Communicated on 4 May 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 24950/14 Elshad ABDULLAYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 5 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Elshad Abdullayev , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Paris. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Ismayılov , a lawyer practising in Baku.

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

At the time of the events described below, the applicant was the owner and president of a private university based in Baku.

On 13 October 2003 the applicant ’ s brother (M.A.), who was an officer of the Ministry of National Security, left home and never returned.

As the applicant had no information about his brother ’ s whereabouts, on 14 October 2003 he lodged a criminal complaint with the Yasamal District Police Office related to M.A. ’ s disappearance.

On an unspecified date the Yasamal District Police Office refused to institute criminal proceedings.

Following the applicant ’ s appeal against that decision, on 14 November 2003 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 144.2.6 (kidnapping) of the Criminal Code by the Baku City Prosecutor ’ s Office on the fact of M.A. ’ s disappearance.

It appears from the docume nts in the case file that on 17 November 2003 M.A. ’ s car was found in Baku.

On 24 January 2004 the applicant was granted victim status.

On 6 January 2005 the criminal case was reclassified under Article 120.1 (murder) of the Criminal Code and its investigation was handed over to the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office.

In reply to the applicant ’ s numerous letters and requests concerning the ongoing criminal investigation, on various dates the prosecuting authorities informed him that the documents submitted by him had been added to the case file and that he would be informed of the investigation ’ s results.

According to the applicant, he was regularly threatened after his brother ’ s disappearance because he wrote numerous complaints to the various domestic authorities, claiming that his brother had been kidnapped by an organised criminal group protected by high level State officials.

On an unspecified date the applicant left Azerbaijan for France.

By a letter of 17 July 2012 the applicant ’ s lawyer asked the prosecuting authorities to provide the applicant with information about the progress of the investigation. In particular, the lawyer pointed out that the applicant had still not been informed of the progress of the investigation or the decisions that had been taken. He further asked the investigating authorities to provide him with copies of the relevant documents.

By a decision dated 2 7 July 2012 the investigator dismissed the request. In partic ular, relying on Articles 87 and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the investigator held that a victim or his or her representative could only have access to a case file and the relevant documents following the termination of the preliminary investigation. It was also stated in the decision that numerous investigative actions, such as questioning of various persons, examination of the list of calls made to and from M.A. ’ s mobile telephone and identification of M.A. ’ s documents found in a waste collection site, had been carried out. It further appea rs from the decision that on 26 October 2005, 28 February and 8 June 2006, and 19 April 2007 various requests were sent to the Russian prosecuting authorities for legal assistance.

On 22 August 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nasimi District Court against the investigator ’ s decision, asking the court to order the investigator to provide him with the relevant documents. The complaint was lodged under the procedure established by Article 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure providing for the possibility to challenge the actions or decisions of the investigating authorities before the domestic courts.

By a decision of 23 August 2012 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint, holding that this kind of decision of the prosecuting authorities could not be challenged before the courts.

On 7 September 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision.

On 27 September 2012 the Supreme Court refused to admit the applicant ’ s cassation appeal, holding that the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision was final and not subject to appeal.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Articles 2, 3, 6, and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of his brother.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the procedural prote ction of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. The Government are requested to provide detailed information concerning any investigative and other steps undertaken by the domestic authorities. They are, in particular, requested to submit copies of all the documents relating to the criminal proceedings concerning the disappearance of the applicant ’ s brother.