5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Baku. 6.  The applicant was a member and former President of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan. He has been awarded a number of Soviet and Azerbaijani prizes and honours for his scientific achievements in the fields of physics and mathematics. He was elected to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR several times and between 1995 and 2000 was a member of the Milli Mejlis (Parliament) of the Republic of Azerbaijan. 7.  At the time of the events in question the applicant was in retirement. 8.  On 27 October 2005 the applicant was summoned to the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) as a witness in a criminal case concerning an attempted coup d'état by several incumbent and former high-ranking government officials, as well as the incumbent Ministers of Healthcare and Economic Development and the self-exiled former Speaker of the Milli Mejlis. The alleged means by which this attempted coup d'état were to be accomplished was to overthrow the current Government by organising mass disorder after the parliamentary elections of 6 November 2005. 9.  At approximately 10 a.m. on 27 October 2005 the applicant arrived voluntarily at the MNS building. 10.  According to the applicant, he was forcibly kept inside the MNS building after his arrival there and was not allowed to leave it even for lunch. During this time he was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer of his choosing and he was subsequently provided with a State-appointed lawyer. 11.  At 8.15 p.m. the Chief Investigator of the Investigation Department of the MNS issued a record of the applicant's forty-eight-hour detention as a suspect (tutma protokolu) in the presence of the applicant and a State-appointed lawyer. The investigator noted that the applicant was suspected of the crimes of attempted organisation of mass disorder and attempted usurpation of state power by force, as provided by Articles 28, 220 and 278 of the Criminal Code. 12.  According to the applicant, he wrote by hand on the second page of the document that he denied all the accusations. However, his lawyer was given only a copy of the first page of this two-page document. 13.  The applicant was summoned to the MNS as a witness within the framework of a criminal case and he arrived at the MNS building at approximately 10.45 a.m. 14.  His questioning by an investigator began at 11.40 a.m. and lasted until 2.30 p.m. Following this questioning, the investigator decided to hold a face-to-face confrontation between the applicant and an accused person in the criminal case in question. This confrontation began at 5.10 p.m. and continued until 6 p.m. The applicant's State-appointed lawyer entered the MNS building at 7.57 p.m. and the record of the applicant's forty-eight-hour detention as a suspect was issued at 8.15 p.m. 15.  From the moment of the applicant's arrival at the MNS building to the end of the confrontation, there was no restriction on the applicant's liberty. He was not held in a special room or cell and he was not prohibited from leaving the MNS building. Moreover, he was in a room for witnesses in which there was a telephone line and, despite the investigator's explicit suggestion that he go for lunch after the end of questioning at approximately 2.30 p.m., the applicant did not want to go for lunch, noting that he was keeping a religious fast. 16.  On 29 October 2005, by a decision of the prosecutor of the Prosecutor General's Office, the applicant was formally charged with criminal offences under Articles 28, 220.1 and 278 of the Criminal Code. 17.  On 29 October 2005 at 5.30 p.m. 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 (həbs qətimkan tədbiri), remanded the applicant in custody for a period of three months. The judge gave as grounds for this measure the gravity of the applicant's alleged criminal acts and the possibility of his absconding and obstructing the investigation. The hearing concerning the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody was held in the MNS building. 18.  On 31 October 2005 the applicant appealed against the Nasimi District Court's decision of 29 October 2005, complaining that he had been detained as a suspected person for several hours in excess of the maximum forty-eight-hour period prescribed by law. He further alleged that the holding of the hearing in the MNS building was a breach of the relevant law, and that the judge had merely relied on the prosecution's submissions and had not assessed any evidence independently in order to establish whether there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. He also noted that the court had not taken into consideration his age, state of health and other personal circumstances when it had ordered his detention. 19.  On 2 November 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court's order. The Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's detention, reiterating the first-instance court's findings concerning the gravity of the applicant's alleged criminal acts and the possibility that he would abscond from the investigation. 20.  On 16 November 2005, at the request of the Prosecutor General's Office, the Nasimi District Court replaced the applicant's remand in custody with the preventive measure of police supervision pending trial. 21.  In the meantime, as the applicant was suffering from a serious eye problem, he requested the Prosecutor General's Office to grant him permission to travel to the USA to receive urgent medical treatment which was not available in Azerbaijan. By a letter of 15 February 2006 the Prosecutor General's Office informed the applicant that he was prohibited from leaving Azerbaijan pending trial. 22.  Following requests by several well-known scientists from Russia and Azerbaijan on the applicant's behalf to the Azerbaijani authorities, arguing that the applicant was at imminent risk of going blind, and asking the authorities to grant him permission to leave the country to receive medical treatment, by a letter of 26 May 2006 the Prosecutor General's Office informed the applicant that he was exceptionally granted permission to travel abroad for the purposes of receiving necessary medical treatment. 23.  By the time of the most recent communication with the parties no information had been provided to the Court as to the subsequent stages of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.