Communicated on 10 June 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 22004/11 Suleyman SATULLAYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 17 March 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Suleyman Satullayev , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Sumgayit .

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

The applicant worked as a shop assistant at a family-owned shop in Sumgayit .

At around 6.15 p.m. on 20 August 2008 two plain-clothes police officers entered the shop and asked the applicant for water. When the applicant gave them a bottle of water, they told him they are police officers and they would carry out a search of the shop because they had information about drug dealing in the shop. At that moment other plain-clothes police officers entered the shop.

When the applicant protested against the search and asked the police officers to present an authorisation for carrying out such a search, R.B., who was the deputy head of Police Station no. 4, ordered other police officers to handcuff the applicant. The applicant continued to protest against the search asking for relevant documents. In reply to his request, R.B. insulted him and another police officer hit him on the head with his hand. The applicant ’ s father and mother came to the shop before the end of the search.

Following the search, the applicant who was handcuffed was taken to Police Station no. 4. The applicant was detained in the police station until 1.30 a.m. on 21 August 2008 and then he was free to leave the police station. During this period, he remained handcuffed for around three hours.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against several police officers complaining about his ill-treatment and unlawful detention by the police.

By a decision of 13 October 2008, the investigator from the Sumgayit City Prosecutor ’ s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had been involved in the incident of 20 August 2008. The investigator considered that the applicant had not been hit or handcuffed by the police officers. He further found that the applicant had not been detained in the police station. In this connection, the investigator relied on the submissions of the police officers who stated that they had not carried out a search in the shop and that they had just asked the applicant to follow them to the police station and he had complied with their request. They further noted that the applicant had not been handcuffed and that he had left the police station following a thirty-minute conversation. The investigator also referred to a forensic report of 1 September 2008 according to which there was no sign of ill-treatment on the applicant ’ s body. He also noted that two police officers, R.B. and E.A. had been reprimanded for organisation of a non-professional operation by the police authorities.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sumgayit City Court under the procedure of judicial review of prosecuting authorities ’ actions or decisions . He complained in particular that the investigator had failed to carry out an effective investigation and had not questioned the witnesses of the incident.

On 19 February 2010 the Sumgayit City Court quashed the investigator ’ s decision and ordered the prosecution authorities to carry out a new investigation. The court held that the investigator had failed to identify and question all the relevant witnesses and had relied solely on the submissions of the police officers and the forensic report of 1 September 2008.

On 1 March 2010 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Sumgayit City Prosecutor ’ s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers finding that it had not been established that the police officers had hit or handcuffed the applicant. He also held that the applicant had not been unlawfully detained in the police station. The prosecutor relied on the submissions of the police officers and the forensic report of 1 September 2008. As regards the testimonies of the applicant ’ s father, mother and brother, as well as four other witness testimonies from the residents of the area where the shop was situated, the prosecutor held that the testimonies in question should not be considered as reliable, because they had been given by people interested in the outcome of the case.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sumgayit City Court against the prosecutor ’ s decision claiming that the prosecutor had failed to carry out an effective investigation.

On 7 July 2010 the Sumgayit City Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint. The court held that the prosecutor had conducted an effective investigation and there was no reason to quash the decision in question.

On 23 September 2010 the Sumgayit C ourt of Appeal upheld the first ‑ instance court ’ s decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by the police during his arrest and that he was detained handcuffed during three hours without any reason.

The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that he was unlawfully detained in the police station for a period of six hours.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the police use force against the applicant during his arrest on 20 August 2008? Were the applicant ’ s hands handcuffed during his arrest? If so, for how long did the applicant remain handcuffed? 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 case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was the alleged deprivation of liberty from 6.30 p.m. on 20 August 2008 to 1.30 a.m. on 21 August 2008 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention?

3. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents, such as forensic report, the applicant ’ s complaints with the prosecution authorities and the domestic courts, testimony records of the police officers and other witnesses, decision concerning reprimand of two police officers (R.B. and E.A.) by the police authorities, the applicant ’ s detention record or any other document relating to the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment and detention by the police.