Ibrahimov and Mammadov v Azerbaijan: arbitrary arrest and detention of government critics
/The case concerned two applicants arrested and prosecuted on drug charges, which they alleged were false and that they were in fact arrested and detained because of the political graffiti they had painted on the statue of a former president.
Photo: Amnesty International
Facts
Both applicants were members of NIDA, a civil society movement. They were arrested in May 2016 after having painted a graffiti on a statue of Heydar Aliyev, the former president of Azerbaijan. They were questioned, punched and seized in the street. Then they were taken to the Baku Main Police Department, where police officers allegedly planted drugs on them and subjected them to threats and ill-treatment and forced a confession to drugs charges. They were subsequently taken to their apartments, where the police also found allegedly planted drugs. In the temporary detention facility, where both applicants were later taken, they were subjected to beating.
Mr Mammadov and Mr Ibrahimov had complained about the ill-treatment and forced confession to the Khatai District Court, which ordered the allegations to be examined by the investigating authorities. However, according to the applicants, they were again subjected to ill-treatment upon their return to the detention centre.
The criminal investigation into the complaints of police ill-treatment had therefore concluded that the allegations were unfounded. All requests submitted by the applicants for release from custody were rejected by courts. They were convicted on drug charges and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 2016. In March 2019 they were released by presidential pardon – however, this did not involve an acquittal and their criminal convictions still stand.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
The Court found a violation of Article 3 of ECHR (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) regarding the police ill-treatment and the lack of an effective investigation, a violation of Article 5 (lawfulness of detention) as the Court deemed the arrest and detention of the applicants arbitrary and without proper reason, a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and a violation of Article 18 (improper use of restrictions in the Convention). The Court found that the applicants’ case was part of a pattern it had found in previous cases of arbitrary arrest and detention of government critics, civil society activists and human rights defenders through vindictive prosecutions and misuse of the criminal law, all carried out for political purposes.
Useful links