Communicated on 3 December 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 69981/14 Rasul Agahasan Oglu JAFAROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 10 October 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Rasul Jafarov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Bagirov and Mr R. Remezaite , lawyers practising, respectively, in Azerbaijan and London.

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

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

The applicant is a well-known civil society activist and human rights defender. He is the chairman and one of the co-founders of Human Rights Club (“the Association”), a non-governmental organisation specialised in protection of human rights. The applicant participated in the preparation of various reports relating to human rights issues in Azerbaijan.

The applicant also coordinated the Sing for Democracy campaign during the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 in Baku which aimed at drawing attention to human rights violations in Azerbaijan. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Republican Alternative Civic Movement.

On an unspecified date in May 2014 the Prosecutor General ’ s Office instituted criminal proceedings under Arti cles 308.1 (abuse of power) and 313 (forgery by an official) of the Criminal Code in connection with alleged irregularities in the financial activities of a number of non-governmental organisations.

When the applicant was in Kyiv from 6 to 11 July 2014, he learned that by a decision of 7 July 2014 the Sabail District Court ordered a freezing injunction in respect of his bank accounts.

On 29 July 2014, while travelling by train from Baku to Tbilisi, the applicant was stopped during border control at the Azerbaijani-Georgian border. He was informed that he could not leave the country because a travel ban had been imposed on him.

On 30 July 2014 the applicant was invited to the Prosecutor General ’ s Office where he was questioned as a witness in connection with the above-mentioned criminal proceedings.

On 2 August 2014 the applicant was again invited to the Prosecutor General ’ s Office for questioning as a witness. According to the applicant, on 2 August 2014, on his arrival at the premises of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, he was arrested and was charged under Articles 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.1 (large-scale tax evasion) and 308.2 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code.

O n the same day the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor ’ s request for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the 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 the applicant might abscond from or obstruct the investigation.

Before and after the applicant ’ s arrest, numerous articles about the applicant were published in the State media and in the media allegedly close to the Government. In these articles, he was described as “a spy of foreign countries” and “a traitor”. Moreover, a number of politicians from the ruling political party made pejorative comments about recently arrested NGO activists in Azerbaijan, without quoting specifically the applicant ’ s name.

On 4 August 2014 the Prosecutor General ’ s Office made a public statement in which it was noted that the applicant was charged under Articles 192.2.2, 213.1 and 308.2 of the Criminal Code because there was a suspicion that he had committed crimes provided for in the above-mentioned articles.

On 5 August 2014 the applicant appealed against the Nasimi District Court ’ s decision of 2 August 2014, claiming that his detention was unlawful. He submitted, in particular, that the court had failed to justify the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that there was no risk of his absconding from or obstructing the investigation.

On 8 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, finding that the first-instance court ’ s decision was lawful.

B. The applicant ’ s request for release on bail or replacement of his pre-trial detention by house arrest

On 19 August 2014 the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking the court to release him on bail or to place him under house arrest in lieu of being remanded in custody. He argued in this connection that there was no reason justifying his continued detention.

On 20 August 2014 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of remand in custody.

On 28 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful because there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence.

2. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to justify the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in his respect and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention.

[A1] 3. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not address his specific arguments in support of his release.

4. The applicant complains under Articles 11 and 18 of the Convention that his right to freedom of association was violated because his arrest and detention were intended to silence him as an NGO activist. He further complains that his Convention rights were restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. In particular, he argues that his arrest and pre-trial detention were intended to silence him as an NGO activist and human rights defender. [A2]

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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?

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. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detent ion, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

4. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of association within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?

5. 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 those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?

6. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s arrest and pre-trial detention (including the records of questioning of the applicant as a witness).

[A1] ITMARKFactsComplaintsEnd

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

[A2] ITMARKFactsComplaintsEnd

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE