5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Baku. 6.  He was a student at the Azerbaijan State Oil Academy at the time of the events. 7.  On 15 March 2008 the applicant and his girlfriend (A.M.), who was an adult, accompanied by other three persons, travelled by car from Baku to Ganja in order to get married there. 8.  On the same day the father of A.M. lodged a complaint with the police alleging that his daughter had been kidnapped. 9.  On 16 March 2008 criminal proceedings were instituted on the basis of that complaint under Article 144.2.3 (kidnapping committed by a group of persons) of the Criminal Code. 10.  On 16 March 2008 A.M. called her family, informing them that she had gone to Ganja with her boyfriend. On the same day her parents went to Ganja to bring her back to Baku. 11.  On 17 March 2008 the applicant returned to Baku. As the police had been to his home several times while he was in Ganja, on 19 March 2008 he went to the police station. The applicant was arrested at the police station and the investigator issued an order for his detention for forty-eight hours as a suspect (tutma protokolu). 12.  On 21 March 2008 the applicant was formally charged with the criminal offence of kidnapping as provided in Article 144.2.3 of the Criminal Code. On the same date the prosecutor requested the judge to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri) in respect of the applicant. The prosecutor substantiated the necessity of this measure by the gravity of the applicant’s alleged criminal act and the risk of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation. 13.  On 21 March 2008 the Narimanov District Court examined the prosecutor’s request. At the hearing before the court, the applicant’s lawyer asked the judge to apply a non-custodial preventive measure, submitting that the applicant had no criminal record, that he had a permanent place of residence, and that he was young. The judge at the Narimanov District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, remanded the applicant in custody for a period of three months. The judge substantiated the necessity for this measure as follows:
“Taking into account the fact that there is sufficient evidence that Allahverdiyev Amil Allahverdi oglu has committed criminal acts, the gravity and character of the crime, the possibility of his absconding from the investigation, and that there are sufficient grounds [to believe that he might] obstruct the normal functioning of the investigation, I consider it necessary to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of him.” 14.  The applicant appealed against the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 21 March 2008. He complained that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that his personal circumstances had not been taken into account when the court had ordered his detention. The applicant submitted in this connection that he had a permanent place of residence, that he had voluntarily presented himself to the police, that he was an internally displaced person, and that his family and financial situation were difficult. The applicant also submitted that his pre-trial detention would violate his right to education, as he would no longer be able to attend courses during his pre-trial detention, which would result in his expulsion from university. 15.  On 3 April 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that the detention order was justified. The relevant part of the court’s decision reads as follows:
“Taking into account the gravity of the act attributed to the accused A. Allahverdiyev, its degree of public dangerousness, the circumstance of its commission, and the fact that the sanction provided for the commission of this act is over two years’ imprisonment, the panel of the court considers that the arguments put forward in the appeal lodged by the lawyer are not sufficient for the quashing of the court order.” 16.  On 11 June 2008 the investigator in charge of the criminal case asked the prosecutor for an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention by one month, noting that more time was needed to complete the investigation. The prosecutor lodged a request to that effect with the court. 17.  On 14 June 2008 the Narimanov District Court examined the prosecutor’s request for the extension of the applicant’s detention period. At the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer asked the judge to dismiss the prosecutor’s request and to impose a less strict preventive measure on the applicant. In this connection, he submitted that the applicant had a permanent place of residence, that there was no risk of his absconding, that he was an internally displaced person, and that he was a student. On the same date the judge extended the applicant’s remand in custody by one month, until 19 July 2008. He substantiated the necessity of the extension of the applicant’s detention as follows:
“Taking into account the personality of the accused and the gravity, character, circumstances of the commission and degree of public dangerousness of the act attributed to him, as well as the necessity to carry out various investigative actions, I consider that the request must be granted, as it is justified, and the detention period of the accused Allahverdiyev Amil Allahverdi oglu must be extended.” 18.  The applicant appealed against that decision, complaining that there was no justification for his continued detention. He asked the court to replace his remand in custody with the preventive measure of police supervision pending trial, an undertaking not to abscond, or house arrest. In support of his request, he pointed out that he was an internally displaced person, that he had voluntarily presented himself to the police, that he was a student, that he had no criminal record, and that he had a permanent place of residence. 19.  On 20 June 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Narimanov District Court’s decision, finding that the extension of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention was justified. The court reiterated the first‑instance court’s findings concerning the nature and gravity of the criminal offence of which the applicant was suspected, and pointed to the possibility of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“The panel of the court considers that the first-instance court, having taken into account the degree of public dangerousness of the offence of which A. Allahverdiyev was accused, which was a serious crime, the possibility of his absconding from the investigation and influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings, and of obstructing the normal functioning of the investigation, as well as the necessity to carry out various investigative actions, has correctly extended the period of his detention.” 20.  On 11 July 2008 the prosecutor in charge of the case filed the indictment with the Assize Court. 21.  On 16 July 2008 the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice asking to be released from the detention facility on 19 July 2008, the date on which his authorised pre-trial detention was due to expire. 22.  On 22 July 2008 the applicant lodged a request with the Prosecutor General complaining that despite the fact that his pre-trial detention period had expired on 19 July 2008 he had not been released from detention. 23.  On 29 July 2008 the Assize Court held a preliminary hearing. The applicant complained at the hearing that he had been detained unlawfully since 19 July 2008 and asked the court to replace his remand in custody with another preventive measure. At that hearing the Assize Court rejected the applicant’s request and decided that the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant should remain “unchanged”. The Assize Court further held that, as the indictment had been lodged with the court on 11 July 2008, the applicant’s detention since 19 July 2008 had been lawful. 24.  The applicant appealed against the Assize Court’s decision of 29 July 2008, reiterating his previous complaints. 25.  On 7 August 2008 Assize Court refused to admit the applicant’s appeal. The court noted that a decision taken at a preliminary hearing was not subject to appeal. Subsequent attempts by the applicant to challenge the decision were unsuccessful. 26.  In the meantime, on 30 July 2008 the applicant brought an action against the prison department of the Ministry of Justice. He asked the court to order his release from detention, because the authorised period of pre-trial detention had expired on 19 July 2008. 27.  On 11 August 2008 the Azizbayov District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. The court found that the Assize Court had upheld the lawfulness of the applicant’s remand in custody at its preliminary hearing held on 29 July 2008. 28.  On 11 September 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 11 August 2008. 29.  On 19 March 2009 the Assize Court found the applicant guilty of kidnapping together with a group of persons and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.