CASE OF PANAHLI v. AZERBAIJAN
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)
André Potocki;Mārtiņš Mits
4. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Baku. 5. He was the chairman of the Azerbaijani National Statehood Party. 6. In December 2010 the applicant sold his car to a certain E.R., who encountered a number of technical problems with it. 7. On 7 January 2011 E.R. contacted the applicant and they agreed to meet on the same day. During the meeting E.R. expressed his dissatisfaction with the car and requested that the applicant return his money and take the car back. The applicant got angry, started to insult E.R. and then assaulted him together with a certain C. 8. A passer-by intervened and stopped the altercation. E.R. reported the incident to the police on the same day. 9. On 8 January 2011 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant by the Nasimi District Police Office under Article 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. The investigator’s decision stated that at around 8.30 p.m. on 7 January 2011 the applicant and a certain C. had insulted and assaulted E.R. on the street in Baku. 10. On 8 January 2011 the police compiled a record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect. 11. On 10 January 2011 the applicant was charged under Articles 127.2.3 (deliberate infliction of less serious injury to health) and 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. 12. On the same day the Nasimi District Court, relying on the charges brought against the applicant and an application from the prosecutor to apply the preventive measure of remanding the applicant in custody, ordered his detention pending trial for a period of two months. The court justified the application of the preventive custodial measure by the gravity of the offences imputed to him, the risk of his reoffending and the likelihood that he might abscond if released. 13. On 12 January 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, stating that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that the court had failed to substantiate the necessity for his detention pending trial. He also submitted that the court had failed to take account of his personal situation and to consider the possibility of another preventive measure, such as house arrest or release on bail. 14. On 17 January 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there were no grounds to quash the first-instance decision. 15. On 2 March 2011 the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case applied to the court for an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of one month. He submitted that more time was needed to complete the investigation. 16. On 3 March 2011 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by one month, until 8 April 2011. The court justified its decision by the need for more time to carry out further investigative actions, the complexity of the criminal case and the likelihood that the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation if released. 17. On 4 March 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to substantiate its decision on his continued detention. 18. On 9 March 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 3 March 2011. 19. No further extension decisions are available in the case file. 20. On 17 June 2011 the Nasimi District Court found the applicant guilty on all counts and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. 21. The applicant was released from serving the remainder of his sentence by a presidential pardon issued on 17 March 2016.