Communicated on 7 December 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no 55642/16 Faig Samidkhan oglu AMIROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 19 September 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Faig Amirov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1973 and is currently detained in a prison in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Layijov , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

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

The applicant was an active member of the Popular Front Party and worked as the financial director of the Azadlig newspaper.

On 20 August 2016, when the applicant was about to get in his car, four persons approached him and introduced themselves as agents of the State Security Service and the Prosecutor General ’ s Office. They requested the applicant to follow them and the applicant complied with their request by getting in their car with two of them. Two other agents took the keys of the applicant ’ s car.

On 22 August 2016 the applicant was charged under Articles 168.1 (breach of citizens ’ rights on pretext of conducting religious rituals) and 283.2.2 (incitement to national, racial, social or religious hatred and hostility) of the Criminal Code. The description of the charges consisted of a single sentence which was more than half a page long. In particular, the applicant was accused of belonging to Fetullah Gülen ’ s religious sect and disseminating the ideology of the sect . In that connection, it was noted that the religious literature and eight CD-ROMs were found in the applicant ’ s car.

On the same day the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charge brought against the applicant and the prosecutor ’ s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant ’ s detention pending trial for a period of three months, calculating the period of detention from 20 August 2016. The court justified the applicant ’ s detention pending trial by citing the risk of re-offending and absconding from the investigation.

On 23 August 2016 the investigator in charge of the case ordered an expert examination of various books, CD-ROMs, two computers and other documents and items found in the applicant ’ s flat and car.

On the same day the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Security Service made a public statement about the applicant ’ s arrest published in the press. The statement officially informed the public of the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant under Articles 168.1 and 283.2.2 of the Criminal Code.

On 25 August 2016 the applicant appealed against the Nasimi District Court ’ s decision of 22 August 2016. He claimed that there was no evidence that he had committed any criminal offence and there had been no justification for the application of the preventive measure of detention pending trial. He further claimed that the statement by the law-enforcement authorities to the media on 23 August 2016 had amounted to a violation of his right to the presumption of innocence.

On 2 September 2016 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the first-instance court ’ s decision was justified. The appellate court ’ s decision made no mention of the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the alleged violation of his right to the presumption of innocence.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful because there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complains that the domestic courts failed to justify his detention pending trial and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention.

The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the statement made by the law enforcement authorities to the press dated 23 August 2016 amounted to an infringement of his right to the presumption of innocence.

QUESTIONS

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

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

3. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, did the joint statement made by the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Security Service to the press dated 23 August 2016 amount to an infringement of the applicant ’ s right to the presumption of innocence?

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

5. The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention, including all documents and decisions relating to extensions (if any) of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention which have taken place after the lodging of the present application.