Communicated on 2 February 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 59620/14 Leyla YUNUSOVA and Arif YUNUSOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 1 September 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, Ms Leyla Yunusova (“the first applicant”) and Mr Arif Yunusov (“the second applicant”), are Azerbaijani nationals, who were born in 1955 and live in Baku. They are represented before the Court by Mr K. Bagirov , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

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

A. The background of the case

The first applicant is a well-known human rights defender and civil society activist. She is the director of the Institute for Peace and Democracy (“the Institute”), a non-governmental organisation specialising in human rights protection and conflict resolution problems.

She suffers from a number of diseases, including diabetes mellitus type 2 and chronic Hepatitis C.

The second applicant, who is the husband of the first applicant, is a researcher and the head of the Conflictology Department of the Institute.

He suffers from chronic hypertension.

B. Institution of criminal proceedings against the first applicant and her remand in custody

On 30 July 2014 the first applicant was arrested by the police and was taken to the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office.

On the same day she was charged under Articles 178.3.2 (large-scale fraud), 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.1 (large-scale tax evasion), 274 (high treason), 320.1 and 320.2 (falsification of official documents) of the Criminal Code.

O n the same day the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against her and the prosecutor ’ s request for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered her detention for a period of three months. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released she might abscond from the investigation.

On 1 August 2014 the first applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that her detention was unlawful. She submitted, in particular, that there was no reasonable suspicion that she had committed a criminal offence and that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. She pointed out in this connection that the court had failed to justify her detention on remand and to take into account her personal circumstances, such as her social status, her state of health and her age, when it ordered her remand in custody. She further argued that her detention was related to her activities as a human rights defender and that she had been punished for her activities.

On 6 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the first-instance court ’ s decision was lawful.

On 24 October 2014 the Nasimi District Court extended the first applicant ’ s remand in custody by four months, until 28 February 2015. The court substantiated its decision by the fact that it needed more time to complete the investigation and that the grounds for the accused ’ s detention had not changed. On the same day the Nasimi District Court also dismissed the first applicant ’ s request to release her on bail or to place her under house arrest in lieu of being remanded in custody

On 27 October 2014 the first applicant appealed against these decisions, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to justify her continued detention.

On 30 October 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decisions of 24 October 2014.

C. Institution of criminal proceedings against the second applicant and his remand in custody

On 30 July 2014 the second applicant was questioned by an investigator at the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office. Following the interrogation, he was charged under Articles 178.3.2 (large ‑ scale fraud) and 274 (high treason) of the Criminal Code.

On the same day the investigator decided to apply in respect of him the preventive measure of placement under police supervision taking into account his state of health, in particular the fact that he was suffering from chronic hypertension .

On 5 August 2014 the second applicant was arrested by the police. On the same day the prosecutor lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking it to replace the second applicant ’ s placement under police supervision by the preventive measure of remand in custody . The prosecutor justified his request by the second applicant ’ s failure to comply with the requirements of the preventive measure of placement under police supervision.

On 5 August 2014 the Nasimi District Court ordered the second applicant ’ s detention for a period of three months. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from the investigation.

On 8 August 2014 the second applicant appealed against this decision. He submitted, in particular, that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that there was no justification for the replacement of the preventive measure of placement under police supervision by the preventive measure of remand in custody. He further pointed out that the court had failed to justify his detention on remand and that his detention was related to his activities as a civil society activist and his wife ’ s activities as a human rights defender.

On 11 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the detention order was justified.

On 29 October 2014 the Nasimi District Court extended the second applicant ’ s remand in custody by four months, until 5 March 2015. The court substantiated its decision by the fact that it needed more time to complete the investigation and that the grounds for the accused ’ s detention had not changed.

On 30 October 2014 the Nasimi District Court also dismissed the second applicant ’ s request to release him on bail or to place him under house arrest in lieu of being remanded in custody.

On 3 November 2014 the second applicant appealed against these decisions, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to justify his continued detention.

On 6 November 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decisions of 29 and 30 October 2014.

D. The applicants ’ conditions of detention and their medical care in detention

1. The first applicant ’ s conditions of detention and medical care

On 31 July 2014 the first applicant was transferred to the Baku Pre-trial Detention Facility of the Ministry of Justice.

Following her arrival at the detention facility, she was examined by a doctor who confirmed the diagnoses of diabetes mellitus type 2 and chronic Hepatitis C.

From 31 July to 5 August 2014 she was provided with necessary diabetic food and medicine by the second applicant.

Following the arrest of the second applicant on 5 August 2014, the first applicant was deprived of necessary diabetic food and medicine. In particular, the detention facility administration did not allow her lawyer and friends to deliver her parcels until 23 August 2014, arguing that only family members of a detainee may send her a parcel.

The first applicant was detained in a cell measuring 12 sq. m. together with six other detainees.

On 7 August 2014 , a recidivist detainee, N.H., was transferred to the applicant ’ s cell. After her transfer, N.H. frequently subjected the first applicant to verbal and physical violence about which she complained to the administration of the detention facility. However, no action was taken by the administration of the detention facility.

On 22 August 2014 the first applicant lodged a request with the administration of the detention facility asking it to allow her medical examination by an independent doctor, A.G.

By a letter of 4 September 2014, the deputy head of the detention facility replied to her request, noting that there was no need for a medical examination by another doctor. He further pointed out that the first applicant ’ s state of health was stable and under control of the detention facility ’ s doctors.

On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged the same request with the investigator in charge of the case.

By a decision of 9 September 2014, the investigator dismissed her request, finding that all the necessary measures had been taken for the first applicant ’ s medical treatment in the detention facility.

On 19 September 2014 the first applicant lodged a request with the administration of the detention facility complaining about N.H. ’ s unlawful actions. In particular, she complained that she had been subjected to physical violence by N.H. and that the placement of a recidivist detainee in her cell was not in compliance with domestic law. She further complained about her conditions of detention, claiming that her cell was not adequately lit and ventilated.

On 23 September 2014 the first applicant was subjected to verbal and physical violence by a prison warden (major Y.). On the same day her cell was searched and she was deprived of her right to make phone calls for a period of one month. She was also obliged to take a cold shower because the shower room was not provided with hot water.

On 26 September 2014 the first applicant ’ s lawyer asked the administration of the detention facility to provide him with a copy of the administrative decision depriving the first applicant of her right to make phone calls. However, he did not receive any response to his request.

By a letter of 21 October 2014, the head of the detention facility replied to the request of 19 September 2014. He noted that the first applicant had not been subjected to violence by N.H. and that her conditions of detention complied with the established standards.

In October 2014 criminal proceedings were instituted against one of the first applicant ’ s lawyers (A.H.) on the basis of a criminal complaint by N.H. for defamation and insult.

By a letter of 28 October 2014, the investigator in charge of the case informed one of the first applicant ’ s lawyers (J.J.) that he had been removed from her defence without further explanation.

In November 2014 another lawyer of the first applicant (her representative in the present case before the Court) was removed from her defence and on 10 December 2014 his legal licence was suspended.

2. The second applicant ’ s conditions of detention and medical care

The second applicant was detained in the temporary detention facility of the Ministry of National Security.

According to the second applicant, his state of health has significantly deteriorated since his arrest. In particular, the domestic authorities had failed to provide him with adequate medical care and the medical documents concerning his treatment in detention.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that they were not provided with adequate medical treatment in detention and that their state of health was incompatible with detention. They further complain that their conditions of detention were harsh.

The first applicant also complains that she was deprived of necessary diabetic food and medicine from 5 to 23 August 2014, as a result her state of health seriously deteriorated. She further complains that the domestic authorities intentionally subjected her to verbal and physical violence by placing a recidivist detainee in her cell.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the detention itself compatible with the applicants ’ state of health? Were the applicants provided with adequate medical treatment in detention? Was the first applicant provided with necessary diabetic food and medicine from 5 to 23 August 2014?

2. Were the conditions of the applicants ’ detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the first applicant subjected to verbal and physical violence by a recidivist detainee placed in her cell? Were the applicants detained in a cell in the detention facility? If yes, as regards the applicants ’ detention, in respect of the cell where the applicants were detained:

(a) What were the dimensions of the cell? How many persons were detained in that cell at the same time as the applicants? Did the applicants have a separate bed and bedding?

(b) Was the cell adequately lit and ventilated? What were the sanitary conditions inside the cell?

(d) Did the applicants have appropriate provisions of food, water, bedding, clothing and other necessities?

3. The Government are requested to inform the Court what kind of medical examination the applicants underwent during their detention, what diagnoses were established, what medical treatment was recommended in respect of the diagnoses established, and what medical treatment they received in detention. The Government are also requested to provide the Court with information about the conditions in the Baku Pre-trial Detention Facility of the Ministry of Justice and the detention facility of the Ministry of National Security and these facilities ’ capabilities in terms of providing the applicants with adequate medical treatment (such as the availability of specialised medical personnel, necessary equipment, and so on).