CASE OF MAHAMMAD MAJIDLI 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 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Article 6-3-c - Legal assistance of own choosing)
Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev
4. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Baku. 5. Demonstrations were planned to be held on 31 July 2010 and 10 March 2013 in Baku. 6. On 23 July 2010 the organisers, consisting of several members of opposition parties, gave notice to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), of the demonstration of 31 July 2010. It appears that no prior notice was given to the BCEA by the organisers of the demonstration of 10 March 2013. Information about that demonstration was disseminated via Facebook or the press. 7. The BCEA refused to authorise the demonstration of 31 July 2010 at the places indicated by the organisers and proposed three other locations on the outskirts of Baku – a stadium situated in the Binagadi District, a square near Zigh Road in the Khatai District, and the yard of a driving school situated in the 20th habitable area of the Sabail District. The BCEA noted that of the locations proposed by the organisers at which to hold the assembly, the squares were all designated public leisure areas and the other places were areas with heavy traffic. 8. The organisers nevertheless decided to hold the demonstrations in the centre of Baku. 9. According to the applicant, the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants of the demonstration of 31 July 2010 were demanding free and fair elections and democratic reforms in the country. The participants of the demonstration of 10 March 2013 were protesting over the deaths of numerous soldiers in the army. 10. The applicant attended both demonstrations, but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse those who had gathered. In both cases the applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and was taken to a police station, where he was questioned. 11. In both cases on the day of the applicant’s arrest, an administrative offence report (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) was issued on him. In the first case the report stated that by deliberately failing to comply with a lawful order of the police, the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). In the second case he was charged with an administrative offence under Article 298.2 of the CAO (participation in a public assembly organised not in accordance with the law). 12. According to the applicant, he was never served with copies of the administrative offence reports or with other material from his case files. In both cases he was not given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while he was in police custody. 13. In the first case the applicant was brought before the Sabail District Court on 31 July 2010, the day of his arrest. In the second case he was held in police custody overnight and brought before the Sabail District Court on 11 March 2013, the day after his arrest. 14. According to the applicant, the hearing before the court in both cases was very brief. In the second case members of the public were not allowed inside the courtroom, even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public. 15. According to the applicant, in both cases he was not given an opportunity to appoint a lawyer of his own choosing. 16. At the court hearing in the first case the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. According to the material submitted to the Court by the parties, he refused legal assistance. 17. It appears that at the court hearing in the second case a State-funded lawyer was invited to represent the applicant. None of the material submitted to the Court contain any records showing that the State-funded lawyer, Ms E.Z., made any oral or written submissions to the first-instance court. 18. At the hearings in both cases the court did not question any witnesses. 19. By a decision of 31 July 2010 the first-instance court convicted the applicant under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to seven days’ administrative detention. By a decision of 11 March 2013 the same court convicted the applicant under Article 298.2 of the CAO and sentenced him to seven days’ administrative detention. 20. On unspecified dates the applicant lodged appeals with the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that his convictions were in violation of his rights because the demonstrations in which he had participated had been peaceful. The applicant also complained that his arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the first-instance court had not been fair. 21. In the first case the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. In the second case the applicant prepared his appeal with the assistance of a lawyer of his own choosing, but that lawyer did not attend the hearing. 22. On 16 August 2010 and 27 March 2013 respectively the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals and upheld the decision of the first-instance court. 23. According to the applicant, the decision of the Court of Appeal of 16 August 2010 was sent to him on 23 December 2010, after he complained that the court had failed to serve him with that decision.