5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Baku. 6.  The applicant was a journalist and the editor-in-chief of the Azadliq newspaper. 7.  On 7 November 2007 when the applicant was in front of the entrance of a publishing house in Baku, he had a verbal altercation with a woman (S.Q.) who accused him of having “abused” her. At that moment a man (V.H.) who was an acquaintance of S.Q. approached them and intervened in the quarrel. Following V.H.’s intervention, the initial verbal altercation turned into a physical altercation between the applicant and V.H., which was stopped after other people intervened. 8.  On the same day the applicant informed the media of the incident, stating that he had been attacked because of his activities as a journalist and that he had been set up. 9.  On 7 November 2007 V.H. lodged a complaint with the Yasamal District Police Office alleging that he had been beaten and insulted in front of the publishing house by a man he did not know. In his statement to the police, V.H. stated that on 7 November 2007 he took S.Q. to the publishing house by car. On their arrival, he parked the car in front of the publishing house. S.Q. crossed the street first and he followed her. At that moment he realised that a man was insulting S.Q. and that a verbal altercation occurred between them. He immediately approached the man, asking him in a normal way why he had insulted S.Q., but the man in question began to insult him. When he replied, the man physically assaulted him by first slapping him, then headbutting and punching him. They were separated by bystanders. 10.  S.Q., who was questioned on the same day by the investigator, confirmed V.H.’s statement. In particular, she stated that on 7 November 2007, while she was on the street in front of the publishing house, a man complimented her on her looks. She rebutted his compliment, saying that “she [was] not his type” and the man began to “abuse” her by calling her a prostitute. At that moment a verbal altercation occurred between her and the man. V.H was nearby and approached the man, asking him why he had insulted her. The man also began to insult V.H., and the verbal altercation turned into a physical altercation between V.H. and the man. He first slapped V.H. and then headbutted and punched him. 11.  On 7 November 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted by the Yasamal District Police Office in connection with above-mentioned incident under Article 221.1 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. 12.  On 8 November 2007 V.H. informed the police that he could identify the man with whom he had been involved in the physical altercation on 7 November 2007. V.H. said that it was the applicant and that he could identify him, having seen the applicant’s photo in the Yeni Musavat newspaper. 13.  On the same day the investigator in charge of the case contacted the applicant, asking him to come to the police office. The applicant informed him that he was not currently in Baku, but that he would come to the police office present himself on 10 November 2007. 14.  On 9 November 2007 S.Q. and V.H. were examined by a forensic expert. In respect of S.Q., the expert concluded that there were no signs of injury on her body. As regards V.H., the expert noticed that there were bruises and injuries to his nose, left ear and upper lip. The expert also observed an incomplete fracture of V.H.’s right cheekbone, noting that he had suffered a head injury. Lastly, the expert concluded that the injuries were those causing “less serious injury to health”, because they had long‑term effects. 15.  On 10 November 2007 the investigator questioned two witnesses (A.I. and V.R.), who confirmed that they had witnessed a physical altercation between two men on 7 November 2007 in front of the publishing house. They stated that one of the men, who was older and wearing glasses, punched the other man in the mouth. 16.  At around noon on 10 November 2007 the applicant presented himself at the Yasamal District Police Office. He was questioned as a witness by the investigator in connection with the incident on 7 November 2007. The applicant admitted that he had been involved in a physical altercation with V.H. that day. He said that as he approached the entrance of the publishing house, a woman who was on the street talking on her phone had insulted him. She then accused him of having “abused” her and began to shout at him and insult him. He asked her to stop insulting him and stated that he had not “abused” her. At that moment a man approached them and intervened in the verbal altercation between him and the woman. The man insulted him and then tried to punch and kick him. The applicant defended himself by pushing the man, who fell down to his knees. The applicant stated that he had neither slapped, headbutted nor punched him. 17.  On the same day face-to-face confrontations were carried out between the applicant and V.H., and between the applicant and S.Q. The applicant, V.H. and S.Q. reiterated their initial statements. The investigator also proceeded to a formal identification of the people involved and the applicant was identified by A.I. and V.R. as the older man wearing glasses who had punched the other man during the altercation. 18.  On 10 November 2007 the investigator issued a record of the applicant’s forty-eight-hour detention as a suspect (tutma protokolu) in the presence of him and his lawyer. The applicant was suspected of the deliberate infliction of less serious injury to health and hooliganism, offences under Articles 127.2.3 and 221.1 of the Criminal Code. 19.  On 10 November 2007 the applicant asked the investigator to order a new forensic examination of V.H., disputing the conclusions of the expert report of 9 November 2007. On the same day the investigator granted the applicant’s request and ordered the examination. 20.  On 23 November 2007 V.H. was again examined by a forensic expert. The expert confirmed the existence of various bruises and injuries to his nose, left ear, and upper lip, as well as an incomplete fracture of the right cheekbone and a head injury, concluding that their time of infliction corresponded to 7 November 2007. The expert also concluded that the bruise to the right cheek area and the incomplete fracture of the right cheekbone were injuries causing “less serious injury to health” with long‑term effects, and that his other injuries were those causing “minor injury to health” with short-term effects. 21.  On 11 November 2007 the applicant was charged under Articles 127.2.3 (deliberate infliction of less serious injury to health) and 221.1 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. 22.  On the same day the prosecutor asked the Yasamal District Court to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri) in respect of the applicant. To substantiate the necessity of the measure, the prosecutor gave reasons such as the likelihood of the applicant absconding from and obstructing the investigation and the nature of the criminal acts imputed to him. 23.  On 11 November 2007 a judge of the Yasamal District Court, relying on the formal charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request, remanded the applicant in custody for a period of two months. The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure as follows:
“Taking into account the likelihood, in the future, of the accused Ganimat Salim oglu Zayidov absconding from the investigation and obstructing the normal functioning of the court proceedings, reoffending ... and the fact that he poses a danger to society, the request must be granted and the preventive measure of remand in custody must be applied in his respect.” 24.  On 14 November 2007 the applicant appealed against this decision. He complained that there was insufficient evidence that he had committed a criminal offence. The applicant further complained of a lack of justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, arguing that the judge had merely relied on the prosecutor’s submissions without taking into consideration his social status, family situation, place of residence or other personal circumstances when he had ordered his detention. He also argued that the judge had not considered any alternative measures to ensure his appearance at trial. 25.  On 22 November 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the detention order was justified. The relevant part of the appellate court’s decision reads as follows:
“After having heard the explanations of the investigator, as well as the lawyer’s submissions in support of the appeal and the prosecutor’s submissions against it, the panel of the court considers that the decision should remain unchanged as it is lawful and justified, and the appeal should not be allowed as it is unjustified...
The panel of the court points out that when the first-instance court applied the preventive measure of remand in custody, it took into account the nature and degree of danger to the public of the offences with which the accused was charged, the fact that he 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.” 26.  On 16 November 2007 the applicant lodged a request for bail with the Yasamal District Court. He argued that his detention during the investigation was unnecessary. In this connection he stated that he had no criminal record, had never tried to abscond and had always cooperated with the investigation, that he was a well-known journalist and editor-in-chief of the Azadliq newspaper, that he had a permanent place of residence, and that he was taking care of four young children. 27.  On 21 November 2007 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the request, finding the preventive measure of remand in custody justified. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“There were sufficient grounds for applying the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of Zayidov Ganimat Salim oglu. The preventive measure of remand in custody was applied by ... court decision in accordance with Article 155.2.1 of the CCrP [Code of Criminal Procedure] taking into account the gravity, nature and the circumstances of the commission of the act imputed to Zayidov Ganimat Salim oglu.
Under Article 164.4 of the CCrP, if any of the circumstances mentioned in Articles 155.1 and 155.2 of this Code exist, the court may refuse release on bail relying on relevant grounds.” 28.  On 23 November 2007 the applicant appealed against this decision. The applicant reiterated his previous arguments for release. 29.  On 7 December 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Yasamal District Court’s decision of 21 November 2007. The relevant part of the appellate court’s decision reads as follows:
“The panel of the court considers that the first-instance court was correct in dismissing the request relying on Article 164.4 of the CCrP.
If any of the circumstances mentioned in Articles 155.1 and 155.2 of the CCrP exist, the court may refuse release on bail relying on relevant grounds.
The panel of the court considers that, as the arguments put forward in the appeal lodged by the lawyers of the accused Zayidov Ganimat Salim oglu were insufficient for his release by way of [replacing] the preventive measure of remand in custody by bail, the decision of the first-instance court should remain unchanged.” 30.  On an unspecified date fourteen members of parliament lodged a request with the Prosecutor General asking for the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant to be changed, but no decision was taken in this regard. 31.  On 11 December 2007 the prosecutor in charge of the case filed the indictment with the Yasamal District Court. 32.  On 26 December 2007 the Yasamal District Court held a preliminary hearing in which it decided, inter alia, that the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged. 33.  On 7 March 2008 the Yasamal District Court sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment. 34.  The applicant was released from serving the remainder of his sentence by a presidential pardon given on 17 March 2010.