Communicated on 13 February 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 31709/13 Tofig YAGUBLU against Azerbaijan lodged on 7 May 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Tofig Yagublu , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Baku . He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Karimli , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan .

The applicant was the deputy chairman of the Musavat Party. He was also a columnist for the Yeni Musavat n ewspaper .

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

A. The Ismayilli events of January 2013

On 23 January 2013 rioting broke out in the town of Ismayilli , located to the northwest of Baku. According to media reports quoting local residents, the rioting was sparked by an incident involving V.A., son of the Minister of Labour and nephew of the Head of the Ismayilli District Executive Authority (“IDEA”). It was claimed that after getting into a car accident, V.A. insulted and physically assaulted passengers of the other car, who were local residents. Having heard of this incident, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of local residents took to the streets and destroyed a number of commercial establishments (including a hotel named Chirag ) and other property in Ismayilli thought to be owned by V.A. ' s family.

On 24 January 2013 the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General ' s Office issued a joint press statement, placing the blame for the rioting on E.S., a hotel manager, and his relative E.M., who had allegedly been drunk and who, it was claimed, had committed acts of hooliganism by damaging local residents ' property and causing people to riot.

Meanwhile, the Head of IDEA, V.A. ' s uncle, publicly denied that the Chirag Hotel belonged to his family.

B. The applicant ' s role in the Ismayilli events

On 24 January 2013 the Yeni Musavat newspaper decided to send the applicant on a mission to Ismayilli to cover the events in question. On the same day the applicant travelled to Ismayilli with three other persons . He arrived there in the afternoon. However, approximately twenty minutes later, the applicant was arrested by the police and was taken to the local police station. In the police station the applicant was requested to leave Ismayilli and was sent to Baku in his own car accompanied by a police car.

On 29 January 2013 the Prosecutor General ' s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a new joint press statement concerning the events in Ismayilli . According to this statement, on 24 January 2013 the applicant and Mr Ilgar Mammadov , the chairman of a political movement named REAL , visited Ismayilli and made appeals to local residents aimed at disrupting the social and political order, such as calls for resistance to the police, not to obey officials and to block roads. It further stated: “[t]heir illegal actions calculated to inflame the situation in the country will be fully and thoroughly investigated and subjected to a legal assessment.”

C. The applicant ' s arrest and detention

On 1 February 2013 the applicant was questioned as a witness by an investigator at the Serious Crimes Department of the Prosecutor General ' s Office in connection with the Ismayilli events. A fter the questioning ended, he left the premises of the Serious Crimes Department and returned home.

On 4 February 2013 the applicant was again questioned by the investigation. During this questioning, two persons that the applicant did not know testified against him. On the same day the applicant was charged with criminal offences under Articles 233 ( organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or he alth) of the Criminal Code.

On 4 February 2013 a judge of the Nasimi District Court, relying on the formal charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor ' s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody ( h ə bs qətimkan tədbiri ) , remanded the applicant in custody for a period of two months . The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure by the nature and degree of danger to the public of the offences with which the applicant was charged, as well as by the likelihood of the applicant absconding from and ob structing the investigation.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this decision. He complained that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that his detention had violated the domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 8 February 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ' s appeal, finding that the detention order was justified . In this connection the appellate court held that the first-instance court correctly took into account the fact that t he applicant was charged with a less serious offence punishable by more than two years ' imprisonment, and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from the investigation and obstruct the normal functioning of the investigation.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking for the replacement of hi s pre-trial detention by house arrest.

On 5 March 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request and found that the preventive measure should be left “unchanged”. The court held in particular that the nature and degree of danger to the public of the offences with which the applicant was charged did not permit to apply a preventive measure such as house arrest, because it would not isolate totally the applicant from the society.

On 14 March 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court ' s decision of 5 March 2013 .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. He further complains that the domestic courts failed to justify the necessity for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and refused to replace it with any alternative measures to ensure his appearance at trial.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the deprivation of the applicant ' s liberty by means of the imposition of a pre-trial detention order comply with the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention? In particular, was he detained “on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence”? What material was examined by the courts to verify if such reasonable suspicion existed? Were the requirements of Article 5 § 3 respected by the domestic courts when ordering the applicant ' s remand in custody? 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 the applicant ' s continued detention?

2. 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.