and helped the applicant to escape. Later other people from the office of the newspaper, the head of the Musavat Party, I.G., and the editor-in-chief of Yeni Musavat , R.A., appeared at the scene of incident, in whose presence A.N. continued to threaten the applicant.

2. Remedies used by the applicant

(a) Criminal investigation

On 12 December 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with Binagadi police office No. 5. He complained that A.N. had beaten and insulted him and that several people had witnessed this. The case was transferred to the Binagadi district prosecutor ’ s office, which opened a criminal case under Article 163 (Obstruction of the lawful professional activity of journalists) of the Criminal Code on 14 December 2008.

On 30 January 2009 he sent a letter to the prosecutor ’ s office, seeking information on the progress in the investigation and asking, inter alia, to call witnesses on his behalf. The applicant did not receive a response to his letter.

On an unspecified date the applicant ’ s representative was informed that by a decision of 2 February 2009 the Binagadi district prosecutor ’ s office had stayed the applicant ’ s case on the grounds of necessity to identify the three persons complicit in beating the applicant together with A.N. It also refused the applicant access to the case file on the grounds that it could not be allowed before the conclusion of the investigation.

On 19 March 2009 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General ’ s Office and the Binagadi district prosecutor ’ s office of the inaction of the investigator, the decision to stay the criminal case and the investigator ’ s failure to provide him with a copy of the decision. The applicant did not receive any reply to his complaint.

(b) Criminal complaint with the court

On 18 May 2009 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Binagadi District Court in accordance with the procedure established by Articles 449 ‑ 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which concerned appeals against actions and decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities. He complained about the decision to stay the criminal case and of not being provided with a copy of the relevant decision and asked the court to find the prosecuting authorities ’ failure to examine his complaint unlawful.

By its decision of 29 May 2009 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint as unsubstantiated. On 4 June 2009 the applicant appealed against this decision. By its decision of 9 June 2009 the Binagadi District Court declared the appeal inadmissible as time-barred. On 3 July 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision.

(c) Civil remedy

On 2 December 2009 the applicant brought an action before the Binagadi District Court, complaining about the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation. By its decision of 14 December 2009 the court refused to admit his complaint, instructing the applicant to file a criminal complaint instead. The applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that he did not have another remedy to complain of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation.

On 23 February 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

By its decision of 27 May 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Baku Court of Appeal, dismissing the applicant ’ s cassation appeal of 16 March 2010.

(d) Other complaints to the prosecuting authorities

By his letters and applications of 26 October and 30 December 2009, and 7 and 11 June 2010 filed with the investigator in charge of his case, the applicant requested an update on the progress in his case and asked that an effective investigation be conducted. His petitions remained without reply.

On 7 October 2013 the applicant lodged complaints with the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, the Binagadi district prosecutor ’ s office and Binagadi district police office, asking them to inform him of the progress of the investigation, including the relevant actions and decisions taken in this connection, and asked to be provided with access to his criminal case files. He did not receive any reply to his complaints.

(e) Criminal complaints to the court

On 13 October 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Binagadi District Court. He asked the court to order the prosecuting authority to recognise him as a victim; to sever A.N. ’ s criminal case from the three co-accused until finding them; and to give the applicant a copy of the decision to stay the criminal case.

By its decision of 19 October 2010 the Binagadi District Court rejected the complaint on account of lack of jurisdiction to hear cases regarding inaction on the part of the prosecuting authorities. On 22 November 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that decision.

On 14 October 2013 the applicant lodged the third criminal complaint with the Binagadi District Court. He mainly reiterated his previous complaints.

By its decision of 24 October 2013 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint with regard to quashing the decision on a stay of the case on the grounds that at the time the applicant missed the time-limit for appeal against that decision. With regard to the complaint on not being given a copy of the decision to stay the criminal case, it held that the applicant did not have the right to obtain a copy of that decision, since he was not recognised as a victim in the case. On 2 December 2013 the applicant appealed against the decision, complaining that the court had not taken measures in respect of the failure of the authorities in conducting investigation within four years of the stay of the criminal case. On 11 December 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the first-instance court ’ s decision.

B. Mukhtarli v. Azerbaijan, no. 25216/10

1. Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant

The applicant was a journalist and worked as a reporter for the Yeni Musavat newspaper.

On 7 January 2009 the applicant was present at a demonstration held in front of the Israeli Embassy in Baku to report on it. He was wearing a special vest identifying him as a journalist.

W hen the applicant was taking a photograph of a police officer beating one of the participants in the demonstration during its dispersal by the police, the head of the Yasamal district police office, M.H., ordered the police officers to seize the applicant ’ s camera. In response the applicant presented his press card to the police officers. Two police officers made him sit on the ground by twisting his arms behind his back and around thirty officers started to beat him in the presence of H.M., punching and kicking him on the different parts of his body. To seize the camera, one of the police officers sharply turned back the fingers of his right hand so that the applicant was compelled to give up his camera. The police took away the camera.

The applicant was taken to the police car and released after twenty-five minutes on M.H. ’ s order, following the relevant request of the editor-in-chief of Yeni Musavat to the police.

His camera was returned to him, but it was damaged. The same day the deputy chairman of Baku city police office sent the camera ’ s memory card to the office of the newspaper. The photos of the beating of the participant of the demonstration by the police had been removed from the memory card.

The applicant suffered pain in different parts of his body, in particular, the baby finger of his right hand and left knee. Owing to the pain he took five days ’ leave and after a consultation with the private physician on 21 ‑ 28 January 2009 he underwent medical treatment at home. No documentation has been submitted in this connection.

2. Remedies used by the applicant

On 9 January 2009 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Baku city police office, Prosecutor General ’ s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, requesting opening of a criminal case into his beating by the police officers. He also asked them, inter alia , to arrange a forensic medical report to confirm the injuries sustained by him, to conduct a confrontation to identify the police officers who had beaten him, and to examine the relevant security cameras recording the scene of incident in question.

On an unspecified date the Ministry of Internal Affairs launched an internal investigation.

On 17 January 2009 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination, including having an X-ray taken of his right hand and left leg.

On 26 January 2009 he asked the Ministry of Internal Affairs to inform him of the outcome of the X-ray examination. The Ministry replied that it had already sent two letters informing him of the outcome of the investigation into his case. Following the applicant ’ s reply that he had never received the mentioned letters, on 11 March 2009 he was informed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs that the internal investigation into his case had found his complaints unsubstantiated and that a forensic expert had not identified any injuries but “the post-traumatic area of deformation caused by an old fracture of a bone in his right hand that had already healed” .

By his letters of 26 March 2009 and 27 June 2009 the applicant asked the Ministry of Internal Affairs to provide him with copies of the decision adopted with regard to his case and the forensic report. He has not received a response to his letters.

On 27 June 2009 he complained to the Prosecutor General ’ s Office of the failure to investigate his case and to provide him with the documents in that connection, and asked to call as witnesses journalists of Yeni Musavat who had observed his physical condition immediately after the attack.

On 14 August 2009 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Sabail District Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs for its failure to investigate his case. By a decision of 24 August 2009 the court rejected the complaint on the grounds of a lack of its jurisdiction to hear such complaints.

On 25 September 2009 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Baku Court of Appeal, complaining that the first-instance court had unlawfully refused to hear his case.

On 15 October 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint, upholding the decision of the first-instance court.

On not receiving a response to his pr evious complaint of 10 February 2009 sent to the Yasamal district prosecutor ’ s office regarding instituting the investigation into his case, on 22 October 2009 the applicant filed another criminal complaint on 22 October 2009, requesting that the Yasamal district prosecutor ’ s office update him on the progress of the investigation into his case.

On an unspecified date the applicant gave an interview , reiterating his complaints. By a decision of 19 January 2010 the Yasamal district prosecutor ’ s office refused to open a criminal case. The decision referred to the testimonies of members of the riot-police regiment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Officers R.G., V.H., E.B., and Y.G., who had denied ill ‑ treating the applicant and seizing his camera, and the head of the Yasamal district police office, M.H. On 27 May 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint against this decision with the Yasamal District Court. He complained that the prosecuting authority had, inter alia , refused to obtain the video recordings and forensic evidence and to examine witnesses.

By its decision of 18 June 2010 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint as unsubstantiated.

On 29 July 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal of 21 June 2010.

C. Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 35563/11

1. Alleged attack on the applicant

The applicant was a journalist and worked as a regional reporter for the Institute for Reporters ’ Freedom and Safety (“the IRFS”), a non ‑ governmental organisation specialising in the protection of journalists ’ rights, in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (“the NAR”).

On 31 January 2009 the applicant attended a meeting held by the opposition political parties in the regional office of the political party Umid. During the meeting I.I., a person whom the applicant did not know, attacked the applicant shouting, “Why did you swear at me” and punched him in the face and later threw an ashtray he found on the table at the applicant. It hit the applicant ’ s cheekbone under the left eye and caused bleeding. The applicant was taken to hospital. The wound was stitched up at the hospital. However, he was not provided with a medical record of this treatment. In the aftermath of this he had serious headaches and hearing problems in his left ear. He underwent medical treatment for this, but was not able to obtain a medical certificate for this treatment, allegedly due to the doctor ’ s fear of getting involved in his case.

On the same day the police, arriving at the scene of the incident, took statements from the applicant, several witnesses and I.I. about the incident.

2. Remedies used by the applicant

On 6 February 2009 the applicant met the head of the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, H.A., and asked for information on the investigation into his case; he was not provided with the requested information. There the investigator interviewed the applicant for a second time.

On 2 March 2009 the applicant lodged complaints with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, the prosecutor ’ s office of the NAR and Nakchivan city prosecutor ’ s office, complaining of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his case. He also asked them to order a forensic medical examination to document his injuries. The applicant did not receive any reply to his complaints.

On 12 June 2009 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Nakchivan City District Court concerning the lack of an effective investigation in his case and the lack of information in this connection . On 22 June 2009 the court dismissed the complaint as unsubstantiated and instructed the applicant to lodge a criminal complaint with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR .

On 13 July 2009 the applicant appealed against this decision, complaining that there was no need for him to lodge a separate complaint since the prosecuting authorities, including the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, had already been informed of his case and had even interviewed him.

By a letter of 15 October 2009 sent to the Nakchivan City Court ( Judge H.M.) and the Supreme Court of the NAR, the applicant asked for information on the progress on his appeal.

On 26 October 2009 Judge H.M. informed the applicant that the court had not received his appeal.

On 2 November 2009 the applicant resubmitted his appeal, enclosing his previous appeal that he had sent by registered post and the delivery slip confirming the receipt of his appeal of 13 July 2009 by Judge H.M.

By a letter dated 12 November 2009 H.M. informed the applicant that his appeal was found inadmissible for being filed out of statutor y time limit. On 18 November 2009 the applicant informed the judge that he had filed appeal within statutory time-limit as confirmed by the enclosed postal document. The judge responded by a letter of 1 December 2009 that the applicant failed to comply with the statutory time-limit, without addressing the postal document submitted by the applicant.

By his letter of 28 November 2016 the applicant asked H.M. to provide him with a copy of the decision adopted with regard to his appeal. The judge responded that he had already updated the applicant on the state of his appeal by the previous letters.

On 18 November 2009 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court of the NAR and the Judicial-Legal Council ( Məhkəmə-Hüquq Şurası ) about H.M. ’ s failure to examine his complaint and asked that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against him. He did not receive any response to his complaints.

(a) Civil proceedings

On 12 November 2009 the applicant brought a civil action before the Nakchivan City Court complaining of the failure of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, the Nakchivan city prosecutor ’ s office and Nakchivan city police office to investigate his case. On 28 January 2010 he sent a letter to the judge in charge of his complaint, asking the latter to inform him of any progress in his civil action. He did not receive any response to his complaints.

(b) Criminal complaint to the court

On 17 July 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, the investigator of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, H.A., Nakchivan city police office, and Nakchivan city prosecutor ’ s office, reiterating his previous complaints. He has not received any response to these complaints, nor to his subsequent letter of 12 October 2009 requesting an update on his case.

On 3 February 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Nakchivan City Court regarding the failure of the prosecuting authorities to investigate his case.

By letter of 18 February 2010 a judge of the Nakchivan City Court informed the applicant of the rejection of his complaint, on account of a hearing on a similar complaint having been held in the past. The applicant appealed, complaining that at the material time he had received a judge ’ s letter in response to his complaint, not a court decision. The applicant has not received any response to his appeal.

On 22 February 2010 the applicant lodged a similar complaint with the Nakchivan City Court regarding the prosecuting authorities ’ refusal to hear his criminal complaint. By letter of 10 March 2010 the judge informed the applicant that the investigator H.A. had informed the court that the applicant had never lodged a criminal complaint wit h the investigator. On 29 March 2010 the applicant informed the judge that he had sent all the relevant documents to the prosecuting authorities by registered post and had delivery slips confirming receipt of his complaints by the investigator as well, and asked the judge to hold a hearing and to adopt the relevant decision in his case, instead of communicating with him by letter.

(c) Other complaints

On 15 March 2010 the applicant lodged complaints with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, the Prosecutor General ’ s Office and the prosecutor ’ s office of the NAR, reiterating his complaints regarding the prosecuting authorities ’ failure to investigate his case. He received a response only from the prosecutor ’ s office of the NAR, informing him by a letter of April 2010 that the applicant ’ s particular case did not fall within their jurisdiction.

On 6 July 2010 the applicant resubmitted his appeal against the Nakchivan City Court ’ s decision of 22 June 2009 and asked to have the statutory time-limit for an appeal renewed. He received no response.

D. Nasibov v. Azerbaijan, no. 68351/11

1. Background

The applicant is a journalist based in Nakchivan and worked as a reporter for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. According to the applicant, on numerous occasions he has been subjected to pressure and police violence in Nakchivan owing to his journalistic activity.

He is also a human-rights defender and operated an NGO named Resource Centre for Democracy and Development of NGOs.

2. Alleged attack on the applicant

On 14 December 2009 the applicant together with his colleague V.E. was conducting a survey and disseminating awareness-raising fliers on the topic of corruption to students of Nakchivan State University as part of the grant project he was running. The deputy head of Nakchivan State University, M.R., the representative of the Yeni Azerbaijan political party (the ruling party) in the university, E.J., and several other university professors approached them, punched on different parts of their bodies and told them leave the area. They called the applicant a “traitor” and a “ foreign agent ” . In the presence of the applicant, E.J. called for the students of the university to assault the applicant.

At 12.25 p.m. on the same day, the applicant and V.E. ran into M.R., E.J. and up to forty students of the sports faculty of Nakchivan State University, who were waiting for them in the vicinity of the applicant ’ s house. The applicant called the police to inform them about the possible incident. While the applicant was talking to police, on the orders of M.R. and E.J., the students started to beat the applicant in an attack which lasted fifteen minutes. The applicant ’ s mobile phone was left on so that the police officer on the telephone line was able to hear the noise of the attack. At around 1 p.m. a plain-clothes police officer arrived at the scene of incident.

On 15 December 2009 the applicant approached the Nakchivan city police office, asking the institution of a criminal investigation, but the police office refused to accept his complaint and instructed him to file a criminal complaint to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR.

On 16 December 2009 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR and the prosecutor ’ s office of the NAR.

On 16 Dec 2009 the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR questioned the applicant. The applicant stated that he had sustained injuries and asked that a forensic medical examination be arranged. His request was not granted.

On 24 December 2009 he underwent a medical examination by a private doctor, who issued a certificate which stated that he had sustained contusion of the soft tissues of the left part of his chest.

On 9 January 2010 he resubmitted the same complaint to the investigator of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR, requesting that he open a criminal case and order a forensic medical examination of the applicant.

By his letter of 21 May 2010 he asked the investigator to inform him of the progress in the investigation, in particular about any decision taken in his case. He did not receive any response.

On 10 June 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Nakchivan City Court against the inaction of the investigator in his case.

By a letter of 1 July 2010 a judge of the Nakchivan City Court, H.M., rejected the applicant ’ s complaint on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction to examine the complaint.

On 11 July 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal with an appellate court, complaining that his case had been rejected on the basis of the judge ’ s letter, not by a court decision. He has not received a response from the appellate court.

On 27 July 2010 the applicant sent a letter to Judge H.M. of the Nakchivan City Court, and the Supreme Court of the NAR, complaining that he had not received any response with regard to his appeal. The applicant has not received a response to his letter.

By his complaints of 5 and 8 October 2010 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court of the NAR and the Judicial-Legal Council of the failure of Judge H.M. to examine his case and asked that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against the judge. He has not received response to his complaint.

4. Article about the applicant and the remedies used by the applicant

On 18 December 2010 the newspaper Sherg Gapisi , an official body of the Cabinet of Ministers and the Parliament of the NAR, published a statement of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR about the applicant. The applicant was called, inter alia , “a traitor... instigating tension (instability)” in Nakchivan and that his complaints about attacks on him on 15 December 2010 were not true.

On 21 May 2010 the applicant brought a civil action in the Nakchivan District Court against Sherg Gapisi and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the NAR for defamation. By the decision of 4 July 2010 the court rejected the complaint on the grounds that the applicant had not mentioned the respondents ’ postal addresses. On 10 June 2010 the applicant resubmitted the complaint adding the addresses.

On 24 June 2010 the court rejected the case on the grounds of non ‑ payment of the court fee. On 2 July the applicant resubmitted the complaint, enclosing a receipt confirming the court fee had been paid.

By his letter of 27 July 2010 the applicant applied to a judge of the Nakchivan City Court for an update on his appeal. He did not receive any response to his request.

By his complaints of 5 and 8 October 2010 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court of the NAR and the Judicial-Legal Council of the unlawfulness of the action of Judge H.M. He has not received any response to his complaint.

E. Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22906/12

1. Alleged attack on the applicant

On 19 April 2011 more than hundred protesters held a demonstration in respect of property claims in front of the Presidential Office in Baku. The police dispersed the demonstration by recourse to force against the participants.

While the applicant was recording the dispersal of the demonstration, an officer of the Special State Security Service, the State body under the President of Azerbaijan Republic, seized his camera and voice recording equipment and did not return it, although the applicant informed him that he was a journalist covering the event. The applicant continued to record the event by using his mobile phone, when one of the police officers hit the applicant ’ s leg with his knee. The applicant fell to the ground. He escaped the attempted assault by the police officers with the help of the participants in the demonstration. One of the police officers shouted at him “You are [journalists] not men, otherwise we would treat you properly”. The applicant approached the police officers present in the scene of incident to complain in this connection. In response the police officers made the police officer attacking the applicant leave the scene of incident.

Following the seizure of his camera, the applicant continued to record the event with his mobile phone. An officer of the Special State Security Service then seized the applicant ’ s mobile phone as well.

2. R emedies used by the applicant

On 21 April 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Sabail district police office, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Prosecutor General ’ s Office, complaining under Articles 163 (Obstruction of the lawful professional activity of journalists) and 221 ( Hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. He asked to identify the persons beating him and seizing his equipment to prevent him from covering the event as a journalist.

On 4 July 2011 he applied to the Sabail district police office, inquiring progress in his case and filed motions on obtaining security camera recordings from the scene of incident and on calling witnesses present in the scene of incident. He has not received any response to his query.

On 29 July 2011 the applicant brought a civil action in the Baku Economic-Administrative Court No. 1, requesting the court to impose an obligation on Sabail district police office No. 9 to conduct effective investigation into his case. On 25 August 2011 the court found his action inadmissible on the grounds of lack of its jurisdiction to review the complaint against the inaction of the prosecuting authorities in the criminal proceedings.

On 29 July 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Sabail District Court against the failure of Sabail district police office to investigate his case.

On 3 August 2011 the Sabail District Court found the complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the judicial review of the prosecuting authority ’ s inaction is not allowed.

On 8 September 2011 the applicant appealed against the Sabail District Court ’ s decision. On 16 September 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, upholding the first-instance court ’ s decision.

On 30 September 2011 he requested Sabail district police office an update on the progress of the investigation into his case and was not responded.

On 19 October 2011 he filed a complaint to the head of Internal Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, M.H. By letter of 22 October 2011 he was informed that his complaint was sent to Baku police office for further investigation.

By letter of 15 November 2011 Baku police office informed the applicant that Sabail district police office No. 9 had adopted a decision refusing to open a criminal case and that the investigator of the Sabail district police office, F.M., who was in charge of the applicant ’ s case, was given a warning for the failure in the investigation into the case at issue, and the head of Sabail district police office was instructed to conduct relevant investigation into the case.

In October 2011 the applicant was summoned to the Sabail district police office, where he made a statement.

By his letters of 12 December 2011 and 10 January 2012, the applicant requested that Baku city police office inform him of updates in the investigation into his case. He did not receive any response to his requests.

F. Budagov v. Azerbaijan, no. 27680/13

1. Alleged attack on the applicant

The applicant was a journalist and worked as a photographer for Turan Information Agency in Baku.

On 2 April 2012 he was taking photographs, documenting the massive demolition of the buildings on S. Badalbayli Street in Baku and the residents ’ forced eviction and the ensuing confrontation in this connection. The applicant wore a journalist ’ s vest and had a press card.

When the applicant was taking a photograph of A.I., a resident evicted from her building, the deputy head of the administration of the Baku City Executive Power, Z.I., who was supervising the demolition and forced evictions on the basis of a State order of 22 February 2011, told the applicant to stop taking photos. When he refused, Z.I. swore at him and punched him in the face and abdomen multiple times. The residents present there helped the applicant to escape. Z.I. ordered the people in plain-clothes surrounding him to beat the applicant. They attacked the applicant, swore at him, and tried to take his camera from him. They pushed him away and one of them broke his camera. When Z.I. went to hit the applicant again, one of the residents, A.I., who had been trying to separate them, was hit instead. The applicant suffered physical and psychological damage. He complained to the police officers present at the scene of the incident of having been beaten and having had his camera broken and was instructed to apply to the relevant legal enforcement authorities.

2. Remedies used by the applicant

On 4 April 2012 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Prosecutor General ’ s Office, Nasimi district police office, and Baku City Executive Power, against unlawful actions of the employees of the Baku City Executive Power and that this was in breach of his freedom of expression as well.

On 19 April 2012 he lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, requesting that a criminal case be opened.

On an unspecified date Nasimi district police office launched preliminary enquiries into the case of the applicant and of several residents who had also raised similar complaints. The applicant gave a statement, complaining that he had been attacked on account of his journalistic activity, that he had sustained injuries, but had not sought medical treatment, and refused to undergo a forensic medical examination due to the disappearance of the marks of his injuries twenty-two days after the attack. He also submitted a video recording, claiming that it confirmed that the attack on him had taken place, and asked to call N.F. and D.B., journalists present at the scene of incident at the material time, as witnesses.

One of the residents subject to eviction, A.I., stated that when the applicant had been taking a photograph of her, Z.I. had tried to take the applicant ’ s camera away, pushing and kicking him. When she interfered to stop the altercation, Z.I. instead punched in her face and later kicked on her abdominals.

Another resident, witness R.A stated that he had seen Z.I. arguing with the applicant and seizing his collar, that people around had helped the applicant to escape and that the police present there had not addressed his complaints in this connection.

Z.I. denied any ill-treatment of the applicant and causing any damage to the applicant ’ s camera. F.M., E.M. and P.R., questioned as witnesses, who had been helping with the demolition in question, without mentioning their status or position, also denied the applicant ’ s allegations.

J.B., an officer of the Nasimi district police office, was questioned as a witness and stated that owing to the conflict which had arisen in the course of the eviction and demolition, he, and two other police officers, A.R., and F.A., had been present in the area in question. However, they had not witnessed the attack on the applicant by Z.I., nor any act causing damage to the applicant ’ s camera. They added that the applicant had not approached them at the material time.

On 27 April 2012 Nasimi district police office refused to open a criminal case. The decision stated that the applicant had not sustained injuries and the witnesses ’ statements had not confirmed the attack, that the video recording submitted by the applicant indicated there had been an altercation, rather than an attack on the applicant, and that by refusing to submit his camera to the prosecuting authority the applicant had prevented the examination of his claims in respect of that device.

On 15 August 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nasimi District Court against the refusal to open a criminal case, mentioning that the investigator had not questioned witnesses on his behalf, nor conducted a confrontation, nor examined his broken camera, and asked the court to question D.N. and N.F. as witnesses and to send his camera for an expert examination.

On 3 September 2012 the Nasimi District Court dismissed his complaint as unsubstantiated.

By decision of 14 September 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal of 5 September 2012.

G. Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38323/14

1 . Background

The applicant was a journalist and worked as a reporter for the Ayna ‑ Zerkalo newspaper.

On 18 April 2012 he was recording the protest of the residents of Sulutepe area of the Binagadi district against their eviction and the demolition of their houses in the lands claimed by the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (“SOCAR”), a commercial company established by the State. The officers of SOCAR ’ s security department equipped with the truncheons and police officers of Binagadi district police office were involved in the demolition and forced eviction of the residents in the area in question.

The applicant was wearing a special journalist ’ s vest.

2. Alleged attack on the applicant

The security service officers of SOCAR ordered the applicant to stop recording a protest. In response to the applicant ’ s refusal, up to twenty security officers knocked him down to the ground and hit him repeatedly with rubber truncheons, kicked his head, eyes, ears, chest, ribs and abdominal area and swore at him. The applicant lost consciousness.

The police officers present in the scene of incident did not intervene to stop the security officers beating the applicant. The security officers and the police prevented a Yeni Musavat journalist, G.M., who was present in the scene of incident to cover the event, and the applicant ’ s brothers, who lived in the demolition area and witnessed the attack on the applicant, from helping him.

The security officers seized the applicant ’ s mobile phone with which he was recording the protest, broke it and removed its memory card; it has not been returned.

On the same day the applicant was taken to hospital by his brothers and underwent inpatient treatment for twelve days. According to the medical certificate provided by the hospital, the applicant sustained a traumatic brain injury, concussion, contusions and bruises around the right eye, a torn right eyelid, two broken ribs, contusion of the soft tissues of the lower torso area and some other injuries . Later he underwent eye surgery.

3. Remedies used by the applicant

On 20 April 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Binagadi district prosecutor office and the Binagadi district police office, requesting that they open a criminal case, identify the persons that had beaten and insulted him, had broken his mobile phone and camera, and had interfered with his journalistic activities. He also requested that a forensic medical examination of his injuries be ordered.

On the same date he asked the hospital to provide him with the results of his X-ray examination of 18 April 2012. His request remained without reply.

On 23 May 2012 he resent the same complaint to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and asked to be informed of the progress in the investigation into his case.

On the same date he also asked the Ministry of Health to facilitate his access to the results of his X-ray examination, as the hospital had not addressed his request. On 11 June 2012 the applicant again lodged the same complaint with the investigator of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, T.N., requesting that a criminal case be opened and that he be recognised as a victim in the proceedings. The applicant was informed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs that SOCAR security service officers and the police officers of the Binagadi district police office had held a joint operation in the Sulutepe area with regard to planned demolitions and evictions and that on 19 April 2012 Binagadi district police office had opened a criminal case into, inter alia , the attack on the applicant and that as of 26 April 2012 the case had been transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for further investigation.

On unspecified dates the applicant was questioned and underwent a forensic medical examination.

By letter of 18 July 2012, the Ministry of Health refused to provide the applicant with the requested X-ray examination results, claiming that they had already been sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

On 31 July 2012 the applicant requested that the Ministry of Internal Affairs ’ investigator, T.N., give him updates on his case and copies of any decisions adopted in this connection. The request remained without reply.

In respect of the applicant ’ s similar petition of 3 September 2012 requesting information on the outcome of his complaint and a copy of his X-ray examination report, on 19 September 2012 the Ministry of Internal Affairs replied that the investigation was pending and that all necessary measures had been taken in this connection.

By his letters of 26 December 2012 and 30 July 2013, the applicant asked the Ministry of Internal Affairs for an update on the status of the investigation; however he received no reply.

On 11 October 2013 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Sabail District Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs in respect of its alleged failure to conduct an investigation into his case. On 18 October 2013 the Sabail District Court rejected the complaint as inadmissible, and held that this complaint should have been examined in the framework of the administrative proceedings.

On 29 October 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Baku Court of Appeal, complaining that the first-instance court had unlawfully refused to hear his case and that contrary to the court ’ s finding his complaint should not be examined within administrative proceedings.

On 6 November 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint, upholding the decision of the first-instance court.

H. Guliyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 19883/15

1. Alleged attack on the applicant

The applicant was a journalist and head of the Azerbaijani bureau of the radio station Voice of America.

On 20 February 2014 a number of students of Baku State University (“BSU”) held a demonstration to protest against corruption-related problems and the introduction of some reforms to the education system i n the university. The applicant, together with two other journalists, R.A. and E.B., was present at the demonstration to report on it. He was wearing a press card on his chest.

At around 1.30 p.m., when the applicant was recording the dispersal of the demonstration, the head of the security service of BSU, M.H., punched and kicked him on his back, legs and head several times and pushed his camera away. In response, the applicant turned back towards M.H., asking him the reason for beating him. M.H. pushed him and his camera away. The police officers were present at the demonstration.

2. Criminal enquiries

On an unspecified date the applicant and two other journalists, R.A. and E.B., lodged a joint criminal complaint with the Yasamal district prosecutor ’ s office, alleging that physical force and psychological pressure had been used against them during the demonstration and requesting that a criminal case be opened in that connection.

Yasamal district police office launched preliminary enquiries into the case and transferred the case to the Yasamal district prosecutor ’ s office. During questioning, the applicant stated that he had been beaten up by M.H. while covering the demonstration as a journalist and that the police had failed to protect him. He also submitted a video recording in which he was asking M.H. the reason for beating him and M.H. was pushing him away while trying to get his camera from him.

In his statement to the investigator, R.A. mentioned that he had seen M.H. push the applicant and kick him on his back and try to take his camera away, and that the police officers observing this had not taken any action in this connection.

In his statement to the investigator, E.B. stated that BSU ’ s security ‑ service employees had tried to disperse the journalists by pushing them away and applying physical force. He had witnessed the applicant arguing with M.H. about being beaten by him.

In his statement M.H. mentioned that he had never seen the applicant nor inflicted any physical force on him and that on the contrary, at the material time, the journalists were inciting the participants of the demonstration to breach public order. BSU ’ s security-service employers, Z.M., J.I., S.A., Y.Q. and N.G. stated during questioning that M.H. had not used physical force against the applicant. According to Z.M., the applicant had possibly received the injury by being in contact with the metal cages surrounding the building of BSU.

On 19 March 2014 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert. According to the forensic expert report,

“... There is a pigmentation area measuring 4 by 3 cm on the outer side of the lower third of the right calf. No other injuries were noted on the body ...

Conclusion

1. There is a bruise on the person of [the applicant]. The above-mentioned injury was caused by a hard blunt object(s). It could have been inflicted at the time indicated in the descriptive part of the decision, namely on 20 February 2014. The degree of the injury has not been determined because it is not causing harm to health.

2. Taking into consideration the characteristics of the injury it could not have been inflicted by [the applicant] himself.”

Following the attack, the applicant ’ s health deteriorated and he sought medical assistance for the pain in his legs and lower torso that he had never experienced before. On 10 April 2014 he underwent herniated disk surgery in hospital. According to the medical certificate of 6 June 2014 issued by the hospital, the alleged trauma the applicant had received on 20 February 2014 could be an aggravating cause of the herniated-disk problems.

At an unspecified time the applicant requested the prosecutor ’ s office to order a new forensic medical examination to identify the impact of the beating on further deterioration of his health resulting in herniated-disk surgery. He was examined by a forensic medical expert, who was tasked with identifying the causes and timing of herniated-disc problems, and whether they could have been caused by the alleged ill-treatment of 20 February 2014. The forensic medical report of 9 June 2014 reads as follows:

“... 1. There is no causal link between the disk hernia and the injury to the applicant ’ s right calf inflicted on 20 February 2014;

2. It is not convincing that the disc hernia could have been caused when [the applicant] herded from one side to another with the group [during the dispersal of assembly] and when the injury on his right calf was inflicted on 20 February 2014... ”

By a decision of 9 June 2014 the Yasamal district prosecutor ’ s office refused to open a criminal case on the grounds that there had been no criminal offence in the actions of M.H., since it was not proven that physical force had been applied to the applicant. The court relied on the testimonies of the applicant and the security-service employees of BSU and the forensic reports of 19 March and 9 June 2014.

O n an unspecified date in November 2014 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Yasamal District Court against the decision to refuse to open a criminal case. He pointed out that the prosecutor ’ s office had not properly assessed the evidence in the case, in particular the video recording and the findings of the relevant medical reports.

On 8 December 2014 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint, finding the impugned decision lawful. The applicant appealed.

In his appeal of 19 December 2014 the applicant reiterated his previous complaints adding that the first-instance court had refused to examine witnesses on his behalf.

On 29 December 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision .

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain of being subjected to ill-treatment and/or an absence of an effective investigation in that connection .

The applicants in the cases of Haji v. Azerbaijan (no. 3503/10), Mukhtarli v. Azerbaijan (no. 25216/10), Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 35563/11), Nasibov v. Azerbaijan (no. 68351/11), Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan (no. 22906/12), Budagov v. Azerbaijan (no. 27680/13) and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan (no. 38323/14 ) also complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

The applicants complain, under Article 10 of the Convention, of the violation of their freedom of expression in that they had been attacked on account of their journalistic activities and/or that t he authorities had failed to assess their complaints in this regard.

The applicant in the case of Nasibov v. Azerbaijan (no. 68351/11) complains of a violation of his right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the defamatory article about him, which was allegedly prepared on the basis of information disseminated by the State authorities. He also complains, invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of a lack of access to court in this connection.

COMMON QUESTIONs

1. H as there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to protection from ill-treatment with regard to alleged attacks ( Mukhtarli v. Azerbaijan (no. 25216/10), Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 35563/11), Nasibov v. Azerbaijan (no. 68351/11), Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan (no. 22906/12), Budagov v. Azerbaijan (no. 27680/13), Abbasov v. Azerbaijan (no. 38323/14) and Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 19883/15)) and lack of an effective investigation by the domestic authorities, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention ?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Najafli v. Azerbaijan , no. 2594/07 , §§ 57-70, 2 October 2012, and Ö zgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, §§ 42-46, ECHR 2000 ‑ III)?

The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents concerning the applicants ’ cases.

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

The cases of Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 35563/11) and Nasibov v. Azerbaijan (no. 68351/11)

Have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention concerning their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention?

The cases of Haji v. Azerbaijan (no. 3503/10), Mukhtarli v. Azerbaijan (no. 25216/10), Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 35563/11), Nasibov v. Azerbaijan (no. 68351/11), Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan (no. 22906/12), Budagov v. Azerbaijan (no. 27680/13) and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan (no. 38323/14 )

Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

Case of Nasibov v. Azerbaijan (no. 68351/11)

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have access to court with regard to his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents concerning the applicants ’ cases.

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

Represented by

3503/10

31/12/2009

Zamin HAJI *

01/04/1973

Rashid Hacili

25216/10

14/04/2010

Afgan MUKHTARLI

09/01/1974

Rashid Hacili

35563/11

12/04/2011

Hakimeldostu MEHDIYEV *

29/01/1961

Rashid Hacili

68351/11

07/10/2011

Ilgar NASIBOV *

01/01/1965

Rashid Hacili

22906/12

17/03/2012

Ramid IBRAHIMOV *

27/12/1987

Rashid Hacili

27680/13

14/03/2013

Ehtimad BUDAGOV *

Rashid Hacili

38323/14

06/05/2014

Idrak ABBASOV

03/05/1976

Rashid Hacili

19883/15

17/04/2015

Tapdig GULIYEV *

10/09/1961

Samira Agayeva