Inadequate investigation into murder of well-known journalist
JUDGMENT
Huseynova v. Azerbaijan 13-04-2017 (no. 10653/10)
SUMMARY
The Court found that there was a lack of evidence to prove the allegation that the State had in some way been involved in the murder of Ms Huseynova’s husband, or that the authorities had known or ought to have known about a real risk to his life and had failed to take measures to protect him. However, the Court considered that the investigation into the murder had not been effective,
adequate or prompt, having so far lasted more than 12 years. It identified a number of shortcomings in the investigation, namely: that the Azerbaijani authorities had not taken all the measures available to them to ensure that the two suspects identified, Georgian nationals, be prosecuted, such as transferring the criminal case to the Georgian authorities; that Ms Huseynova had constantly been denied access to the case file by the authorities; and, that no adequate steps had been taken to explore whether Mr Huseynov’s murder, apparently very carefully planned, could have been linked to his work as journalist, despite his strongly critical articles of both the Azerbaijani Government and the opposition.
PROVISION
Article 2
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Rushaniya Huseynova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1978 and lives in Norway. She was the wife of Elmar Huseynov, a prominent independent journalist who wrote
strongly critical articles of the Government as well as the opposition. In total, over 30 civil and criminal proceedings had been instituted against him by various public officials in connection with his articles. Mr Huseynov was shot dead outside their apartment as he returned home from work on 2 March 2005.
A criminal investigation into the murder was immediately instituted and numerous investigative steps were taken. Among other things, the scene of the crime was inspected, a post-mortem examination carried out, forensic examinations ordered and Ms Huseynova was questioned as a witness. In May 2005 two Georgian nationals were identified as suspects by the investigation and international warrants for their arrest were issued. Soon after, the Azerbaijani authorities asked the Georgian authorities to extradite the two suspects. The Georgian authorities refused on the grounds that the suspects were Georgian nationals and could not be extradited to a foreign country; however, they undertook to prosecute the suspects at the Azerbaijani authorities’ request if the criminal case was transferred to them. Since then, the Georgian authorities have conducted various investigative actions – such as the search of two flats in Tbilisi and the questioning of various people, including one of the suspects – at the request of their Azerbaijani counterparts, but the investigation is currently apparently still ongoing with no perpetrators having yet been prosecuted.
Throughout the proceedings Ms Huseynova wrote to the investigating authorities enquiring about the progress in the investigation and complaining that, although she had been recognised as a victim, she had not been provided with any information. She was told that the investigation was ongoing and that, under the relevant domestic law, she had the right to familiarise herself with the case file only when the preliminary investigation was over.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Although Elmar Huseynov had published numerous articles criticising various State officials, the Court could not, due to lack of evidence, conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that any official or
the State had been behind the murder of Ms Huseynova’s husband. Similarly, there was no material in the case file to indicate that the law enforcement authorities had been aware at any time before the murder of any danger to Mr Huseynov’s life. Nor had Ms Huseynova disputed the Government’s submission that her husband had never actually applied to the domestic authorities for protection or informed them of any danger or threat to his life. There had therefore been no violation of Article 2 as concerned the allegation that the State had in some way been involved in the murder of Ms Huseynova’s husband, or that the authorities had known or ought to have known about a real risk to his life and had failed to take measures to protect him.
However, as concerned the investigation into the murder, the Court identified a number of shortcomings. Firstly, the Azerbaijani authorities had not taken all the measures available to them to
obtain the prosecution of the suspects who had been identified, such as transferring the criminal case to the Georgian authorities for the murder charge to be prosecuted there. That possibility had not only clearly been provided for under various international legal instruments but had expressly been referred to by the Georgian authorities in their reply to the extradition request. However, the Azerbaijani Government gave no explanation as to why that possibility had never apparently been examined. Secondly, even though Ms Huseynova had been granted victim status in the investigation, the authorities had constantly denied her access to the case file. Thirdly, the criminal investigation has not been carried out promptly, taking into account its overall length so far, over 12 years. Lastly, the Court found that no adequate steps had been taken to explore whether Mr Huseynov’s murder, apparently very carefully planned, could have been linked to his work as journalist, despite there having been every reason to do so in view of his strongly critical articles of both the Government and the opposition as well as the related criminal and civil proceedings brought against him. Nor indeed had the investigating authorities come up with another plausible explanation for the motives behind the murder.
The Court therefore concluded that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing of Ms Huseynova’s husband, in violation of Article 2.
Given those findings, the Court held, by five votes to two, that it was not necessary to examine Ms Huseynova’s complaint under Article 10.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Azerbaijan was to pay Ms Huseynova 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of nonpecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.
Separate opinion
Judges Nußberger and Vehabović expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion which is annexed to the
judgment.
