Provisional detention of opposition activists for the purpose of punishing them and suspending their activity. Conviction for violations of the ECHR
JUDGMENT
Azizov and Novruzlu v. Azerbaijan 18.02.2021 (αρ. προσφ. 65583/13 και 70106/13)
SUMMARY
Provisional detention of opposition activists members of the NIDA youth organization, mainly aimed at punishing them and suspending their active participation in anti-government demonstrations. Restriction of rights for reasons other than those set out in the ECHR.
The ECtHR considered that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the applicants’ pre-trial detention had a punitive purpose contrary to the ECHR. To reach this conclusion, the ECtHR took into account: (i) the setting and pattern of the arbitrary arrest and detention of government critics, human rights defenders and civil society activists, including NIDA members, through retaliatory measures; (ii) the specific targeting of NIDA as an organization and its administration with a view to suspending its activities and attempting to prevent further demonstrations through criminal proceedings against the applicants and their provisional detention; and (iii) the failures of the domestic courts in considering the detention of the applicants in breach of Article 5 § 3.
The ECtHR unanimously found a violation of Article 18 (Limits on the use of restrictions on rights) in conjunction with Article 5§3 of the ECHR and awarded an amount of EUR 20,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage.
PROVISIONS
Article 5
Article 18
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Mammad Rasim oglu Azizov and Shahin Ibrahim oglu Novruzlu, are Azerbaijani
nationals.
The case concerned the applicants’ detention pending trial and the extension of those detention
periods.
Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or
to release pending trial) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions of rights) in conjunction with
Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that the
courts had failed to justify their pre-trial detention or provide reasons for ordering its extension, and
that their rights had been restricted for reasons other than those set out in the Convention.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 5§3 (right to liberty and security of person / right to a trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial)
The domestic courts failed to provide a “relevant” and “sufficient” reasoning to justify the need to extend the applicants’ pre-trial detention. They had used a standard template and simply listed the reasons for detention without citing specific incidents. They stated irrelevant reasons and ignored the fact that the second applicant was a minor.
The ECtHR ruled unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5§3 of the ECHR.
Article 18 (limits on the use of restrictions on rights) in conjunction with Article 5 § 3 of the ECHR
The complaint under this article was a fundamental and separate aspect of the case that deserved separate consideration.
The applicants in the present case and those in Rashad Hasanov and others. had been prosecuted and convicted in the same criminal proceedings. However, unlike Rashad Hasanov and others, in the present case, the Court was not called upon to examine whether the applicants had been deprived of their liberty in the absence of a “reasonable suspicion” that they had committed a criminal offense, since the applicants had not exhausted their domestic litigation in this matter. The present case must therefore be distinguished from cases in which the applicant ‘s right or liberty was restricted solely for a purpose not provided for in the Convention (see, for example, Rashad Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan, Aliyev Azerbaijan and Navalny v. Russia), in particular the Court had to deal with a number of possible purposes.
According to the ECtHR:
First, it was established through sufficient evidence that the applicants’ pre-trial detention had a covert purpose, namely the punishment and suspension of NIDA members for their active participation in anti-government demonstrations. In particular, the prosecuting authorities: (i) had clearly targeted NIDA and its members; (iii) used the initiation of criminal proceedings (given their timetable – and the prospect of an impending demonstration) and the subsequent detention of the applicants as a means of preventing further demonstrations; and (iv) attempted to identify leaflets at the second applicant’s apartment and with the phrase “urgent need for democracy, tel: + 994, address: Azerbaijan” as illegal material in an attempt to incite violence and political unrest in the demonstration which was scheduled for the next day.
Second, the ultimate motive was to restrict their freedom. To reach this conclusion, the Court took into account: (i) the setting and pattern of the arbitrary arrest and detention of government critics, human rights defenders and civil society activists, including NIDA members, through retaliation acts (as identified in the case of Aliyev v. Azerbaijan and confirmed in subsequent judgments), (ii) the specific targeting of NIDA as an organization and its administration with a view to suspending its activities and the attempt to prevent further demonstrations through criminal proceedings against the applicants and their pre-trial detention;
The ECtHR unanimously found a violation of Article 18 of the ECHR.
Violation of Article 5 § 3
Violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 § 3
Just satisfaction: 20,000 euros (EUR) to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage, EUR 1,500 to
Mr Azinov and EUR 2,000 to Mr Novruzlu for costs and expenses.
