5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Baku. 6.  On 15 October 2003 presidential elections were held in Azerbaijan. The candidate of the opposition Musavat Party lost the election. 7.  On the evening of the election day a group of opposition supporters gathered in front of the Musavat Party’s headquarters in the centre of Baku, claiming their candidate’s victory in the election. At this time there were some violent altercations between opposition supporters and the security forces. 8.  At around 2 p.m. on 16 October a number of opposition supporters started gathering near the State Carpet Museum, in the centre of Baku, to protest the election results. The crowd then started moving towards Azadliq Square, the main square in the city. It was reported that, on their way, some people in the crowd began damaging cars, buildings, benches and other urban constructions. It was also claimed that the organisers of this unauthorised demonstration and certain leaders of the opposition parties were inciting their followers to violence. 9.  Police officers who had been deployed at Azadliq Square were attacked by some of the demonstrators. Shortly thereafter large numbers of riot police and military personnel, fully equipped with helmets, shields and truncheons, arrived in the square. The situation quickly escalated into public disorder and violent clashes occurred between the crowd and the police. 10.  At around 6 p.m. the demonstration was dispersed. Hundreds of people were arrested during the events of 16 October and in their aftermath. 11.  The applicant was at Azadliq Square when the demonstration was being dispersed and suffered a serious injury to her right eye. The parties disagreed as to what exactly happened to the applicant on that day. 12.  According to the applicant, the number of police and military personnel deployed at Azadliq Square far exceeded the number of demonstrators. The police and military forces attacked the demonstrators suddenly, without any demands to disperse peacefully or any other prior warning. They used excessive force and clubbed anyone who happened to be in their way. A number of people were injured and at least one man died as a result of police brutality. 13.  As the police and military forces started to gain ground, people panicked as they attempted to run from the square. The applicant also tried to escape, but someone in the crowd pushed her from behind and she fell to the ground. She lifted her head and saw several policemen in helmets standing in front of her. She extended her arm in their direction, asking them to help her stand up. At this moment one of the policemen struck her forcefully in the right eye with a truncheon. The applicant immediately lost the sight in her right eye. The policeman attempted to hit her again, but she managed to evade the second blow. 14.  A number of unknown individuals took her to Pharmacy no. 259, which was located nearby. The pharmacy’s employees were trying to provide first aid to a number of other injured people who were already there. 15.  At some point a number of soldiers attempted to enter the pharmacy, apparently with the intention of attacking the people inside, but were prevented from doing so by a person named I.G. and a pharmacy employee. A little later an ambulance arrived and took the applicant and four other injured people to an emergency clinic. 16.  The Government stated that, during the disorder, more than twenty peaceful civilians were injured and serious damage was inflicted on various public and private property. 17.  However, the Government disputed the applicant’s version of the incident when she had suffered her injury. With reference to the investigation carried out by the domestic authorities (see sections C. and D. below), they maintained that the applicant’s injury was not caused by the police and that the injury was suffered as a result of her falling down on a blunt object. 18.  On 16 October 2003 the applicant was taken to an emergency clinic. The medical record indicated that she was diagnosed with “haemophthalmia [bleeding into the eyeball] and contusion of the right eye; a bruised wound of the right supraorbital ridge”. It was noted that the applicant “suffered the injury during the well-known events which took place in the city on 16 October 2003”. 19.  After receiving initial treatment, on 17 October the applicant was transferred to the Institute of Eye Diseases, a hospital specialising in ophthalmology. She was admitted with a diagnosis of “severe rupture of the OD [right eye] sclera, ... hyphema [blood in the anterior chamber of the eye], haemophthalmia, stitched injury of the supraorbital ridge”. The applicant told the doctors that she had suffered the injury as a result of a blow by a police truncheon. 20.  On 17 October 2003 urgent surgery was performed on the applicant. Despite the surgery, she became permanently blind in her right eye. 21.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was discharged from the hospital. She claimed that a few weeks later the sight in her left eye also started to deteriorate rapidly. 22.  On 24 February 2004 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, asking that the policeman who had hit her with the truncheon be identified and incriminated. On an unspecified date she also lodged a petition asking to be granted the formal status of a “victim of crime” (zərər çəkmiş şəxs). 23.  By that time the Chief Prosecutor’s Office had already instituted criminal proceedings concerning the public disorder which took place on 16 October 2003. It appears that this criminal case concerned the offences against public order allegedly committed by the demonstrators, and did not concern any violations allegedly committed by the police during the events in question. No separate criminal proceedings were instituted on the basis of the applicant’s complaint and her letter was admitted to the case file of the above-mentioned criminal case. 24.  On 13 and 16 March 2004 the applicant was interrogated by an investigator as a witness (not as a “victim of crime”). According to the applicant’s testimony, on 16 October 2003 she went to the seaside park (located across the road from both the State Carpet Museum and Azadliq Square) and sat on a bench to read a newspaper. At around 1.30 p.m. she saw about 200 people in the park, shouting slogans and protesting the election results. She joined this group because she too was discontent with the election. The group headed in the direction of the State Carpet Museum and, from there, to Azadliq Square. About 15-20 young people in the crowd were destroying things on their way, while some also attacked a group of policemen standing near the museum. The applicant and others in the crowd admonished these young people for their actions. When she arrived in Azadliq Square she saw that more people had already gathered there, including some opposition leaders. She also saw that riot police and military personnel were arriving and grouping in one corner of the square. She did not hear the police or the military issue any demands to the crowd to disperse and leave the square. Suddenly the crowd and the police forces clashed. The demonstrators were throwing stones and pieces of wood and metal at the police, while the latter advanced upon the crowd, beating the demonstrators with rubber truncheons. When the police started gaining the upper hand, people started panicking and running away. 25.  The applicant continued as follows:
“... I wanted to go home. When I was walking between the trees [in one corner of Azadliq Square] I was pushed from behind by people who were running past me and fell to the ground. ... I asked an approaching policeman, who was dressed in a helmet and black uniform and was holding a truncheon and a shield, to help me stand up. Instead of helping me, the policeman hit me over my right eye with the truncheon. I held my eye crying, and when I said to him: “What have I done to you that you hit me?”, I saw him raising his arm to hit me again. At this point I felt that some other policemen standing nearby said something to him, and then all of them went away from me. I could not see any rank insignia on their shoulders. I would not be able to recognise the policeman who hit me and the policemen who were near him. It is possible that some of the civilians who were nearby saw [this incident], but I do not know specifically who witnessed it. I stood up by myself and while I was hobbling in the direction of Pharmacy no. 259, an unknown old man took me by the arm and accompanied me to the pharmacy so that I could get medical aid. That man left after we arrived at the pharmacy. The pharmacy was all covered with blood, [and] there were several injured civilians inside. At this point some soldiers approached the pharmacy and started knocking on the window, and a grey-haired old woman who was an employee of the pharmacy [admonished them]. At the same time, when I.G., whom I recognised because he used to be a television journalist, tried to open the door of the pharmacy [from inside], one of the soldiers [who was standing outside] tried to hit him with a truncheon but missed. The reason [I.G. wanted to open the door and go outside] was that he wanted to call an ambulance for the injured... After a while an ambulance took us to a hospital... In the hospital, I received stitches on my wounded eyebrow, and the next day I was transferred to the Institute of Eye Diseases... There I underwent an operation which lasted about 3 hours... However, the surgery did not help and my right eye became completely blind...” 26.  On 21 March 2004 the investigator requested a forensic expert’s opinion on the applicant’s injuries. According to the forensic report of 28 July 2004 (“the First Forensic Report”), issued by an expert of the Forensic Medicine and Pathological Anatomy Department of the Ministry of Health, the forensic examination started on 24 March 2004 and ended on 28 July 2004. 27.  The First Forensic Report was eight pages long and mostly consisted of copied extracts from the applicant’s medical records. Inter alia, the report contained the following description of the injury:
“The size of the right eyeball has shrunk, and [the eyeball] has sunk into the eye socket. The symmetry of the right eye and the left eye has been disrupted and remains in a deformed state. The circumference of the right eye’s cornea is [diminished] in comparison with the left eye’s cornea. Its anterior spherical shape is deformed. A [scar] is observable on the upper side of the cornea. The round shape of the right eye’s iris is deformed and contains a whitish substance. There is a slanted whitish scar measuring 3x0.5 cm on the right supraorbital ridge.” 28.  The report concluded, on the basis of previous medical records and diagnoses, that the applicant had indeed suffered injuries to her right eye, resulting in irreversible deformation of her face, which were not life‑threatening but nevertheless qualified as severely harmful to health. It was noted that “[based on the available materials] it cannot be excluded that these injuries ... were caused on 16 October 2003 by a blow (blows) from a narrowly-shaped hard blunt object ... in the circumstances described by the applicant ... or other circumstances”. However, the expert was unable to reach a definitive conclusion as to the cause of the injury, noting that such a conclusion could be made by a medical board comprised of experts specialised in ophthalmology. 29.  In the meantime, prior to the delivery of this forensic report, on 25 May 2004 the applicant wrote a letter to the Chief Prosecutor, complaining, inter alia, that, instead of taking a formal procedural decision ordering a forensic examination, the investigator had simply informed her about the request for a forensic examination by a letter. She also complained that the appointed forensic expert had delayed the examination and avoided examining her in person under various pretexts. On 21 July 2004 she wrote another letter to the Chief Prosecutor, reiterating the above complaints. It appears that none of these letters were answered. 30.  According to the applicant, she had not seen the First Forensic Report prior to the receipt of the Government’s observations in the present proceedings before the Court. 31.  On 13 September 2004 the investigator ordered another forensic examination. The experts were asked, inter alia, the following specific questions:
“4.  To determine whether the loss by M. Muradova of the vision in her right eye was the direct result of the initial injury or of any errors committed during the subsequent medical treatment. 5.  To determine whether the injury sustained by M. Muradova was caused in the circumstances described by her, i.e. as a result of falling down during the incident or as a result of being struck with a truncheon by a policeman.” 32.  According to the forensic report of 25 October 2004 (“the Second Forensic Report”), this examination was carried out from 13 September 2004 to 22 October 2004 by a board of four experts of the Forensic Medicine and Pathological Anatomy Department of the Ministry of Health, including one expert specialised in ophthalmology. 33.  The Second Forensic Report was seven pages long. The report consisted almost entirely of copied extracts from the First Forensic Report and the applicant’s medical records. It was noted that she had received adequate medical treatment both in the emergency clinic and the Institute of Eye Diseases and that the medical personnel had committed no errors. 34.  The body of the report did not contain any analysis as to possible causes of the injuries sustained by the applicant. 35.  In the conclusion part of the report, the following answers were given to the questions asked (see paragraph 31 above):
“4.  The full loss by M. Muradova of the vision in her right eye was caused by the trauma suffered by her. 36.  According to the applicant, she had not seen the Second Forensic Report prior to the receipt of the Government’s observations in the present proceedings before the Court. 37.  On 26 November 2004 the investigator issued a decision to discontinue the criminal investigation. 38.  According to this decision, in addition to the applicant, a total of eight witnesses had been questioned in connection with the applicant’s complaint. All of these witnesses were shown a photo of the applicant and none of them recognised her. 39.  Six of the witnesses were policemen who had been present at or near Azadliq Square during the dispersal of the unauthorised demonstration of 16 October 2003. All of them testified that they had not known the applicant, that they themselves had not hit the applicant with a truncheon, and that they had not seen any woman being hit by a policeman during the events of 16 October 2003. They also surmised that the applicant had suffered her injury as a result of her own actions, i.e. falling down while running away from Azadliq Square, or being pushed by people in the crowd. 40.  The remaining two witnesses, A.V. and R.G., were employees of Pharmacy no. 259. They were both male. Both of them testified that they had been at work on 16 October 2003, that they had not seen any injured woman brought to the pharmacy on that day, had not known the applicant and had not seen how she had sustained her injury. 41.  The decision further stated that none of the police or military personnel present at Azadliq Square during the events of 16 October 2003 had been presented to the applicant for identification, because in her testimony she had stated that she would not be able to recognise the person who had allegedly caused her injury. 42.  Further, according to the investigator, the Second Forensic Report “stated that ... [the applicant’s injuries] were a result of her falling down and her head striking an outstanding blunt object located on the ground, and that there were no damage on her person typically attributable to a blow from a police truncheon”. 43.  The investigator concluded that it could not be established that the applicant had been struck by a policeman and determined that the applicant had received the injuries as a result of her own actions. Accordingly, it was found that no crime had been committed (cinayət hadisəsinin olmaması) and that the applicant’s petition to be recognised as a “victim of crime” should be rejected. For these reasons, the investigator decided to discontinue the investigation into the applicant’s allegations. 44.  According to the Government, the applicant was sent a copy of this decision by a letter of 26 November 2004. According to the applicant, she was never informed of this decision. 45.  In the meantime, in March 2004 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Sabail District Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs, claiming monetary compensation for her injury. On 15 March 2004 the Sabail District Court refused to examine the case, noting that compensation claims against the State should indicate the Ministry of Finance as a co‑defendant and should be lodged with the Nasimi District Court. 46.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged her civil claim with the Nasimi District Court, indicating the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance as co-defendants and claiming compensation for her injury. 47.  By a letter of 18 May 2004, the Chief Prosecutor’s Office informed the Nasimi District Court that a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant’s allegations was in progress. 48.  On 7 June 2004 the Nasimi District Court held its first hearing and heard the submissions of the applicant and co-defendants. The applicant gave her account of the incident leading to her injury and reiterated her claim. The counsel for the first defendant, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, submitted that the applicant had filed a criminal complaint which was pending before the investigation authorities. He further argued that the police had been entitled to use force against the crowd during the events of 16 October 2003 because the manifestation had been unauthorised and its participants had been causing public disorder. In any event, he maintained that the police had not inflicted any injuries on the applicant and that her claims were unsubstantiated. The counsel for the Ministry of Finance submitted that he was in accord with the submissions of the first defendant. 49.  On 18 June 2004 the Nasimi District Court heard oral testimonies by three witnesses who testified on behalf of the applicant. 50.  Mr I.G. (the man whom the applicant mentioned in her testimony, cited in paragraph 25 above) testified as follows (the trial transcript omitted the questions asked by the parties’ counsels during cross-interrogation, but contained the record of the witness’s answers to them):
“On 16 October 2003 I saw M. Muradova, who was wounded in her eye, in Pharmacy no. 259. At that time, some policemen tried to enter the pharmacy and, when I wanted to open the entrance door, they tried to kick me. I did not see who had hit M. Muradova and cannot say anything in this respect.
[Answers to cross-interrogation by the applicant’s counsel:]
-  No, I did not see the claimant M. Muradova being hit by a policeman.
-  Yes, as M. Muradova was injured, I called an ambulance on that day.
-  Yes, when I saw M. Muradova at Azadliq Square, her eye had already been put out and her face was covered with blood.
-  Yes, when I opened the door of the pharmacy, [they] wanted to kick me, but I evaded the kick by quickly closing the door.
[Answer to cross-interrogation by the defendant’s counsel:]
-  No, I did not see the claimant M. Muradova being hit by a policeman.” 51.  Ms A.A. testified as follows:
“[People] were gathering at Azadliq Square at around 2 p.m. on 16 October 2003. At that time I was near the Government House [located on Azadliq Square], and I saw the police and special forces attack the people who had gathered at Azadliq Square without any warning and start to beat them with truncheons. I was there on that day and I saw the claimant, whose name I learnt thereafter, falling to the ground as a result of being pushed [in the crowd] and [I saw] police officers in black uniforms, wearing protective helmets on their heads and holding truncheons in their hands. She [the applicant] extended her arm towards those police officers and asked them to help her stand up, but one of the police officers struck her forcefully in her right eye with his truncheon. When the police officer attempted to hit her again, she evaded the blow by moving away her head. Then some civilians took her to Pharmacy no. 259 which was located nearby. She was given some first aid in the pharmacy and thereafter she and other injured people in the pharmacy were taken to hospital by ambulance.
[Answers to cross-interrogation by the applicant’s counsel:]
-  Yes, I was among those who gathered at Azadliq Square on 16 October 2003.
-  Yes, M. Muradova, whom I had not known before, was there on that day.
-  Yes, on 16 October 2003 I saw that M. Muradova fell to the ground and that one of the police officers hit her with the truncheon that he was holding.
-  Yes, M. Muradova’s eye was injured as a result of the blow inflicted by the police officer.
-  Yes, she was given medical aid in the ‘Green Pharmacy’ located nearby and was then taken to a hospital by an ambulance.
 [Answer to cross-interrogation by the defendant’s counsel:]
-  No, I would not be able to recognise the police officer who hit M. Muradova.
-  Yes, I had known [G.G.] before, but I saw M. Muradova for the first time at [Azadliq Square].” 52.  Ms G.G. testified as follows:
“I had not known the claimant before. I was an observer in Polling Station no. 246 during the presidential election of 15 October 2003. At around 2-3 p.m. on 16 October 2003, near Azadliq Square, I saw M. Muradova fall to the ground and ask some masked police officers with truncheons in their hands not to hit her, but one of the police officers hit M. Muradova with his truncheon and, as a result, her eye was injured. I bought medication for [the applicant] from the ‘Green Pharmacy’.
[Answers to cross-interrogation by the applicant’s counsel:]
-  Yes, on 16 October 2003 I saw M. Muradova, whose name I learnt later, falling to the ground at Azadliq Square.
-  Yes, on 16 October 2003 one of the police officers who were at Azadliq Square hit M. Muradova in the eye area with his truncheon.
-  No, I had not known M. Muradova before.
-  Yes, one man brought M. Muradova, I saw that her eye was bleeding.
 [Answer to cross-interrogation by the defendant’s counsel:]
-  Yes, I was told that the medication necessary for M. Muradova was available at the ‘Green Pharmacy’, located nearby.” 53.  On the same day, 18 June 2004, the Nasimi District Court delivered its judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claim. Having regard to the medical records, the court noted that the applicant had suffered an injury to her eye. However, it considered that she failed to substantiate her allegation that the injury had been inflicted by a police officer. In particular, the court assessed the witness testimonies as follows:
“During the hearing Ms G.G., heard by the court as a witness, testified that she had not personally known M. Muradova previously. ... At around 2-3 p.m. on 16 October 2003 she saw that M. Muradova fell to the ground and that she asked the masked policemen, holding truncheons in their hands, not to hit her. However, one of the policemen hit M. Muradova with his truncheon. As a result, M. Muradova suffered an injury to her eye. [The witness] bought some medication for M. Muradova from the ‘Green Pharmacy’.
Ms A.A., a witness, gave a similar testimony.
Mr I.G., a witness, testified that on 16 October 2003 he saw M. Muradova with an injured eye in Pharmacy no. 259. ... He did not see who had beaten the applicant.
In accordance with Article 77.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Azerbaijan, each party must prove any allegations which it makes in support of its claims and objections.
During the hearing, M. Muradova has failed to prove the allegations she made in her judicial claim.
The court finds that the testimonies of witnesses heard during the trial cannot serve as a ground for upholding the applicant’s claim.
Having assessed the above, the court concludes that the claim must be rejected as unsubstantiated.” 54.  On 17 September 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment, noting, without any further elaboration, that the applicant had been unable to prove her allegations. 55.  On 2 February 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.