Communicated on 4 May 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 3650/12 Seymur Haziyev against Azerbaijan and 4 other applications (see list appended)

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

The circumstances of the cases

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

1. Haziyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 3650/12

a ) The applicant ’ s arrest and conviction

The applicant is a journalist at an opposition-oriented newspaper, Azadlig .

On 15 May 2010 he was detained a few hours before an unauthorised opposition protest held in Baku. On the same day the Narimanov District Co urt convicted him under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) of failure to comply with a police order and sentenced him to seven days ’ administrative detention.

b ) Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant

At around 2 p.m. o n 17 May 2010 at the administrative detention centre of the Binagadi District Police Office a prison warder, A.A., took the applicant from his cell to another one, where there were two plain-clothes persons unknown to the applicant and left him there. Those persons asked him the reason for his writing critical articles about the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan and shouted and threatened him if he did not stop reporting on the President. They pushed him towards the wall and hit him on different parts of his body approximately 10-15 times (at short intervals). Each time he was hit he underwent physical pain and mental suffering. They beat him on his legs and forced him to lean against the wall for an hour with his legs spread apart, until he fainted. After he regained consciousness, A.A. took him to his cell, where he was incapable of walking for thirty minutes and continued to suffer physical pain.

c ) The remedies used by the applicant

On 27 July 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Binagadi district prosecutor ’ s office and Binagadi police station, asking them to open investigation in respect of his ill-treatment on 17 May 2010 and to grant him compensation for the alleged ill-treatment. He never received a reply to that complaint.

On 13 October 2010 he lodged a new complaint with the Binagadi district prosecutor ’ s office, alleging that there had been no investigation into his previous complaints of ill-treatment and requesting that he be informed about the outcome of that new complaint.

By a letter of 12 November 2010 the Binagadi district prosecutor ’ s office informe d the applicant that: ( i ) on 10 August 2010 the Binagadi police station had decided to refuse to open criminal proceedings and that on 12 November 2010 that decision had been annulled by the prosecutor ’ s office due to the lack of an objective and thorough preliminary inquiry into the applicant ’ s case and (ii) that the case had been sent back to Binagadi police station for further investigation.

In a letter of 15 January 2011 lodged with the Binagadi district prosecutor ’ s office and Binagadi police station the applicant stated that he had attended Binagadi police station to give a statement, but had not been questioned, nor had he been informed of the identity of the investigator in charge of his case. He had also requeste d copies of the decisions of 10 August 2010 and 12 November 2010 and asked to be informed of the status of the pending investigation.

On 27 July 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Binagadi District Court regarding the failure of Binagadi police station to conduct a proper investigation and to inform him of the outcome of the proceedings. In particular, he mentioned that he had not been questioned by the police and had not been provided with any copies of the decisions issued in his case. During the hearing in respect of that complaint before the Binagadi District Court the applicant was informed that on 2 December 2010 the Binagadi police station had decided not to open criminal proceedings. The applicant was also provided with copies of the decis ions dated 10 August 2010 and 2 December 2010 not to open a criminal case.

According to the reasoning for Binagadi police station ’ s decision of 10 August 2010 not to open a criminal case, the investigator had relied on the testimony of three officers of the administrative detention centre of the Binagadi District Police Office, D.Z, E.M and S.H, who had denied the applicant ’ s ill-treatment allegations. According to the decision of 2 December 2010, as part of further investigational measures the same investigator had questioned A.A. (another prison officer), who had also denied the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment.

On 20 October 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Binagadi District Court against the decision not to institute a criminal case. He complained that the Binagadi District police station had failed to conduct an effective investigation given that, inter alia , only the officers of the detention centre had been questioned, and not the inmates who had shared a cell with him and who had witnessed his poor physical condition after his return to the cell following his ill-treatment on 17 May 2010. He also submitted written statements by his cellmates, D.B. and E.A, regarding the applicant ’ s physical condition after his ill-treatment.

On 27 October 2011 the Binagadi District Co urt held that the decision of 2 December 2010 had been lawful. The court also referred to the absence of any comments by the applicant regarding his alleged ill-treatment in the record that he had signed upon his departure from prison.

In his appeal of 31 October 2011 the applicant complained that the first-instance court had not conducted a proper examination of his claims, and that in particular (i) the first-instance court had not identified whether the detention facility at which he had been kept had had security camera recordings, (ii) the first-instance court had not identified whether on 17 May 2010 the applicant had been temporarily transferred to another cell, (iii) the prosecuting authorities had not compiled a list of people who had entered the facility on 17 May 2010 in order to identify the perpetrators and (iv) the first-instance court had not questioned the witnesses and his cellmates, D.B. and E.A. The applicant also mentioned that for the purposes of the record of his departure from the prison he had been asked questions only about detention conditions; hence the record only contained his answers to those questions.

By its decision of 14 November 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision.

2. Badalli v. Azerbaijan, No. 12016/12

a) Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant, and his detention and alleged ill-treatment

On 25 December 2010 criminal proceedings were instituted in respect of the applicant under Article 221.3 (Hooliganism) of the Criminal Code with a suspicion of the infliction of minor bodily injury.

On 28 February 2011 Sabail District police station decided to formally recognise the applicant as an accused ( təqsirləndirilən şəxs qismində cəlb etmə ) ; on 2 March 2011 the authorities decided to mount a search for him on the grounds of his having absconded from the investigation.

On 23 March 2011 officers of the Sabail District police station No. 39 arrested the applicant at his home. At around 6 p.m. on 23 March 2011, when he was lying sick in bed with a high fever due to a cold, eight plain ‑ clothes officers of the Sabail District police station No. 39, including N.A. and S.F., entered his house against his will and without submitting an arrest warrant demanded that he either accompany them to the police station or pay a bribe to avoid arrest. When he objected, asking the officers to furnish him with more information and an arrest warrant, the officers insulted him and one of the officers hit him on the head; he was then taken to the police station in his underclothes and without shoes.

The applicant claims that on 23 March 2011 he was kept for three hours at the police station, where the police officers handcuffed him and then beat and insulted and bullied him. One of the police officers hit his head against the wall, so that his head started bleeding. He was not given medicine and water, despite his having a high fever. He was not allowed to call home and was not provided with a lawyer.

Upon the applicant ’ s transfer to the temporary detention centre of the police station, the doctor at that centre noted an injury on his head and blood spots on him. He had been kept without water and food and in a poorly ventilated place for two days.

According to a report of 4 April 2011 by the Baku Medical Emergency Service, doctors at the Service examined the applicant twice after being called by the police at 9.53 p.m. on 23 March 2011 and 12.12 a.m. on 24 March 2011 respectively.

On 23 March 2011 the criminal proceedings were resumed due to the applicant ’ s arrest. On 24 March 2011 he was charged with the criminal offence of hooliganism under Article 221.3 of the Criminal Code. According to the applicant, he only gave self-incriminating testimony because of pressure exerted by the investigator, who promised to release him from custody if he gave self-incriminating testimony.

On 25 March 2011 the applicant was released, the police having imposed the preventive measure of giving an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.

b) The remedies used by the applicant

On 28 March 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, alleging unlawful detention, unlawful intrusion by the police into his home and ill-treatment by the police. With regard to his detention, he complained that he had never been summoned to the police station in connection with the criminal case instituted against him; moreover, having lived at the same address for twenty-nine years he had never absconded from the investigation, so there had never been any need for his arrest and he had been detained unlawfully without any court order. He also noted that he had not been allowed to contact his family members during his detention.

As to his treatment during arrest, he stated that the officers had applied excessive physical force in taking him to the police station without regard, inter alia , for the illness he had visibly been suffering from. A fifty-year- old person with a Category 1 disability, he had been lying in bed with a high fever due to his being sick at the time in question and had been taken to the Sabail District police station half naked, in his underclothes and without shoes by eight police officers.

With regard to his treatment in police custody, he stated that he had been handcuffed, beaten and bullied by the police officers, as a result of which he had undergone physical and mental suffering. He had sought compensation and rehabilitation following the ill-treatment. He had also complained of the poor detention conditions and the lack of medical assistance afforded to him while in police custody.

The applicant also complained about interference with his right to private life and respect for his home in that the six police officers had entered his apartment unlawfully and against his will on the evening of a national holiday in Azerbaijan and in the presence of his wife, who had been subjected to mental suffering.

The applicant was examined by a forensic expert, who pro duced a forensic report dated 7 April 2011. According to it there was no sign of injuries on his person, except for the injuries on his wrists caused by the handcuffing.

On 15 April 2011 the investigator of the Sabail district prosecutor ’ s office issued a decision on the refusal to open a criminal case. The investigator considered that the applicant had not been ill-treated during his arrest. In this connection, he relied on the testimony of the six police officers involved in the applicant ’ s arrest. The police officers, who had denied the ill-treatment allegations, had stated that two of them had shown the applicant an arrest warrant and that when the applicant had refused to comply with their request to follow the officers to the police station h e had been taken there forcibly after additional officers had been summoned. They had further stated that at the police station the applicant had not been ill ‑ treated, but that he had been handcuffed to prevent his attacking the officers. In this regard, the investigator referred to a forensic report dated 26 March 2011, according to which there had been signs of injuries and bruises on the neck and chest of N.A., one of the police officers who had arrested the applicant. Moreover, he relied on ( i ) the forensic report of 7 April 2011, according to which there had been no sign of injuries on the applicant ’ s body apart from the ones caused by his handcuffing, and (ii) the medical reports of 4 April 2011 of the Ba ku Medical Emergency Service recording acute respiratory illness during the first medical examination on 23 March 2011 and the findings of a general examination conducted during the second examination on 23 March 2011 . The investigator furthermore noted that the applicant had been arrested and detained lawfully, given that the arrest had been ordered to ensure his appearance before the prosecuting authority.

On 3 May 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Sabail District Court against the prosecutor ’ s decision under the judicial-review procedure. He complained in particular that the investigator had failed to question his wife as a witness to his arrest at home and had not taken into account the fact that he had been subjected to psychological and physical suffering, which had been confirmed by the medical certificate on his treatment after his release at the hospital from 30 March to 11 April 2011. According to that medical certificate, the applicant had undergone treatment for acute asthenoneurotic syndrome as a result of closed craniocerebral injury . The report does not contain information on the causes and timing of the injury.

On 17 June 2011 the Sabail District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint, finding the decision on refusal to open a criminal case to have been lawful. The court decision did not refer to the applicant ’ s particular complaints about the alleged flaws in the investigation . In addition, with regard to the detention, the court relied on the letter of the deputy head of the Sabail District police station informing the court that at the material time the police had informed the chairman of the Sabail District Court of the transfer of the applicant to the temporary detention centre.

On 27 June 2011 the applicant appealed against this decision, reiterating his previous complaints. By a decision of 21 November 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first ‑ instance court ’ s decision.

3 . Yolbarsov v. Azerbaijan, No. 69878/13

a) The applicant ’ s arrest and alleged ill-treatment of the applicant

On 18 September 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of complicity in a theft committed on 14 September 2012 by a group of individuals and was detained in the temporary detention facility of the S abail District police station No. 9.

On the same date, in the room of the police officer A.M., he was beaten by three police officers, who made him sit with his legs outstretched and an officer then sat on the chair placed over his legs, while A.M. beat him on the soles of his feet with a rubber truncheon with the aim of extracting testimony against other persons allegedly involved in the theft. When he told the officers that he did not have additional information, the officers punched him to the ground, took his trousers off and threatened to rape him with the truncheon if he did not provide further information. Then they continued to beat him while he was lying on the ground.

According to the official documents in the case file the applicant was arrested as a suspected person on 20 September 2012. On 21 September 2012 he was charged with theft under Article 177 of the Criminal Code. On the same day the Sabail District Court ordered his detention for a period of two months.

b) The remedies used by the applicant ’ s lawyer

On 21 September 2012 the applicant ’ s sister hired a lawyer to represent the applicant. On the same day the investigator of the Sabail district police station refused that lawyer ’ s request to meet the applicant (to being presented with the letter requesting a meeting – the detention centre required such a letter before it would allow any such meeting with the applicant), claiming that the head of the p olice station was not available that date to approve the request. On 22 September 2012 the lawyer lodged a written request with the investigator, asking him to arrange for him to meet the applicant. He did not receive any response to this and subsequent requests to be allowed to see the applicant.

On 22 September 2012 the applicant was transferred to the Baku Detention Centre, which refused the lawyer ’ s request to be allowed to meet with the applicant, stating that the investigator had not given his consent or submitted written approval in this regard. The lawyer complained of the violation of the defence rights to the relevant authorities.

On 24 September 2012 the lawyer sent an inquiry to the temporary detention facility of the Sabail District police station, asking to be provided with information on the date of the applicant ’ s arrival in the facility, the state of his health on that date, the results of the medical examination of the applicant conducted following his arrival and a copy of the relevant medical records produced in this regard. He was informed by a lett er dated 31 October 2012 that the requested documents were not available, since they had already been sent to the Baku Detention Facility, where the applicant had been transferred.

By a letter of 24 September 2012 the lawyer asked the Ministry of Internal Affairs, via its special “hotline”, to examine the security camera recordings of Sabail District police station No. 9 in order to identify whether on 18 September 2012 the applicant had been subjected to physical force and in particular whether he had had traces of ill-treatment on him or had moved in the manner of a person suffering from physical pain while walking; the lawyer also enquired whether it might be possible for him to be provided with the relevant security camera recordings. In response, he was told that the Sabail District police station possessed the recordings in question.

On 25 September 2012 the applicant ’ s sister sent telegrams to the Sabail District police station and the Penitentiary Service Department of the Ministry of Justice requesting assistance in addressing her brother ’ s complaints of ill-treatment and his being denied access to the lawyer of his own choice to conceal traces of his ill-treatment.

On 27 September 2012 during the appeal hearing against the first-instance court ’ s decision to remand the applicant in custody, the applicant ’ s lawyer met the applicant for the first time. The applicant ’ s lawyer lodged a request with the Baku Court of Appeal, asking it to request the Prosecutor General ’ s Office to open a criminal case in the light of the multiple injuries found on the applicant ’ s legs, in particular hematomas on the soles of his feet. The applicant also showed injuries on his body to the presiding judge and on the same day the judge sent a letter to the Sabail district prosecutor ’ s office requesting the examination of the applicant ’ s complaints of ill ‑ treatment. By a decision of 27 September 2012 the appellate court upheld the order for the applicant to be remanded in custody.

On 28 September 2012 the applicant ’ s lawyer sent a letter to the head of the Baku Detention Centre, informing him that he had seen the injuries on the applicant ’ s body and requested an examination of the applicant. On 3 October the applicant again wrote to the head of the Baku Detention Centre requesting information on the outcome of his request of 28 Sep tember 2012. By its letter of 5 October 2013 the head of the Baku Detention Centre informed the applicant ’ s lawyer that up on the applicant ’ s arrival at the detention facility on 22 September 2012 no injury had been found on the applicant ’ s person and that he had not complained about the state of his health at the material time.

c) Investigation into the alleged ill-treatment

On an unspecified date in 2012, on the basis of a request sent by the Baku Court of Appeal judge hearing the applicant ’ s appeal in respect of his detention, the Sabail district prosecutor ’ s office opened a preliminary investigation into the alleged ill-treatment.

In his testimony to the prosecutor ’ s office the applicant mentioned that his body still bore traces of the ill-treatment and that he wanted to undergo a forensic medical examination.

On the basis of a decision adopted by the Sabail district prosecutor ’ s office on 17 October 2012 on the appointment of a forensic medical expert, on 6 November 2012 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert. T he forensic report issued, on 4 December 2012, reads as follows:

“...[ Examination:] There is a pale brown-violet spot of an indefinite shape, measuring 3.5 by 2 c.m ., pigmentation on one-third of the front-inner side of the right thigh. No other injuries or traces of injuries were discovered on other parts of the body. ... That pigmentation could have emerged as a result of any pathological proc ess in progress on the skin ...”

By a decision of 4 December 2012 the Sabail district prosecutor ’ s office refused to open a criminal case , finding that there was no evidence that the applicant had been ill-treated by the police. In this regard, the prosecutor ’ s office relied on the the forensic expert ’ s report and the testimonies of the three police officers involved in the applicant ’ s arrest, who denied the infliction of ill-treatment on the applicant.

On 1 March 2013 the applicant ’ s lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with the Sabail District Court against this decision. He complained that the applicant had been ill-treated by the police while in police custody on 18 September 2012 and that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation in this respect. He noted, in particular, that the forensic expert examination had been carried out belatedly, so most of the applicant ’ s bodily injuries had disappeared by the time the examination had been undertaken; that the forensic expert opinion report was not clear about the characteristics of the pigmentation found on the applicant ’ s person in that it did not clarify the symptoms and the origin of condition, whether it was treatable and, in the event that the applicant received medical assistance, the outcome of such treatment; and that the prosecutor ’ s office had relied mainly on the testimony of the police officers involved in the applicant ’ s beating. On 19 March 2013 the Sabail District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint, finding the decision on the refusal to open a criminal case lawful.

On 27 March 2013 the applicant ’ s lawyer lodged an appeal against this decision with the Baku Court of Appeal , reiterating his previous complaints. He also added that the applicant was mentally ill, and thus had been in a particularly fragile condition while in police custody.

By a decision of 1 April 2013 the Baku C ourt of Appeal upheld the first ‑ instance court ’ s decision, dismissing the applicant ’ s appeal as unsubstantiated.

4. Azizov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31474/14

a) Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant and his alleged ill ‑ treatment

The applicant was a member of the NIDA civic movement (hereinafter “NIDA”), whose members had actively participated in demonstrations of January and February 2013 held in Baku to protest against death of soldiers in the Azerbaijani army.

On 11 January 2013, a day before the above-mentioned demonstration, the applicant was arrested by police officers and taken to the Sabail District police station No. 9. During the evening of the same day police officers questioned him about his role in the planning of the demonstration and punched and kicked him and beat him with a truncheon, before releasing him on 12 January 2013.

On 7 March 2013 the applicant was arrested by plainclothes officers of the Ministry of National Security (hereinafter “the MNS”) in the Baku city centre without any explanation. They dragged him to a car, punched him in the head several times, and took him to his home in order to conduct a search of it.

On 8 March 2013, while questioning him, two MNS officers forced him to give a statement incriminating himself and other members of NIDA by threatening to arrest his father and to cause complications in respect of his case. In his statement he mentioned, inter alia, that NIDA had been involved in an attempted coup d ’ état ; his statements were aired on some national television channels the same day.

On 9 March 2013 he was charged under Article 234.1 of the Criminal Code with the criminal offence of illegal possession of a quantity of narcotic substances exceeding that necessary for personal use without any intent to sell them ( Qanunsuz olaraq narkotik vasitələri, psixotrop maddələri və ya onların prekursorlarını hazırlama, istehsal etmə, əldə etmə, saxlama, daşıma, göndərmə və ya satma ). In September 2013 he was charged with further criminal offences under Articles 28 (Preparing to commit a criminal offence), 220.1 (Mass disorder) and 228.3 (Illegal possession of weapons by an organised group) of the Criminal Code.

By a decision of 9 March 2013 the Nasimi District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in the Baku Detention Centre. The applicant ’ s family was informed of his whereabouts on 9 March 2013. On an unspecified date during his detention at the MNS, his family appointed a lawyer of their choice. From 7 March to 18 March 2013 the applicant was detained at the MNS; on 18 March 2013 he was transferred to the Baku Detention Centre. The applicant met his lawyer after his transfer to the Baku Detention Centre.

On 14 March 2013 during the cross-examination with his co-accused, R.H., another member of NIDA, the applicant retracted his testimony incriminating R.H. and other members of NIDA, claiming that he had given his earlier incriminating testimony under duress. In response to this retraction, the questioning officers threatened him in the presence of R.H. and interrupted the questioning to take him to another room. MNS officers M.G. and A.M. then handcuffed his hands behind his back and slapped him in the face, and punched, kicked and beat him with truncheons. As a result, he limped on his right leg for four days, his ear started to hurt, and his hearing ability was temporarily damaged.

After his transfer to the Baku Detention Centre the applicant received, at his own request, medical treatment for his ear pain and hearing problems.

b) Remedies used by the applicant with regard to the alleged ill-treatment

On 16 April 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, requesting that a criminal case be opened in respect of ill ‑ treatment inflicted on him on 11 January, 7 March, and 14 March 2013. He asked the Prosecutor General ’ s Office to question witnesses – including B.G., another member of NIDA arrested together wi th him by police officers on 11 January 2013, and R.H. – on his behalf and to obtain the security camera recordings of Sab ail District police station No. 9 a nd the MNS of 11 January and 14 March 2013 respectively. He also mentioned that the bruises on his person and his limp had cleared up by the time of his transfer to Baku Detention Centre and that it was impossible for him to obtain medical certification of his injuries due to his having been denied access to his family and the lawyer appointed by his family, except in respect of the pain in his left ear and his hearing problems (for which he had sought medical treatment at the Baku Detention Centre). The applicant refused the offer of an examination by a forensic expert, stating that the injuries on his person had already cleared up.

On 4 June 2013 the Prosecutor General ’ s Office refused to open a criminal case. It relied mainly on the lack of bodily injuries on the applicant and the testimony of some of the officers involved in the applicant ’ s arrest and detention, who denied the ill-treatment allegations.

In an appeal of 9 September 2013 against the decision to refuse to open a case, the applicant pointed out that the investigation had failed to properly examine his complaint of ill-treatment.

On 27 September 2013 the Sabail District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint, finding the decision to refuse to open a criminal case lawful. The court ’ s decision did not refer to the applicant ’ s complaints about the alleged flaws in the investigation.

On 30 September 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Baku Court of Appeal against this decision, reiterating his previous complaints.

On 7 October 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, upholding the first-instance court ’ s decision.

5. Adilov v. Azerbaijan, 40906/15

a) The applicant ’ s arrest and alleged ill-treatment

The applicant is an opposition activist and co-founder of the Youth Organisation of the Popular Front Party. He is also a brother of Mr Natiq Adilov , the spokesperson for the Popular Front Party and a columnist for an opposition-oriented newspaper, Azadliq .

At around 4 p.m. on 11 August 2014, when the applicant and an acquaintance were driving in the latter ’ s car in the district of Sabirabad , they were stopped by up to ten plainclothes officers of the Narcotics Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the NDMIA”) and the Sabirabad District police station. They dragged him out of the car, punched and hit him in the head and body, handcuffed him and dragged him into their car. On their way to the Sabirabad District police station, one of the officers sitting next to him in the back seat slipped narcotic substances into his pockets. After travelling between two and two and a half kilometres the car stopped in the middle of the road and a search of the applicant was conducted and narcotic substances were found on his person. According to the search record 3.93 grams of marijuana and 113.17 grams of hashish were found on him. He refused to sign the search record.

After his arrival in the Sabirabad District police station, in the room of V.S., the head of the Criminal Investigation Department, the applicant was beaten by five officers of the NDMIA and two other police officers following his refusal to testify that the drugs found on his person had belonged to him. He was beaten with a truncheon on the soles of his feet, back, legs and thigh for about an hour and insulted.

On 12 August 2014 the applicant was questioned as a suspect and criminal proceedings wer e instituted against him. On 13 August 2014 he was charged with offences under Article 234.4.3 (the illegal preparation, production, possession, storage, transportation and sale of a large quantity of narcotic substances) of the Criminal Code. During questioning, the applicant complained of having been beaten at the Sabirabad District police station with the aim of extracting a confession from him.

b. The investigation into the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment

On 13 August 2014 the applicant lodged a complaint of ill-treatment with the Nasimi District Court, which had ordered that he be remanded in custody. The court sent a letter to the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, asking that the applicant ’ s ill-treatment complaints be examined.

According to the medical record drawn up during the applicant ’ s arrival at the Baku Detention Centre on 15 August 2014, the applicant had a big violet bruise on the upper one-third portion of the inner side of his left thigh. The record also noted the applicant ’ s comment about being beaten during his arrest and police custody.

On the basis of the applicant ’ s testimony of 12 August 2014 and a request made by the Narimanov District Court, the Prosecutor General ’ s Office conducted a preliminary examination into the complaint of ill ‑ treatment.

By a decision of 2 October 2014 the Prosecutor General ’ s Office refused to open a criminal case. According to the decision, the testimony of the officers involved in the applicant ’ s detention, as well as a forensic expert report dated 5 September 2014, which found no bodily injury on the applicant, had indicated that the applicant ’ s claims were unsubstantiated.

On 22 December 2014 the applicant ’ s lawyer received a copy of that decision, having complained to the prosecutor ’ s office on 26 November 2014 that he had not been provided with a copy of it.

On 5 January 2015 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sabail District Court in respect of the decision of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office to refuse to open a criminal case. He complained, inter alia , that in the course of the criminal investigation the prosecutor ’ s office had not enquired whether the applicant had been carrying any bodily injury upon his entering, respectively, the temporary detention facility of the Organised Crime Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the OCU”) and the Baku Detention Centre; that the applicant ’ s acquaintance who had observed the applicant ’ s arrest on 11 August 2014 had not been questioned as a witness; and that the prosecutor ’ s office had relied mainly on the testimony of the police officers who had ill-treated the applicant.

On 16 January 2015 the Sabail District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint, holding that the refusal to open a criminal case had been justified. It also held that given the fact that the indictment in the applicant ’ s case had already been sent to the Lankaran Serious Crimes Court, which had been designated to examine the applicant ’ s case on the merits, that court could hear the applicant ’ s complaint.

On 19 January 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal, complaining that the Sabail District Court ’ s decision had been insufficiently reasoned and that referring the applicant ’ s complaint to another court had been unjustified. He also asked the appellate court to request the detention facility of the OCU and the Baku Detention Centre to provide the court with the reports on the medical examinations of the applicant conducted upon his transfer to those facilities.

On 30 January 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, upholding the first-instance court ’ s decision.

On an unspecified date the applicant ’ s lawyer sent enquiries to the detention facility of the OCU and to the Baku Detention Centre, requesting them to provide him with the reports on the medical examinations the applicant had undergone upon his arrival at those facilities. He did not receive responses to those enquiries.

On 5 February 2015 the Lankaran Grave Crimes Court, examining the applicant ’ s case on the merits, asked the OCU and the Baku Detention Centre to respond to the enquiries of the applicant ’ s lawyer . In a letter of 17 February 2015 the head of the Baku Detention Centre informed the court that the applicant, who had entered the detention facility on 15 August 2014, had had a big violet bruise on the upper third of the inner side of his left thigh and that according to the record drawn up upon his arrival, the applicant had stated that he had sustained those injuries as a result of police violence while being arrested and held in police custody.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Art icle 3 of the Convention of ill ‑ treatment while being arrested and held in police custody and of the lack of an effective investigation into their complaints .

The applicant in the case of Haziyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 3650/12 ) complains under Article 10 of the Convention that he was ill-treated in order to prevent him from carrying out his journalistic activities and that there has been no effective investigation in that respect.

The applicant in the case of Badalli v. Azerbaijan (no. 12016/12) complains under Article 5 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of his deprivation of liberty and of the lack of an effective procedure during his detention by which he could have challenged the lawfulness of his detention. He also complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, that the violent intrusion into his home constituted a breach of his right to respect for his private life and his home.

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Were the applicants in the five cases subjected to ill-treatment during their arrest and detention, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present cases by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

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

CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1. The case of Haziyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 3650/12)

Has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention with regard to the applicant ’ s complaint that he was ill-treated in order to prevent him from carrying out his journalistic activities and that there was no effective investigation in that respect?

2. The case of Badalli v. Azerbaijan (no. 12016/12)

1. Was the applicant deprived of hi s liberty, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

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

3. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life an d his home, contrary to Article 8 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

3650/12

28/12/2011

Seymur HAZIYEV*

01/03/1982

Rashid Hacili

Fariz Namazli

12016/12

29/12/2011

Magrub BADALLI*

08/10/1956

69878/13

30/09/2013

Abdulla YOLBARSOV

25/11/1991

Khalid Bagirov

31474/14

07/04/2014

Mammad AZIZOV

11/08/1992

Fariz Namazli

40906/15

29/07/2015

Murad ADILOV*

09/06/1983

Yalchin Imanov