5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Baku. 6.  The applicant was a lawyer and a member of the opposition Musavat Party. 7.  On 11 June 2005 the applicant was arrested by agents of the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) on suspicion of attempted deliberate destruction of property. The applicant was charged with the criminal offence of attempted deliberate destruction of property as set out Articles 29 and 186 of the Criminal Code. 8.  On 13 June 2005, a judge of the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor's request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant's detention for a period of two months. 9.  The applicant appealed against the Nasimi District Court's decision of 13 June 2005, complaining of a lack of evidence or justification to support the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. On 22 June 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal noting that the lower court's decision was justified. 10.  The applicant's detention was subsequently extended twice by the Nasimi District Court, by its decisions of 6 August and 3 October 2005. Both decisions were upheld by the Court of Appeal following the applicant's appeals. 11.  On 14 June 2005 the official newspaper Azərbaycan published a joint statement headlined as “Special Information of the Prosecutor General's Office and the Ministry of National Security of the Republic of Azerbaijan”. This joint statement officially informed the public of the institution of criminal proceedings against a group of persons, including the applicant, in connection with the attempted destruction of property. It was noted in the joint statement that the applicant and other persons had intended to blow up the private cars of a judge of the Court of Appeal and the chairman of ATV, a private television channel. 12.  The joint statement of 14 June 2005 stated, inter alia:
“A.N. confirmed that preparations were being made to carry out an explosion and stated that the people behind this act were Orujov Pirali Maharram oglu, who was born in 1958 and resides in Baku, a person close to the Musavat Party who had worked in different positions in the internal affairs and military prosecutor authorities of the Republic of Azerbaijan and has been a retired lieutenant colonel since 1994, and G.R., who was born in 1958 and works in Moscow as a businessman.
It has been found that Pirali Orujov introduced A.N., known in the circle of the people close to the opposition by the nickname of “Saboteur” because of his radicalism, to R.G. in order to discuss the details of the plan to carry out this act and that they thus entered into criminal complicity. They promised A.N. a large amount of money for carrying out the explosion and decided not to communicate with each other by telephone and to discuss any details only in their private meetings.
The persons mentioned above intended first to blow up the car of the Court of Appeal's judge B.S. and a few days later the car of the president of the independent television company ATV ...” 13.  On 20 June 2005 the applicant wrote to the Prosecutor General and the Ombudsman complaining, inter alia, of a violation of his right to the presumption of innocence caused by the joint statement of the law‑enforcement authorities of 14 June 2005. On 27 June 2005 the applicant again wrote to the Prosecutor General reiterating his complaint. 14.  On an unspecified date in July 2005 the applicant brought an action claiming a violation of his right to the presumption of innocence relying on Article 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) concerning appeals against the prosecuting authorities' actions and decisions. 15.  On 26 July 2005 the Sabayil District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The court held, inter alia, that the joint statement of the Prosecutor General's Office and the MNS could not be considered as a type of procedural act or decision that could be challenged under Article 449 of the CCrP. 16.  On 12 August 2005 the applicant appealed against this decision reiterating his complaints. It appears from the documents in the case file that the applicant's appeal was received by a court clerk on the same day. The applicant has not received any reply to his appeal. 17.  On 3 March 2006 the Yasamal District Court delivered a judgment finding the applicant guilty under Articles 29 (attempting to commit a crime) and 186 (deliberate destruction of or damage to property) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. The court noted that the applicant's guilt had been proved by the testimony of another accused person and the facts of the case. The applicant appealed against this judgment, claiming his innocence. He argued that he had been convicted on the basis of the statements of one person only and that his guilt had not been established by any other evidence. 18.  On 26 May 2006 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal noting that his guilt had been proved by the facts of the case and that the relevant law had been applied correctly by the first-instance court. 19.  By a decision of 19 September 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's judgment, noting that the proceedings before the lower courts had been in accordance with the relevant law. It appears from the Supreme Court's decision that both the applicant and his lawyer were absent from the hearing, but the prosecutor was present and made oral submissions. The Supreme Court's decision stated that, despite the fact that the applicant's lawyer had been informed of the date and place of the cassation hearing, he had failed to appear. The decision was silent as to the absence of the applicant from this hearing. 20.  According to the Government, on 28 August 2006 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that the cassation appeal hearing concerning his case would be held on 19 September 2006. According to the applicant, he did not receive any such summons. 21.  The applicant was released from prison by a presidential pardon in December 2007.