Information Note on the Court’s case-law 206

April 2017

Huseynova v. Azerbaijan - 10653/10

Judgment 13.4.2017 [Section V]

Article 2

Article 2-1

Effective investigation

Lack of effective investigation into murder of journalist critical of the Government: violation

Facts – The applicant’s husband, Mr Elmar Huseynov, was a prominent independent journalist in Azerbaijan. In March 2005 he was shot dead on his wa y home from work. Criminal proceedings were instituted and two Georgian nationals were identified as suspects. The Georgian authorities refused to extradite them from Georgia to Azerbaijan. In the Convention proceedings the applicant complained under Artic le 2 that her husband had been murdered by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation.

Law – Article 2 ( substantive aspect ): There was no evidence enabling the Court to find beyond reason able doubt that the applicant’s husband had been murdered by State agents or that the State was behind his murder. Nor was there any evidence before the Court indicating that the domestic authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of the applicant’s husband and had failed to protect his right to life.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

Article 2 ( procedural aspect ): International instruments such as the European Convention on Extradition and the 1993 Minsk Convention , to which both States were parties, clearly provided for the transfer of the criminal case to the Georgian authorities in order for the murder charge to be prosecuted in Georgia. Indeed, the Georgian authorities had expressly referred to that possibility in their reply to the extradition request. There was no evidence that the Azerbaijani authorities had examined such a possibility.

Even though the applicant had been granted victim status in the investigation, the investigating authorities had constantly d enied her access to the case file. The relevant domestic law provided no right of access, a situation the Court found to be unacceptable. That situation had deprived the applicant of the opportunity to safeguard her legitimate interests and prevented any s crutiny of the investigation by the public.

Regard being had to the overall factual context of the case, the applicant’s allegations that the killing of her husband was related to his activities as a journalist were not at all implausible. The magazine that he had operated independently had a reputa tion of being strongly critical of the Azerbaijani Government and the opposition; its publication or dissemination had been interfered with by the Azerbaijani authorities; and over thirty civil and criminal proceedings had been brought against him. It was apparent that his murder could have a chilling effect on the work of other journalists in the country. In such circumstances, there had been every reason for the investigating authorities to explore with particular diligence whether the murder, which appea red to have been carefully planned, could have been linked to his journalistic activities.

The Azerbaijani authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicant’s husban d.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes