5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Baku. 6.  The applicant worked as the Head of the Administrative Department of the Office of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan before the events described below. 7.  During a telephone conversation of 20 October 2005, he and the Minister of National Security agreed to meet the following day to discuss the case of the attempted but failed coup d'état, allegedly planned by a number of incumbent and former high-ranking officials to be carried out immediately after the parliamentary elections of 6 November 2005. Several persons had already been arrested in connection with this case. 8.  On the morning of 21 October 2005 the applicant arrived at the building of the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) where he met with the Minister for about thirty minutes. After this meeting, he met with several other MNS officers in their offices. 9.  From 5.20 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. on the same day the applicant was questioned as a witness. At around 10 p.m. he met with the Deputy Minister of National Security. That night, he wrote a statement (of unspecified content) addressed to the Minister of National Security. 10.  The next day, on 22 October 2005, the applicant was questioned again. At 10.55 p.m. on 22 October 2005 the investigator ordered the applicant's detention as a suspect (tutma protokolu) for a period of forty‑eight hours. The investigator stated that the applicant was suspected of having known about, but having failed to inform the authorities, contrary to Article 307.1 of the Criminal Code, of the attempted coup d'état allegedly organised by former Speaker Rasul Guliyev, former Minister of Finance Fikret Yusifov, Minister of Economic Development Farhad Aliyev, Minister of Healthcare Ali Insanov, and others. The investigator also gave the possibility of the applicant's absconding as a reason for his detention. 11.   The applicant was invited to the MNS as a witness within the framework of criminal case no. 76586 and he arrived at the MNS building on 21 October 2005 at 5.10 p.m. On the same day he was questioned as a witness from 5.20 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. and he left the MNS building at 7.25 p.m. 12.  On 22 October 2005 the applicant was again invited to the MNS, where he arrived at 1.00 p.m. On the same day, he was questioned as a witness from 1.10 p.m. to 3.15 p.m. and from 4.20 p.m. to 5.50 p.m. According to the Government, the applicant left the MNS building during the break between the above-mentioned questionings and he did the same at 6.00 p.m. after the second questioning. On the same day, the applicant returned to the MNS building at 9.55 p.m. and at 10.55 p.m. the investigator in charge of the case ordered that the applicant be detained as a suspect for a period of forty-eight hours. 13.  On 24 October 2005, by a decision of the investigator of the Prosecutor General's Office issued in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer, the applicant was formally charged in criminal case no. 76586 with the criminal offences of attempted organisation of mass disorder and attempted usurpation of State power by force, as provided by Articles 28, 220.1 and 278 of the Criminal Code. 14.  At approximately 5.30 p.m. on 24 October 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 (həbs qətimkan tədbiri), ordered the applicant's detention for a period of three months. The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure as follows:
“Taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence committed by Akif Muradverdiyev, as well as the possibility of his absconding from the investigation and the court, I consider it necessary to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of him.”
The hearing concerning the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody was held in the MNS building. 15.  On 26 October 2005 the applicant appealed against the decision of the Nasimi District Court of 24 October 2005, complaining that the judge had not independently assessed any evidence in order to establish whether there had been reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. He also argued that the judge had failed to provide any reasons justifying his remand in custody and had not taken into consideration his personality, family status and other personal circumstances when he had ordered his detention. 16.  On 28 October 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court's decision of 24 October 2005. The court maintained the applicant's detention reiterating the first-instance court's findings concerning the gravity of the charges and the possibility of the applicant's absconding. 17.  On 26 October 2005 the official newspaper Azərbaycan and other mass media published a joint statement dated 25 October 2005 headlined as “From the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan”. This joint statement officially informed the public of the arrest and indictment of a number of well-known current and former state officials, including the applicant, and provided a summary of the evidence gathered in respect of their involvement in numerous alleged grave crimes. The evidence mainly consisted of statements of the arrested persons concerning secret meetings between them and their sources of financing, as well as large amounts of cash and other valuables found in the homes of some of them. 18.  The joint statement of 25 October 2005 stated, inter alia:
“It has been established that Akif Muradverdiyev, former Head of the Administrative Department of the Office of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Fikret Sadygov, former President of the State Company Azerkimya, conspired with Rasul Guliyev, who is accused of large-scale embezzlement of public funds and for which he is currently being investigated, as well as with former Minister of Healthcare Ali Insanov, former Minister of Economic Development Farhad Aliyev, former Minister of Finance Fikret Yusifov and other persons interested in the forcible capture of power. During their secret meetings held at the restaurant Flagman situated near the Novkhany-Sumgayit highway, at different apartments in the capital and its suburbs, and in dachas, they agreed on the unlawful usurpation of State power, the organisation of sabotage groups recruited for planned mass disorder and the financial support for these activities.
...
During the investigation, on 22 October 2005, Akif Muradverdiyev wrote to the Prosecutor General indicating his willingness to voluntarily provide information that he knew about the planned crime against the State power ...
...
The persons accused in the criminal case and those questioned as suspected persons or witnesses have confirmed in their statements that Akif Muradverdiyev was a direct participant in anti-constitutional activities and that ... 32,700 United States dollars, 14,000 euros, and 9,100 pounds sterling, as well as other foreign currency, 209 gold coins, 40 gold watches and other pieces of jewellery have been seized from Akif Muradverdiyev's dacha situated in Novkhany during a search conducted within the framework of the investigation. ...” 19.  At the request of the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case, on 14 January 2006 the Nasimi District Court, in the absence of the applicant and his lawyers, extended the length of the applicant's remand in custody by a period of four months, until 22 May 2006. The judge substantiated the necessity of the extension of the applicant's detention as follows:
“As there are sufficient grounds on the possibility of the applicant's absconding from the authority conducting the criminal proceedings, illegally influencing persons participating in the proceedings, as well as hiding or falsification of the necessary evidence for prosecution, it is necessary to extend his remand in custody for a period of four moths” 20.  The applicant appealed against this decision claiming that there was no justification for the extension of the detention period. He further alleged that neither he nor his lawyers had been informed of the place or date of the hearing at which the extension of his detention period had been decided. 21.  On 10 February 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Nasimi District Court of 14 January 2006. As to the justification for the extension of the applicant's detention, the appellate court stated as follows:
“The court considers that the conclusion of the court [of the first-instance] is lawful and justified.
In fact, the investigator R. Huseynov pointed out in his explanation that, R. Guliyev, the person with whom conspired the accused person A. Muradverdiyev lives abroad and if he (A. Muradverdiyev) was released he can go abroad absconding the investigation with the help of R. Guliyev. Moreover, the accused person A. Muradverdiyev had occupied for years important positions and if he was released he has the possibility to influence persons participating in the proceedings and obstruct the investigation.”
The court also found that, although the applicant's lawyers had been informed of the hearing in the Nasimi District Court and despite the postponement of this hearing by one day at their request, they had failed to attend the hearing. 22.  On 16 May 2006 the investigator in charge of the criminal case asked the Prosecutor General for an extension to the deadline for the pre-trial investigation, noting that the investigation had discovered new evidence concerning the applicant's possible involvement in other crimes, such as embezzlement of public funds and abuse of official power, and that more time was needed to complete the investigation. On the same day the Prosecutor General submitted a request asking the court to extend the applicant's detention by a period of five months, until 22 October 2006. 23.  On 16 May 2006 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant's remand in custody until 22 October 2006. The court held that more time was needed for a comprehensive and objective investigation of the case, noting that the investigation had recently discovered new evidence that might implicate the applicant's involvement in other crimes such as embezzlement of public funds and abuse of official power. As to the justification for the extension of the applicant's detention, held as follows:
“As there are sufficient grounds on the possibility of the applicant's absconding from the authority conducting the criminal proceedings, illegally influencing persons participating in the proceedings, as well as obstructing the investigation by hiding or falsification of the necessary evidence for prosecution, a request was lodged with the court for extension of his remand in custody for a period of five moths in connection with exceptionally complexity of the case.
...
While examining the materials of the case and the request, it was established that the request on extension of the remand in custody in respect of the accused person, A. Muradverdiyev, is justified and must be granted.” 24.  The applicant appealed, complaining of a lack of justification for extension of his detention. On 31 May 2006 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal noting that the decision of the Nasimi District Court of 16 May 2006 was lawful. The justification for the extension of his detention was brief and as follows:
“The court, after having discussed the arguments of the appeal claim and having heard the lawyer's submission in favour of the appeal and the prosecutor's speech against the appeal, considers that, as the Nasimi District Court's decision is lawful and justified, the appeal should be dismissed.” 25.  In the meantime, on 1 June 2006 the applicant was taken to the Medical Treatment Facility of the Ministry of Justice owing to his deteriorated health condition. After a medical examination, he was prescribed certain medication. His lawyers were informed that he was suffering from a number of ailments, such as diffuse atherosclerosis of the cerebral arteries, circulatory encephalopathy, hypotonia, chronic pancreatitis, a duodenal ulcer, and a pancreatic tumour. 26.  On 5 August 2006 the applicant's lawyers lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court for the applicant to be placed under house arrest in lieu of being remanded in custody. On 9 August 2006 the Nasimi District Court refused the applicant's request noting that there was no need to change the preventive measure of remand in custody. Following the applicant's appeal, on 16 August 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance court's decision. 27.  On 13 September 2006, by a decision given by an investigator of the Prosecutor General's Office, the applicant was charged with new criminal offences within the framework of a new criminal case no. 76844 which was separated from criminal case no. 76586. The applicant was accused of having committed the criminal offences of embezzlement of public funds, abuse of official power, bribery, and forgery of official documents, as provided for by Articles 179.3.2, 308.2, 311.3.1, 311.3.2, 311.3.3 and 313 of the Criminal Code. On 25 September 2006 the Prosecutor General transferred the bill of indictment to the Assize Court. 28.  On 6 October 2006 the Assize Court held a preliminary hearing. In that hearing, the Assize Court decided, inter alia, that the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged. 29.  On 31 October 2006 the Assize Court delivered its judgment, finding the applicant guilty of criminal offences under Articles 179.3.2, 308.2, 311.3.1, 311.3.2, 311.3.3 and 313 of the Criminal Code and sentencing him to six years' imprisonment, confiscation of his property and a two-year ban from public office. 30.  On 5 March 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the Assize Court's judgment of 31 October 2006. On 15 January 2008 the Supreme Court partly quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment and changed the applicant's sentence to a suspended sentence of five years' imprisonment. The applicant was released from prison. 31.  As to the current state of the investigation concerning criminal case no. 76586, which still carried the charges against the applicant under Articles 28, 220.1 and 278 of the Criminal Code, it appears that it was not taken to sent for trial, but was not terminated either. 32.  By a letter of 2 November 2007, signed by the applicant and sent to the Court by the Prison Service of the Ministry of Justice, the applicant expressed his wish to withdraw his application. 33.  By a letter of 21 December 2007, the applicant's lawyer informed the Court that the applicant had written the letter of 2 November 2007 in the absence of his lawyer and on the recommendations of Government officials. 34.  Following the Court's letter of 18 January 2008 asking for clarification whether the applicant had indeed intended to withdraw the application, the applicant's lawyer informed the Court by a letter of 27 February 2008 of the applicant's wish to continue pursuing his application, noting that the letter of 2 November 2007 had been written when the applicant was in poor health.