CASE OF IBRAHIMOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev
5. The applicants were born in 1988, 1989 and 1977 respectively. The first and third applicants live in Baku, and the second applicant lives in Khirdalan. 6. The youth group Committee for Protection of Rights of Young Political Prisoners (“Gənc Siyasi Məhbusların Hüquqlarını Müdafiə Komitəsi”) decided to hold a demonstration at around 5.30 p.m. on 22 May 2011 at the Seaside Boulevard in Baku. They did not notify their plan to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (the BCEA). 7. According to the applicants, the demonstration was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants, a group of ten to twelve persons, were demanding the release of young persons arrested during some previous demonstrations. 8. The applicants attended the demonstration, but shortly after it had begun the police started to disperse it. According to the applicants, as soon as they noticed the police approaching they attempted to run away and leave the place of the demonstration but police officers followed and caught them. All three applicants were arrested by police officers V.I. and R.G. at around 5.30 p.m. and were taken to police station No. 39 of the Sabail District Police Office. 9. Police officers V.I. and R.G. stated the following in a report (raport) submitted to a superior police officer: “... at around 5.30 p.m. at the Seaside Boulevard ... a group of young persons attempted to hold an unauthorised [demonstration] by shouting out loud, and disturbed people. When we wanted to calm down those persons they ignored us. ... We ... brought them to police station no. 39. ...” 10. According to the applicants, they were questioned at the police station. 11. Between 6.15 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on the day of the arrest, “administrative-offence reports” (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) were issued by police officer T.R. in respect of all three applicants. The reports stated that at 5.30 p.m. on 22 May 2011, by deliberately failing to comply with the lawful order of the police, the applicants had committed an administrative offence under Article 310 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). 12. All three applicants refused to sign the respective administrative-offence reports, which contained pre-printed texts declaring that “[the arrested person] was familiarised with the report” and “the rights and obligations under Articles 371, 372, 374, 377, 379 and 410.4 of the CAO of the Republic of Azerbaijan were explained”. 13. Subsequently, police officer T.R. prepared “administrative-arrest reports” (inzibati qaydada tutma haqqında protokol) with respect to the first and second applicants. 14. According to those administrative-arrest reports, copies of which were submitted to the Court by the Government, the first and second applicants had been subjected to administrative arrest at 7 p.m. on 22 May 2011. The reports also stated that the applicants had been released on the same date, without specifying the time of the alleged releases, and contained signatures of the first and second applicants. However, all three applicants maintained that they had been kept in police custody overnight. 15. According to the applicants, they were never served with copies of the administrative-offence reports or with other documents in their case files. They were not given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while they were kept in police custody. 16. On 23 May 2011, the day after his arrest, the first applicant, Mr Agasif Ibrahimov, was brought before the Sabail District Court. 17. According to the applicant, the hearing, which began at 12.40 p.m., was very brief and members of the public, including human rights defenders and journalists, were not allowed to attend, even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public. 18. The applicant was not represented by any lawyer. According to the applicant, he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice. 19. The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of disobeying a lawful order of a police officer. 20. The only witness questioned during the court hearing was police officer R.G., who testified as follows: “At around 5.30 p.m. on 22 May 2011 ... a group of persons attempted to hold an unauthorised [demonstration] by shouting out loud, and disturbed people. When we wanted to calm down those persons, among them [the applicant], they disobeyed a lawful police order. Then we ... brought them to police station no. 39 where administrative-offence reports were issued in their respect. One of them was [the applicant].”. 21. The court found that the applicant had failed to stop participating in the unauthorised demonstration. The court convicted him under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to seven days’ “administrative” detention. 22. The applicant lodged an appeal before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that his conviction was in violation of his rights because the demonstration in which he had participated had been peaceful. He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first-instance court had not been fair. He requested the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court’s decision. 23. The applicant was represented before the Baku Court of Appeal by a lawyer of his own choice. 24. On 31 May 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court, stating that its findings had been correct. 25. The Court of Appeal also noted that at the first-instance court hearing the applicant had refused the assistance of a State-funded lawyer and had decided to defend himself in person. 26. On 23 May 2011, the day after his arrest, the second applicant, Mr Emin Farhadi, was brought before the Sabail District Court. 27. According to the applicant, the hearing, which began at 12.30 p.m., was very brief and members of the public were not allowed to attend, even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public. 28. The applicant was not represented by any lawyer. According to the applicant, he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice. According to the transcript of the court hearing, he refused the assistance of a State-funded lawyer and decided to defend himself in person. 29. The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of disobeying a lawful order of a police officer and that he had participated in the demonstration as an observer. 30. The only witness questioned during the court hearing was police officer R.G. The statement that he gave against the second applicant, Mr Emin Farhadi, was similar to his statement against the first applicant, Mr Agasif Ibrahimov (see paragraph 20 above). 31. The court found that the applicant had failed to stop participating in the unauthorised demonstration. The court convicted him under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to eight days’ “administrative” detention. 32. The applicant lodged an appeal before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that his conviction was in violation of his rights because the demonstration in which he had participated had been peaceful. He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first-instance court had not been fair. He requested the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court’s decision. 33. The applicant was represented before the Baku Court of Appeal by a lawyer of his own choice. 34. On 31 May 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court, stating that its findings had been correct. 35. On 23 May 2011, the day after his arrest, the third applicant, Mr Jamil Hajiyev, was brought before the Sabail District Court. 36. According to the applicant, the hearing, which began at 12.30 p.m., was very brief and members of the public were not allowed to attend, even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public. 37. The applicant was not represented by any lawyer. According to the applicant, he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice and he refused the assistance of a State-funded lawyer because he believed that such assistance would be of a formalistic nature. 38. The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of disobeying a lawful order of a police officer. He further emphasised that he and other participants of the demonstration had protested peacefully, and that they had been holding photos of arrested young persons, without uttering any slogans. The applicant also stated that he had run away as soon as he saw the police approaching and had boarded a taxi, and that police officers had stopped that taxi and had forced him out. 39. The only witness questioned during the court hearing was police officer R.G. The statement that he gave against the third applicant, Mr Jamil Hajiyev, was similar to his statement against the first applicant, Mr Agasif Ibrahimov (see paragraph 20 above). R.G. also confirmed that Mr Jamil Hajiyev had tried to escape by taxi, and that the police officers had stopped that taxi. 40. The court found that the applicant had failed to stop participating in the unauthorised demonstration. The court convicted him under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to seven days’ “administrative” detention. 41. The applicant lodged an appeal before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that his conviction was in violation of his rights because the demonstration in which he had participated had been peaceful. He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first-instance court had not been fair. He requested the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court’s decision. 42. The applicant was represented before the Baku Court of Appeal by a lawyer of his own choice. 43. On 31 May 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court, stating that its findings had been correct.