29896/17;43608/17

THIRD SECTION CASE OF BAGIROV AND IBISHBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 29896/17 and 43608/17)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 15 July 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bagirov and Ibishbeyli v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President,  Lətif Hüseynov,  Vasilka Sancin, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos. 29896/17 and 43608/17) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Azerbaijani nationals, Taleh Bagirov (“the first applicant”) and Fikrat Ibishbeyli (“the second applicant”), whose details are set out in the appended table; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  The present applications primarily concern the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants during their arrest, transportation and/or detention and the alleged absence of effective investigations in that regard. 2.  The first applicant is the leader of an unregistered religious movement, Müsəlman Birliyi (“the MB”), established at the beginning of 2015. He was arrested during the so‑called “Nardaran events” of 26 November 2015. He was subsequently convicted of a number of serious crimes (the relevant proceedings are the subject of application no. 47347/18, which is pending before the Court). 3.  On the day of the events, 26 November 2015, armed police officers of the Organised Crime Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the OCU”) carried out an operation (“the operation”) which involved entering a house in Nardaran, a suburb of Baku, where a number of people, including the first applicant, were attending a religious gathering. 4.  According to police records, the operation was organised following information that the first applicant and several others were, among other things, gathering to prepare a violent seizure of power, mass disorder and terrorist acts, organising armed groups and obtaining weapons. 5.  During the operation shots were fired, killing six people (four Nardaran residents who had attended the gathering and two police officers) and injuring many others. According to police records, among the items found and seized at the scene were weapons, explosive substances and booklets containing calls for violence. 6.  The second applicant is a journalist. He was arrested by the OCU on 30 June 2016. He was subsequently charged with aggravated extortion. 7.  Sometime after their arrest the applicants complained to the prosecuting authorities that they had, inter alia, been subjected to ill‑treatment during their arrest, transportation and/or detention (for more details see the appended table). 8.  The prosecuting authorities rejected the applicants’ complaints of ill‑treatment as groundless and refused to open criminal investigations. In the case of the first applicant, they also held that the bodily injuries the applicant had sustained had been caused during his arrest as a result of his violent armed resistance to the police officers. 9.  The applicants lodged complaints with the domestic courts against the decisions of the prosecuting authorities, but they were unsuccessful (for more details see the appended table). 10.  The applicants complained before the Court that they had been subjected to ill-treatment during their respective arrests, despite not offering any resistance to the police, as well as during their respective detentions, that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into their complaints of ill-treatment, and that the purpose of the ill-treatment had been to extract self-incriminating statements from them and/or statements incriminating other people. Furthermore, they complained that they had not been allowed to contact their families following their arrest and had not been given access to lawyers of their own choice for some time while in police custody. 11.  The applicants also complained that they had been held in the temporary detention facility of the OCU for periods in excess of the statutory time-limit for detention in police custody and that that fact had increased their vulnerability and served as an important factor enabling their ill‑treatment. 12.  The first applicant also complained that after his arrest he had been transported in an ordinary furniture removal van. 13.  The applicants also complained under Article 10 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment in order to, inter alia, punish them for their criticism of the authorities. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 14.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION AS regards THE APPLICANTS’ ARREST AND DETENTION 15.  The applicants maintained their complaints as summarised in paragraphs 10-11 above. 16.  The Government submitted, inter alia, that the applicants had not been subjected to any ill-treatment. Force had been used against the first applicant and other members of the MB during their arrest because they had resisted police officers using weapons, and therefore they had been injured before they could be disarmed. Furthermore, the domestic authorities had conducted an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill‑treatment. 17.  The Court notes that the complaints summarised in paragraphs 10-11 above are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 18.  The general principles concerning the obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 3 of the Convention not to subject persons under their jurisdiction to inhuman or degrading treatment or torture in the course of encounters with the police have been summarised in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-88, ECHR 2015), and Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria (no. 61701/11, § 53, 21 January 2016). The general principles with respect to the procedural obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 3 of the Convention to investigate acts of ill-treatment by State agents have likewise been set out in detail in Bouyid (cited above, §§ 115-23). The Court notes that those principles are equally pertinent to the present applications. 19.  Furthermore, in a number of cases against Azerbaijan the Court has previously found a substantive violation of Article 3 where the domestic authorities and the Government had failed to provide satisfactory and convincing explanations concerning injuries which had occurred during the applicants’ arrest and/or detention, and a procedural violation of Article 3 where the domestic authorities had either failed altogether to examine complaints of ill-treatment or failed to comply with the standards of an effective investigation such as independence, adequacy, promptness and reasonable expedition, and participation of the victim (see, among many other authorities, Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, §§ 54-79, 11 January 2007; Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, §§ 102-36, 2 April 2009; and Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, §§ 32-56, 2 October 2012). 20.  Turning to the present applications, the Court observes that the applicants’ complaints to the domestic authorities contained enough specific information – such as the dates, place and nature of the alleged ill‑treatment – to constitute an arguable claim in respect of which those authorities were under an obligation to conduct an effective investigation. In the case of the first applicant, the allegations of ill-treatment were supported by medical records (see the appended table). 21.  Nevertheless, the investigating authorities, having conducted initial inquiries, refused to open criminal cases. The domestic courts in turn upheld the decisions of the prosecuting authorities and found the complaints of ill‑treatment to be groundless. 22.  In view of the material in its possession and the parties’ submissions, the Court considers that the criminal investigations into the applicants’ respective complaints were plagued by a combination of defects which rendered them ineffective (for more details see the appended table). 23.  The Court therefore concludes that the investigations into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment were ineffective. 24.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb, in respect of both applicants. 25.  As to the complaints under the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court notes that the first applicant was arrested during the “Nardaran events”. In the course of that operation shots were fired, killing six people, including two police officers, and injuring many others (see paragraph 5 above). According to the Government, the members of the MB had offered armed resistance to the police and had been injured before they could be disarmed; according to the first applicant, he had not resisted the police and had been injured owing to police brutality and ill-treatment during his detention. 26.  Given the particular circumstances of the arrest and having regard to the parties’ submissions and all the material in its possession, the Court considers that the evidence before it does not enable it to find beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries sustained by the first applicant during his arrest were the result of treatment contrary to Article 3. 27.  Given the absence of any evidence, the Court also cannot conclude that the second applicant was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 as alleged by him either during the arrest or during his detention (see, for a similar conclusion, Mustafayev and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 25054/17 and 6 others, § 29, 13 June 2024). 28.  The Court emphasises, however, that its inability to reach any conclusions as to whether there was, in substance, any treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention derives, at least in part, from the failure of the domestic authorities to carry out effective investigations. 29.  The Court further notes that the first applicant sustained new injuries to the soles of his feet and his legs during his detention. The records issued by officers of the OCU stated that those injuries had been caused by the first applicant falling from his bunk bed. The applicant argued that those injuries had been the result of ill‑treatment, namely foot whipping. 30.  The nature of the injuries in question (in particular their gravity and compatibility with injuries typically sustained as a result of ill-treatment methods such as foot whipping) is an important factor sufficient to give rise to a presumption in favour of the first applicant’s account of events and to satisfy the Court that his allegations of having been ill-treated during his detention are credible. In the Court’s view, the above-mentioned explanation given by the officers of the OCU does not appear to be a convincing rebuttal of that presumption. The Court considers that this treatment was of gratuitous and serious nature and therefore it can be characterised as torture (see Mammadov, cited above, § 69, and Cestaro v. Italy, no. 6884/11, § 171-76, 7 April 2015). 31.  There has accordingly been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of the first applicant’s injuries sustained during arrest, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of the first applicant’s injuries sustained after arrest, and no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of the second applicant. 32.  Lastly, the Court notes that following their arrests the applicants were assigned State-funded lawyers. However, those lawyers did not take any procedural actions on the applicants’ behalf. In particular, the lawyers did not lodge any complaints of ill-treatment. The complaints were lodged only after lawyers of the applicants’ own choosing joined the proceedings. Furthermore, there is nothing in the material submitted to the Court to suggest that the applicants were given an effective opportunity to contact their families. The Court emphasises in that connection that contact with family members and access to a lawyer are among the fundamental safeguards against coercion and ill‑treatment (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 255, 13 September 2016, and Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 21980/04, § 112, 12 May 2017; and compare with Mustafayev and Others, cited above, § 36) and considers that this has constituted additional factors contributing to the findings above under both limbs of Article 3. 33.  In view of the above findings, there is no need to examine the other complaints summarised in paragraph 11 above. OTHER COMPLAINTS 34.  The first applicant also complained under Article 3 that he had been transported in an ordinary furniture removal van (see paragraph 12 above), and both applicants also complained under Article 10 of the Convention (see paragraph 13 above). Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the admissibility or merits of the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 35.  The applicants each claimed the following amounts in respect of non‑pecuniary damage: (i)  65,000 euros (EUR) in application no. 29896/17; (ii)  EUR 57,000 in application no. 43608/17. 36.  They each also claimed the following amounts for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and/or the Court: (i)  EUR 8,800 in application no. 29896/17; (ii)  EUR 4,335 in application no. 43608/17. 37.  The Government argued, inter alia, that the claims were unsubstantiated or excessive. 38.  The Court awards EUR 10,000 to the applicant in application no. 29896/17 and EUR 5,000 to the applicant in application no. 43608/17 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those sums. 39.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award each applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, and dismisses the remainder of the claims. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints under Article 3 concerning the applicants’ ill‑treatment during their respective arrests and detentions admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in respect of both applicants; Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of both applicants’ arrest and no violation in application no. 43608/17 in respect of the applicant’s subsequent treatment; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of the applicant in application no. 29896/17, in respect of his treatment after arrest; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)  EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to the applicant in application no. 29896/17, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage; (ii)  EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to the applicant in application no. 43608/17, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage; (iii)  EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Olga Chernishova  Canòlic Mingorance Cairat  Deputy Registrar President       APPENDIX   List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Date lodged Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Representative’s name Location Information relating to the arrest and the alleged ill-treatment   Medical evidence of the alleged ill‑treatment Relevant decisions by the prosecuting authorities Defects of the preliminary inquiries   Relevant domestic court decisions Defects of the domestic court proceedings 1. 29896/17 Bagirov v. Azerbaijan 13/04/2017 Taleh Kamil oglu BAGIROV Gobustan Elchin SADIGOV Baku   Zibeyda SADIGOVA Baku During his arrest and transportation on 26 November 2015 and in the OCU facility over several subsequent days the applicant was allegedly ill‑treated (beaten, including on the soles of his feet, subjected to electric shocks, verbally abused, etc.). On 18 December 2015 the applicant was transferred to the Baku pre-trial detention facility.     During the above time period and in the subsequent weeks the applicant had no lawyer of his own choosing and no contact with his family. A State‑funded lawyer (Mr A.F.) assigned to the case did not take any procedural actions on the applicant’s behalf, even though the applicant had visible injuries on his face and body.           According to medical expert report no. 553/MESH concerning the applicant’s examination on 26 November 2015, the applicant had, inter alia, scratches (abrasions) and puffiness on the forehead, left temple, ears, nose, left wrist and neck, a haemorrhage (blood profusion) in the area around both eyes, the upper lip and left thigh area, and bruises on the left side of his back and left thigh area.   According to a certificate issued on an unspecified date by officers of the OCU, on 15 December 2015 the applicant had fallen from his bunk bed (from the top bunk) and as a result had sustained injuries to the soles of both his feet and had puffiness on both his legs.     Decision of 27 May 2016 by the prosecuting authority refusing to open a criminal investigation.   The prosecuting authority: (i) relied on statements of OCU officers, including those implicated in the alleged events; (ii) failed to question other witnesses (such as other people arrested during the same events, the applicant’s cellmates at the OCU facility or the Baku pre‑trial detention facility), and to conduct other investigative measures in order to secure evidence.     Decision of the Sabail District Court of 29 September 2016.     Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 13 October 2016.   The domestic courts, among other things, failed to address the applicant’s complaints of defects in the preliminary inquiry, and to grant the applicant’s requests that they question OCU officer (E.B.) who had allegedly given two contradictory statements.     2. 43608/17 Ibishbeyli v. Azerbaijan 06/06/2017 Fikrat Faramaz oglu IBISHBEYLI Baku Elchin SADIGOV Baku   Zibeyda SADIGOVA Baku During his arrest on 30 June 2016 and in the OCU facility over several subsequent days the applicant was allegedly ill‑treated (beaten by the police, as a result of which he lost two teeth; deprived of water; and handcuffed). According to the applicant, he was transferred to the Baku pre-trial detention facility in August 2016 and on 17 September 2016 he was taken back to the OCU facility, where he was allegedly ill-treated again.   During the above time period the applicant had no lawyer of his own choosing and no contact with his family. A State‑funded lawyer (Mr O.A.) assigned to the case did not take any procedural actions on the applicant’s behalf.   No medical evidence of the alleged ill‑treatment was submitted to the Court. The forensic medical examination report of 11 October 2016 indicated that no bodily injuries had been found on the applicant.   Decision of 17 October 2016 by the prosecuting authority refusing to open a criminal investigation.   The prosecuting authority: (i) relied on statements of OCU officers, including those implicated in the alleged events; (ii) failed to question other witnesses (such as the applicant’s cellmates at the OCU facility or the Baku pre‑trial detention facility), and to conduct other investigative measures in order to secure evidence.   Decision of the Sabail District Court of 21 November 2016.   Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 5 December 2016.   The domestic courts, among other things, failed to address the applicant’s complaints of defects in the preliminary inquiry (including defects in the forensic medical examination), and to grant the applicant’s requests to examine surveillance camera recordings of his arrest and to question OCU officers.