6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and at the time of the events she lived in Baku. 7.  On 7 April 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 178 (fraud) of the Criminal Code against the applicant. 8.  On 20 August 2009 the criminal proceedings under Article 178 of the Criminal Code were terminated owing to the impossibility of determining the applicant’s whereabouts. 9.  On 24 August 2009 the applicant was invited to the Sabail District Police Office as a witness in connection with the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. After her arrival at the police office she had a conversation with the investigator which lasted approximately one hour. The applicant was then taken by three police officers to a drug rehabilitation centre, where it was established that she was a drug user. 10.  The applicant was then returned to the police office and she was subjected to a body search in the presence of two attesting witnesses (hal şahidi) and three police officers. During the search, narcotic substances were found on her person. 11.  At 10.10 p.m. on 24 August 2009 the investigator drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest (tutma protokolu). It appears from the record that the applicant was arrested under Article 234.1 of the Criminal Code on suspicion of illegal possession of narcotic substances in an amount exceeding that necessary for personal use, without intention to sell. 12.  On 26 August 2009 the applicant was charged with the criminal offence of possession of narcotic substances in an amount exceeding that necessary for personal use, without intention to sell, as provided in Article 234.1 of the Criminal Code. On the same day the prosecutor requested the judge to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri) in respect of the applicant. 13.  On 26 August 2009 the Sabail District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request for the preventive measure of remand in custody to be applied, ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of two months. The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure by the gravity of the applicant’s alleged criminal acts and the possibility of her absconding from and obstructing the investigation. 14.  The applicant did not appeal against the Sabail District Court’s decision of 26 August 2009. 15.  On 21 September 2009 the investigator in charge of the case decided to reinstitute criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 178 (fraud) of the Criminal Code. 16.  On 26 September 2009 the investigator decided to join the two criminal proceedings against the applicant under Articles 178 and 234 of the Criminal Code in the same criminal proceedings. 17.  On 22 October 2009 the Sabail District Court extended the applicant’s remand in custody by one month, until 24 November 2009. The judge reasoned the need for this extension by citing the possibility that she would abscond from or obstruct the investigation. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“Taking into account the facts that the detention period of the accused Isayeva Ofeliya Alik gizi will end on 24 October 2009 and that, if released, there are sufficient grounds [to believe that she might] abscond from the investigation and the court, obstruct the normal functioning of the investigation, or prevent the clarification of important facts relating to the criminal inquiry by illegally influencing individuals taking part in the criminal proceedings, I consider it necessary to extend her pre-trial detention for a period of one month, namely until 24 November 2009.” 18.  The applicant appealed against this decision, alleging that there was no need for an extension of her pre-trial detention and that during the two previous months no investigative steps had been taken by the investigator. 19.  On 2 November 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal, finding that the detention order was justified. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“The first-instance court, taking into account the facts that a certain period of time is needed to complete the investigation, and that there are sufficient grounds [to believe that], if released, the accused O. Isayeva might abscond from the investigation and the court, obstruct the normal functioning of the investigation, or prevent the clarification of important facts relating to the criminal inquiry by illegally influencing individuals taking part in the criminal proceedings, took a decision, in line with the law, ordering the extension of her pre-trial detention for a period of one month, namely until 24 November 2009.
Therefore, the appellate court considers that as there were no grounds to quash this decision of the first-instance court, the appeal should be dismissed and the decision should be left unchanged.” 20.  On 24 November 2009 the prosecutor filed an indictment with the Assize Court. 21.  On 10 December 2009 the Assize Court held a preliminary hearing. At that hearing, the court decided, inter alia, that the preventive measure of remand in custody should be left “unchanged”. 22.  On 25 May 2010 the Assize Court convicted the applicant of fraud and illegal possession of narcotic substances and sentenced her to ten years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against this judgment. 23.  At the preliminary examination of the case before the Baku Court of Appeal, the applicant complained that her defence rights had been violated during the investigation, asking the appellate court to quash the Assize Court’s judgment and to remit the case to the first-instance court for a new examination. 24.  On 15 July 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal held a preliminary hearing in which it decided to dismiss the applicant’s request. The applicant appealed against this decision. 25.  On 1 September 2010 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal, finding that her defence rights had been violated at the investigation stage of the proceedings, and quashed the appellate court’s decision of 15 July 2010. In particular, the Supreme Court found that the investigator had failed to inform the applicant, in a language she understood, of the accusations against her, that the applicant had not been given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of her defence, and that the investigator had failed to examine witnesses on behalf of the applicant. On the same day the Supreme Court delivered a special ruling (xüsusi qərardad) informing the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the unlawful actions of the investigator in charge of the case. 26.  On 2 November 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the Assize Court’s judgment of 25 May 2010 and the Assize Court’s decision of 10 December 2009. The appellate court decided to remit the case to the preliminary hearing stage of the proceedings before the first-instance court. 27.  On 14 December 2010 the Assize Court held a preliminary hearing. At that hearing the court decided to remit the case to the prosecution authorities for a new investigation, finding that the applicant’s defence rights had been violated during the investigation. The court also decided that the applicant’s remand in custody should be extended for a period of one month, until 14 January 2011. 28.  Relying on a request from the Sabail District Prosecutor for an extension of the period of the applicant’s detention, on 11 January 2011 the Sabail District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 29 January 2011. The judge gave as reasons for this measure the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the applicant’s alleged criminal acts, as well as the facts of the case. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“Bearing in mind the characteristics of the criminal acts attributed to Isayeva Ofeliya Alik gizi, the fact that these criminal acts are qualified as serious crimes, the conditions of their commission and the particular facts of the case, I consider that in the present case the defence of public interest should prevail over respect for her right to liberty...
It should be taken into consideration that by its decision of 14 December 2010 the Assize Court determined the pre-trial detention period of Isayeva Ofeliya Alik gizi until 14 January 2011. However, as indicated in the provisions of that court decision, a certain period of time was required for completion of the investigation, the accused and her lawyer should be familiarised with the case file, and any possible requests should be examined. 29.  The applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that the first‑instance court had failed to justify the extension of her detention. 30.  On 19 January 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Sabail District Court’s decision of 11 January 2011. As regards the justification, the wording of the appellate court’s decision was similar to that of the first‑instance court’s decision. 31.  On 25 January 2011 the Sabail District Court examined the prosecutor’s request for the extension of the applicant’s detention period. At the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer asked the judge to dismiss the prosecutor’s request. He submitted that the applicant had a permanent place of residence, that there was no risk of her absconding, and that she had been unlawfully detained for more than one year and six months. On the same day the judge extended the applicant’s remand in custody by one month, until 29 February 2011. He substantiated the necessity of the extension of the applicant’s detention as follows:
“While examining the [the prosecutor’s] request and the materials of the case file, I consider that a decision ordering the extension of the detention period of the accused Isayeva Ofeliya Alik gizi until 29 February 2011 should be taken because the accused Isayeva Ofeliya Alik gizi does not have a permanent place of residence, her detention period will end on 29 January 2011 and the criminal investigation cannot be completed by that date, and, if released, there are sufficient grounds to believe that she might abscond from the investigation.” 32.  The applicant appealed against this decision, reiterating her previous complaints. 33.  On 4 February 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance court’s decision ordering the applicant’s detention for a period of one month, holding that this period should be calculated until 28 February and not until 29 February 2011. 34.  On 23 February 2011 the Sabail District Court again decided to extend the applicant’s detention, until 15 March 2011. The judge justified the need for the extension of the applicant’s detention as follows:
“Taking into account that the investigation was not completed, that the grounds for the accused’s detention have not changed, that she does not have a permanent place of residence in Baku, that the police office is considered to be her place of residence and for this reason she might abscond from the investigation if released, as well as the seriousness of the offences attributed to her and the volume and complexity of the case, I consider that the request should be granted in part and the extension of the detention for a period of fifteen days should be considered lawful, reasonable and fair.” 35.  The applicant appealed against this decision, arguing that the first‑instance court had failed to justify her continued detention. 36.  On 3 March 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s extension order. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“Therefore, bearing in mind that the investigation of the case was at the final stage, that the grounds for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody have not changed, that she was accused of a serious crime, that she does not have a permanent place of residence and there is a likelihood of her absconding from the investigation, as well as the seriousness of the offence attributed to her, the panel of the court concludes that the first-instance court has been correct in extending the detention period of the accused Isayeva Ofeliya Alik gizi.” 37.  On 10 March 2011 the Sabail District Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention until 28 March 2011. The court gave as the reason for its decision that it needed more time to complete the investigation. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“As all the investigative actions have now been completed, it was necessary to announce the end of the investigation to the accused and the victims. However, because of the workload of some of the participants in the criminal proceedings, it was not possible to carry out investigative actions with the accused.
As the participation of all the parties is now possible, the investigation of the case should be completed, the accused and the victims should be informed of the end of the investigation and they should be familiarised with the numerous pieces of evidence in the criminal case, all of which needed a certain period of time.” 38.  On 17 March 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance court’s extension order. 39.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date the applicant lodged a request with the Sabail District Court asking the court to replace her remand in custody with the preventive measure of house arrest. She claimed, in particular, that her detention had not been justified and that there was no evidence that she might abscond from the investigation if placed under house arrest. The applicant further submitted that her sister’s flat was the place where she would live if placed under house arrest. 40.  On 10 March 2011 the Sabail District Court dismissed the request. The judge substantiated the decision as follows:
“Bearing in mind the characteristics, the seriousness of the offence and the danger to the public of the criminal act attributed to the accused Isayeva Ofeliya Alik gizi, the need to prevent Isayeva Ofeliya Alik gizi from committing unlawful acts, her personality, the facts that there are sufficient grounds [to believe that], if released she might abscond from the investigation and prevent the establishment of the truth on the case; also, she has been charged with an offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment ... I decide that the request ... for replacement of the remand in custody of the accused Isayeva Ofeliya Alik gizi with the preventive measure of house arrest should not be granted.” 41.  On 17 March 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the first-instance court had been correct in refusing to replace her detention with the preventive measure of house arrest. 42.  On an unspecified date, the prosecutor asked the court to extend the applicant’s detention until 12 April 2011. The prosecutor gave as the reason for the need to extend the detention the attitude of the applicant’s lawyer, who had refused to familiarise himself with the material in the case file until 28 March 2011 because it was a public holiday. 43.  On 28 March 2011 the Sabail District Court examined the prosecutor’s request. At the court hearing, the applicant’s lawyer submitted that he was not obliged to familiarise himself with the case file on public holidays, and that his failure to do so could not constitute a ground for extension of the applicant’s detention. On the same day, relying on the prosecutor’s request, the court decided to extend the applicant’s detention on remand for a period of ten days, namely until 7 April 2011. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“As the [the prosecutor’s] present request was justified solely on the basis of the lawyer’s failure to familiarise himself with the material in the case file and the lawyer stated that he would begin to familiarise himself with the case file from 28 March 2011 ... the extension of the detention for a period of ten days should be considered appropriate.” 44.  On 5 April 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s extension order. 45.  On 9 April 2011 the Baku City Deputy Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Baku Assize Court. 46.  On 4 May 2011 the Baku Assize Court held a preliminary hearing. At that hearing, the court decided, inter alia, that the preventive measure of remand in custody should be left “unchanged”. 47.  On 28 September 2011 the applicant lodged a request with the Baku Assize Court, asking the court to replace her remand in custody with the preventive measure of house arrest. She claimed, in particular, that there was no evidence that she might abscond from the court, and stated that if placed under house arrest she would live in her sister’s flat. 48.  On the same day the Baku Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s request. The relevant part of the Baku Assize Court’s decision of 28 September 2011 reads as follows:
“After having examined the request in question and having heard the participants in the proceedings, the court, taking into account the characteristics of the criminal acts attributed to the accused and the danger they present to the public, considers that there is no need to replace the preventive measure of remand in custody applied in respect of the accused with another preventive measure; for this reason, the request should be dismissed.” 49.  On 30 May 2012 the Baku Assize Court convicted the applicant of fraud and illegal possession of narcotic substances and sentenced her to nine years’ imprisonment. 50.  The applicant appealed against the judgment of 30 May 2012. 51.  On 5 August 2012, while her appeal was pending before the Baku Court of Appeal, the applicant died in prison. 52.  Following the applicant’s death, her sister, Ms Sevil Rzayeva, lodged a request with the Baku Court of Appeal, as the applicant’s legal heir, asking the court not to terminate the criminal proceedings. 53.  On 13 August 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal decided to continue the examination of the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 30 May 2012. The Court has not been informed of the outcome. 54.  By two powers of attorney, dated 9 August 2012 and 8 July 2014, Ms Sevil Rzayeva gave the right to the applicant’s representative to represent her before the courts at all levels of jurisdiction. In particular, the power of attorney of 8 July 2014 provided that the applicant’s representative was entitled to represent Ms Sevil Rzayeva in all the legal proceedings, including the proceedings before the Court.