Communicated on 26 May 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 3899/08 Mushfig HUSEYNOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 16 January 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mushfig Huseynov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Agayeva , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

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

The applicant was a journalist and worked for the Bizim Yol newspaper. He has suffered from tuberculosis since 1996.

Following the publication of a series of articles criticising the activities of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (“the Ministry”) written by the applicant, the head of the Ministry ’ s administration (R.A.) contacted the applicant and asked for a meeting. They met on 11 June, as well as on 19 and 20 July 2007. According to the applicant, during these meetings R.A. firstly demanded that he stop writing articles about the Ministry. R.A. also threatened him saying that he should not forget the case of B.H., a journalist who had been heavily beaten in May 2006. However, when R.A. realised that the applicant would continue to write articles about the Ministry ’ s activities, he proposed him money in exchange for stopping writing articles. According to the applicant, at the beginning he rejected this proposal, but he later accepted it because of his difficult financial situation.

On 24 July 2007 they met again at a restaurant in Baku. During this meeting when the applicant received USD 3,500 from R.A. the officers of the Ministry of National Security intervened and arrested the applicant.

Following his arrest criminal proceedings under Article 311.1 (bribe ‑ taking) were instituted against the applicant.

On 26 July 2007 the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant ’ s detention pending trial for a period of three months. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the gravity of the charge and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from the investigation.

On 3 August 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision.

In the meantime, on 1 August 2007 a video recording concerning the applicant ’ s arrest on 24 July 2007 was broadcasted on various television channels. It appears from the transcripts of the broadcast that the applicant was presented as a criminal and a corrupted journalist and the scene of his arrest was displayed.

On 19 October 2007 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention pending trial by three months, until 24 January 2008. The court justified the extension of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention by the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions.

On 31 October 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court ’ s decision of 19 October 2007.

On 21 January 2008 the Assize Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to six years ’ imprisonment.

On 4 April 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the applicant ’ s conviction, but reduced his sentence to five years ’ imprisonment.

On 29 July 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s judgment of 4 April 2008.

On 4 March 2009 the applicant lodged a request with the court asking for his early release from detention because of his state of health.

On 27 May 2009 the Azizbayov District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no ground for the applicant ’ s early release from detention. The court also held that the applicant had been provided with the adequate medical treatment in detention.

On 20 July 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

The applicant was released from serving the remainder of his sentence by a presidential pardon given on 25 December 2009.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts failed to justify his detention pending trial. He also complains that he was not present at the hearings before the first-instance court and the appellate court at which the question of extension of his detention was decided.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the broadcast of the video recording concerning his arrest amounted to an infringement of his right to the presumption of innocence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

2. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, w ere the applicant and his lawyer able to be present at the hearings on the extension of the applicant ’ s detention before the Nasimi District Court and the Baku Court of Appeal?

3. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, did the broadcast of the video recording concerning the applicant ’ s arrest on television channels amount to an infringement of the applicant ’ s right to the presumption of innocence ?

4. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention, including the applicant ’ s appeals against the domestic courts ’ decisions ordering and extending his pre-trial detention. The Government are also requested to submit a copy of the video recording concerning the applicant ’ s arrest which was broadcasted on television channels.