003-4101774-4818723

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 356 (2012)   02.10.2012   Beating of journalist by police while covering a demonstration   was in breach of his freedom of expression   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Najafli v. Azerbaijan (application   no. 2594/07), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the   European Convention on Human Rights concerning Mr Najafli’s ill-treatment;   a violation of Article 3 concerning the investigation into his claim of ill-treatment; and,   a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The case concerned a journalist who had been beaten by the police while covering an   unauthorised demonstration in Baku.   The Court found in particular that the physical ill-treatment by State agents of journalists   carrying out their professional duties had seriously hampered the exercise of their right   to receive and impart information. Irrespective of whether there had been any actual   intention to interfere with Mr Najafli’s journalistic activity, he had been subjected to   unnecessary and excessive use of force, despite having made clear efforts to identify   himself as a journalist at work.   Principal facts   The applicant, Ramiz Huseyn oglu Najafli, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in   and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan). He was a journalist and the editor-in-chief of a   newspaper named Boz Qurd. On 9 October 2005, he was sent to cover an unauthorised   demonstration in Baku, organised by opposition parties. During the dispersal of the   demonstration by the police, Mr Najafli and his colleagues were beaten up and received   various injuries. According to the applicant, he told the police officers that he was a   journalist and asked them to stop. He was then hit on the head and lost consciousness.   On 26 October 2005 Mr Najafli received a medical certificate with a diagnosis of closed   cranio-cerebral trauma, concussion and soft-tissue damage to the crown of the head.   Criminal proceedings were brought against the police officers concerned on 9 November   by the Sabail District Police Department which were then transferred to the Sabail   District Prosecutor’s Office – the case had been re-qualified from beating to obstruction   of the lawful professional activity of journalists. When he was questioned on 12 January   2006, Mr Najafli stated that he had been beaten with truncheons by a group of police   officers while observing the demonstration. He also submitted a photo of Baku’s Head of   Riot Police (A.V.), present at the scene. Two other journalists who had witnessed the   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   incident confirmed Mr Najafli’s version of events. According to the Government, a   forensic examination was ordered by the investigator. However, the Court did not   receive any supporting evidence in this regard and the applicant alleged that he had not   been informed of such a decision.   On 9 March 2006, after A.V. had denied his involvement in Mr Najafli’s beating, the   Sabail District Prosecutor’s Office investigator issued a decision suspending the criminal   proceedings until the perpetrators of the beating had been identified. The applicant   complained about the suspension of the investigation, without success. His appeal was   dismissed on 13 June 2006.   The civil action lodged by Mr Najafli to seek damages was also rejected on the grounds   that he had failed to identify actual individuals as defendants.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Najafli   complained that he had been beaten up by police and that the authorities had failed to   carry out an effective investigation, letting those police officers responsible go   unpunished. Under Article 10 (freedom of expression), he further alleged that the police   officers’ intention had been to prevent him from covering the demonstration. Relying on   Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he finally complained that the refusal to admit his civil   action had been wrongly substantiated.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 December   2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President,   Anatoly Kovler (Russia),   Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),   Julia Laffranque (Estonia),   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),   Erik Møse (Norway),   and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Treatment   Mr Najafli had produced sufficiently strong and consistent evidence to establish at least a   presumption that he had been beaten with truncheons by police officers during the   dispersal of the demonstration, including the medical certificate of 26 October 2005,   statements from two witnesses supporting his version of the events and a photo   confirming A.V.’s presence at the scene of the incident.   As to whether the use of force against Mr Najafli had been excessive, the Court noted   that the applicant had not used violence against the police or posed a threat to them.   Nor had the authorities given any other reasons justifying the use of force, which had   therefore been unnecessary, excessive and unacceptable.   The Court found that Mr Najafli’s injuries had proven that he had experienced serious   physical pain and suffering. Indeed, the cranio-cerebral trauma and concussion had   required long-term medical treatment and the ill-treatment, as well as its consequences,   had to have also caused him considerable mental suffering, diminishing his human   dignity. Consequently, the minimum level of severity required under the European   Convention for the ill-treatment to come within the scope of Article 3 had been attained.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 as concerned Mr Najafli’s ill-treatment.   Investigation   The Court first observed that no relevant procedural steps had been taken until   Mr Najafli had been questioned, more than three months after the incident, and that no   documentary evidence had been produced as to the allegedly ordered forensic   examination.   Turning to what the Court considered the most problematic aspect of the investigation, it   observed that the identification of those responsible for the applicant’s beating had been   delegated to the same authority whose agents had allegedly committed the offence.   Even if another police department had been in charge of this major part of the   investigation, the agents had been colleagues, employed by the same public authority.   As regards the suspension of proceedings, the Court noted that the Sabail District   Prosecutor’s Office investigator, relying on the “no result” report of the police   department, had merely suspended the investigation without taking any further action.   Finally, the applicant had been deprived of the opportunity to effectively seek damages   in civil proceedings, as he had been required to name specific police officers as   defendants. That requirement had constituted an insurmountable obstacle given that the   criminal investigation had not identified those police officers.   In those circumstances, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3   concerning the investigation into Mr Najafli’s claim of ill-treatment.   Article 10   The Court reiterated that it was the role of the press to impart information and ideas on   matters of public interest and that the public had a right to receive them, including   concerning opposition gatherings and demonstrations. This was essential for the   development of any democratic society and for the press to play its vital “public   watchdog” role.   The Court could not accept the Government’s argument that police officers had been   unable to determine that Mr Najafli had been a journalist. Indeed, he had been wearing   a journalist’s badge and had even specifically told the police officers that he had been a   journalist.   Moreover, the Court considered that the physical ill-treatment by State agents of   journalists performing their professional duties had seriously hampered the exercise of   their right to receive and impart information. Irrespective of whether there had been any   actual intention to interfere with Mr Najafli’s journalistic activity, he had been subjected   to unnecessary and excessive use of force, in breach of Article 3, despite having made   clear efforts to identify himself as a journalist at work. Accordingly, there had been an   interference with Mr Najafli’s rights under Article 10, which had not been “necessary in a   democratic society”, as the Government had not shown convincingly that this   interference had been lawful or pursued a legitimate end. Consequently, there had been   a violation of Article 10.   Article 6   Having regard to the finding of a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3   (investigation), the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine whether this   case raised an issue under Article 6 and therefore rejected this part of the application.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The court held that Azerbaijan was to pay the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of   non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   4