FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN

(Applications nos. 65583/13 and 70106/13)

JUDGMENT

Art 5 § 3 • Reasonableness of pre-trial detention • Domestic courts’ failure

to provide “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons justifying extension of
applicants’ pre-trial detention
Art 18 (+ Art 5 § 3) • Restrictions for unauthorised purposes • Pre-trial
detention of opposition activists with the ulterior and predominant purpose
of punishing and silencing them for their active involvement in anti-
government demonstrations

STRASBOURG

18 February 2021

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

In the case of Azizov and Novruzlu v. Azerbaijan,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
Lətif Hüseynov,
Lado Chanturia,
Ivana Jelić,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 65583/13 and 70106/13) 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, Mr Mammad Rasim oglu Azizov (Məmməd
Rasim oğlu Əzizov – “the first applicant”) and Shahin Ibrahim oglu
Novruzlu (Şahin İbrahim oğlu Novruzlu – “the second applicant”) (“the
applicants”), on 27 September and 17 October 2013, respectively;
the decisions to give notice to the Azerbaijani Government (“the
Government”) of the complaint concerning the alleged lack of justification
for the applicants’ pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention) and,
ex officio, an issue under Article 18 of the Convention, and to declare
inadmissible the remainder of the applications;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 13 October 2020 and 26 January 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-
mentioned date:

INTRODUCTION
1. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicants allege that
the domestic courts failed to justify their detention pending trial and that
there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for their continued detention.
They also allege in their observations, relying on Article 18 of the
Convention, that their Convention rights were restricted for purposes other
than those prescribed in the Convention.

THE FACTS
2. The applicants’ details and the names of their representatives are
listed in the Appendix.
3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov.

1
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

4. The first applicant was a student at Baku State University and the
second applicant was a student at Odlar Yurdu University at the time of the
events in question. They were members of the civic movement NIDA, a
non-governmental organisation established by a group of young people in
February 2011. According to its manifesto, NIDA seeks liberty, justice,
truth and change in Azerbaijan and it rejects violence and uses only non-
violent methods of protest.
5. Following a number of deaths of soldiers in the Azerbaijani army in
non-combat situations, from January until March 2013 a number of
demonstrations were held in Baku. The demonstrations received wide media
coverage and drew the public’s attention to the issue of deaths of soldiers
serving in the army, for which the government were harshly criticised. The
demonstrations were organised through social media and information about
them was disseminated through social media and the press. The applicants
actively participated in those demonstrations, and NIDA played a key role
in their organisation and conduct. Although the demonstrations were
peaceful, the police dispersed those who gathered and a number of
demonstrators were arrested (see, among many other cases concerning these
events, Mehtiyev and others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 20589/13 and 7 others,
6 April 2017; Bayramov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 19150/13 and 52022/13, 6 April
2017; and Hajili and others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 44699/13 and 2 others,
29 June 2017). One such demonstration had been scheduled for 10 March
2013.

II. INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE

APPLICANTS AND THEIR REMAND IN CUSTODY

A. In respect of the first applicant

6. On 7 March 2013 the first applicant was arrested by officers of the

Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) and the Prosecutor General’s
Office. On the same day a search was carried out in the flat where he lived.
The search of the flat allegedly uncovered 174.54 grams of narcotic
substances and twenty-eight leaflets worded “democracy urgently needed,
tel: + 994, address: Azerbaijan” (təcili demokratiya tələb olunur, tel : + 994,
ünvan: Azərbaycan). Despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government
to submit copies of all documents relating to the domestic proceedings, the
Government failed to provide the Court with a copy of the record of that
search.
7. On 9 March 2013 the first applicant was charged with a criminal
offence under Article 234.1 (illegal possession of a quantity of narcotic
substances exceeding that necessary for personal use without intent to sell)
of the Criminal Code.

2
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

8. On the same day the Nasimi District Court ordered that the first
applicant be detained for a period of two months. The court justified the first
applicant’s detention pending trial by citing the gravity of the charges
against him and the likelihood that if released he would abscond and
obstruct the investigation.
9. The first applicant did not appeal against the Nasimi District Court’s
decision of 9 March 2013.

B. In respect of the second applicant

10. On 7 March 2013 the second applicant, who was a minor at that
time, was arrested and taken to the premises of the MNS. On the same day a
search was carried out in the second applicant’s flat, where 252.27 grams of
narcotic substances and three Molotov cocktails were allegedly found.
Despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government to submit copies of
all the documents relating to the domestic proceedings, the Government
failed to provide the Court with a copy of the record of that search.
11. On 9 March 2013 the second applicant was charged with criminal
offences under Article 228.3 (illegal possession of weapons, committed by
an organised group) and Article 234.1 (illegal possession of a quantity of
narcotic substances exceeding that necessary for personal use without intent
to sell) of the Criminal Code. The acts attributed specifically to him were
that he had illegally obtained narcotic substances and that, by creating an
organised criminal group with another member of NIDA (B.G.), he had
illegally obtained three Molotov cocktails and then kept them at his place of
residence.
12. On the same day the Nasimi District Court ordered the second
applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of three months. The court
justified the second applicant’s detention pending trial by citing the gravity
of the charges and the likelihood that if released he would abscond and
obstruct the investigation.
13. The second applicant did not appeal against the Nasimi District
Court’s decision of 9 March 2013.

III. JOINT PUBLIC STATEMENT OF THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT

AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

14. On 8 March 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office and the MNS
issued a joint public statement to the press, stating that “illegal attempts to
undermine the social-political stability established in the country have
recently been made by some radical destructive forces” (son dövrlər radikal
yönümlü bəzi destruktiv qüvvələr tərəfindən ölkədə bərqərar olmuş
ictimai-siyasi sabitliyin pozulmasına yönəlmiş qanunazidd cəhdlər
göstərilir). The statement also confirmed that the applicants and B.G. had
been arrested for planning to incite violence and civil unrest during the

3
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

unlawful demonstration scheduled for 10 March 2013. It also said that

criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicants and B.G., as
narcotic substances had been found in their flats, that nineteen Molotov
cocktails had been found in B.G.’s flat and three in the second applicant’s
flat, and that twenty-eight leaflets worded “democracy urgently needed, tel:
+ 994, address: Azerbaijan” (təcili demokratiya tələb olunur, tel : + 994,
ünvan: Azərbaycan) had been found in the first applicant’s flat. The
statement further read as follows: “it was established during the preliminary
investigation that since mid-2012 all three individuals, being addicted to
narcotic substances and having become members of NIDA through the
Internet, had actively participated in a number of the organisation’s illegal
activities and had prepared [bottles containing] flammable liquid known as
‘Molotov cocktails’, [which were] found in their flats” (İlkin istintaqla
müəyyən edilmişdir ki, hər üç şəxs 2012-ci ilin ortalarından etibarən
internet vasitəsilə “Nida” vətəndaş hərəkatının üzvləri və narkotika
aludəçisi olmaqla, təşkilatın bir sıra qanunsuz tədbirlərində fəal iştirak
etmiş və yaşadıqları mənzillərdən aşkar edilmiş “Molotov kokteyli”
adlanan tez alışan maye onlar tərəfindən hazırlanmışdır).
15. On the same day NIDA issued a public statement, saying that the
arrest of the applicants and B.G. had been politically motivated and had
been aimed at silencing the protesters by creating a feeling of fear among
them before the demonstration planned for 10 March 2013.
16. Following the applicants’ arrest, on various dates in March and April
2013, four of seven board members of NIDA were also arrested within the
framework of the same criminal proceedings. The domestic proceedings
concerning the arrest and pre-trial detention of the board members of NIDA
have already been the subject of the Court’s judgment in the case of Rashad
Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 48653/13 and 3 others, 7 June
2018).

IV. EXTENSION OF THE APPLICANTS’ PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

A. In respect of the first applicant

17. On 15 March 2013 the first applicant lodged a request with the
Nasimi District Court to be put under house arrest rather than in pre-trial
detention. He asserted, in particular, that there was no risk of his absconding
or obstructing the investigation and that the courts had failed to take into
consideration his personal situation in that he had a permanent place of
residence and was a student.
18. On 18 March 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed that request,
finding that there was no need to use a preventive measure alternative to
remand in custody.
19. On 27 March 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the
first-instance court’s decision.

4
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

20. Following a request by the prosecutor, on 2 May 2013 the Nasimi

District Court extended the first applicant’s detention pending trial by two
months, until 7 July 2013. The court cited the complexity of the case, the
possibility of the first applicant’s absconding, the necessity of additional
time to carry out further investigative actions, his way of life (həyat tərzi)
and his links with foreign States. By the same decision the court also
rejected a request made by the first applicant to be put under house arrest
rather than in pre-trial detention.
21. On 4 May 2013 the first applicant appealed against that decision. He
specifically argued that the Nasimi District Court had failed to justify the
extension of his pre-trial detention.
22. On 13 May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal,
holding that the first-instance court’s decision had been justified.
23. On 2 July and 29 August 2013 the Nasimi District Court again
extended the first applicant’s detention pending trial for periods of two and
three months, respectively. The court relied on the same grounds, namely,
the gravity of the charges, the complexity of the case, the existence of a risk
of absconding and the need for additional time to carry out further
investigative actions.
24. The Nasimi District Court’s extension decisions were upheld on
appeal by the Baku Court of Appeal on 10 July and 6 September 2013,
respectively.
25. No further extension decisions were included in the case file.

B. In respect of the second applicant

26. Following a request by the prosecutor, on 30 May 2013 the Nasimi

District Court extended the second applicant’s detention pending trial by
three months, until 7 September 2013. The court cited the gravity of the
charges, the complexity of the case, the possibility of his absconding and
the need for additional time to carry out further investigative actions.
27. On 3 June 2013 the second applicant appealed against that decision,
arguing that the first-instance court had failed to justify his continued
detention. He asserted that there was no risk of absconding or obstructing
the investigation and that the first-instance court had failed to take into
consideration his personal situation. In that connection, he noted that the
lower court had ignored the fact that he was a minor, that he had no criminal
record and that he had a permanent place of residence.
28. On 6 June 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal,
finding that the extension of the second applicant’s detention pending trial
had been justified. The appellate court did not address any of the second
applicant’s specific arguments.
29. On 3 July 2013 the second applicant lodged a request with the court
asking to be put under house arrest rather than in pre-trial detention,
reiterating his arguments.

5
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

30. On 4 July 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request,
finding that there was no need to use a preventive measure alternative to
remand in custody. It did not examine the second applicant’s specific
complaints.
31. On 8 July 2013 the second applicant appealed against that decision,
reiterating his previous arguments.
32. On 11 July 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal,
finding that the first-instance court’s decision had been justified.
33. On 29 August 2013 the Nasimi District Court again extended the
second applicant’s detention pending trial for a period of three months. The
court relied on the same grounds, namely, the gravity of the charges, the
complexity of the case, and the necessity of additional time to carry out
further investigative actions.
34. On 2 September 2013 the second applicant appealed against that
decision, reiterating his previous complaints.
35. On 5 September 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi
District Court’s decision of 29 August 2013, finding it justified. The second
applicant was still a minor at that time.
36. No further extension decisions were included in the case file.

V. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

37. In September 2013 the first applicant was additionally charged with
new criminal offences under Article 28 (preparation of a crime), Article
220.1 (mass disorder) and Article 228.3 (illegal possession of weapons,
committed by an organised group) of the Criminal Code.
38. It furthermore appears that in September 2013 the second applicant
was additionally charged with new criminal offences under Article 28
(preparation of a crime) and Article 220.1 (mass disorder) of the Criminal
Code.
39. On 6 May 2014 the Baku Court of Serious Crimes found the
applicants guilty on all counts and sentenced the first applicant to seven and
a half years’ imprisonment and the second applicant to six years’
imprisonment.
40. On 16 December 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld that
judgment.
41. On 2 June and 15 October 2015 the Supreme Court upheld the
appellate court’s judgment in respect of the second and first applicants,
respectively.
42. On 17 October 2014 the second applicant and on 17 March 2016 the
first applicant were released from serving the remainder of their sentence
after being pardoned by presidential decrees.
43. Two separate applications (see applications nos. 57334/15 and
22334/16) concerning the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the

6
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

applicants, in which various complaints under Articles 6, 10, 11 and 18 of

the Convention were raised, are pending before the Court.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

I. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

44. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the

CCrP”) concerning pre-trial detention are described in detail in the Court’s
judgments in Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, §§ 83-102,
9 November 2010) and Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 16966/06,
§§ 35-49, 9 December 2010).
45. Under Article 428.2 of the CCrP, a minor is, for the purposes the
criminal proceedings, a person who was below the age of eighteen years at
the time of the commission of the crime in question. Remanding a suspect
or accused minor in custody is allowed only when it was related to the
commission of a “violent less serious crime”, a “serious crime” or a
“particularly serious crime” (Article 434.1 of the CCrP). Remanding a
minor is allowed as an exceptional measure and for as short a period of time
as possible (müstəsna tədbir kimi və mümkün qədər qısa müddət ərzində)
(Article 434.2 of the CCrP).
46. The relevant decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court
concerning pre-trial detention are described in detail in the Court’s
judgment in Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 49192/08, §§ 31-32, 6 March
2014).

II. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL

47. A number of relevant international documents are described in detail

in the Court’s judgment in Rashad Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan
(nos. 48653/13 and 3 others, §§ 79-81, 7 June 2018).
48. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989 and
ratified by Azerbaijan on 13 August 1992, in so far as relevant, reads as
follows:

“Article 1
“For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being
below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority
is attained earlier.
...
Article 37
“States Parties shall ensure that:

7
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

...
(b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The
arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and
shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of
time; ...;”
49. The part of General Comment No. 24 (CRC/C/GC/24) of the United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child concerning children’s rights
in the child justice system, dated 18 September 2019, reads:
“85. The leading principles for the use of deprivation of liberty are: (a) the arrest,
detention or imprisonment of a child is to be used only in conformity with the law,
only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time; and (b)
no child is to be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. Arrest is often
the starting point of pre-trial detention, and States should ensure that the law places
clear obligations on law-enforcement officers to apply article 37 in the context of
arrest. States should further ensure that children are not held in transportation or in
police cells, except as a measure of last resort and for the shortest period of time, and
that they are not held with adults, except where that is in their best interests.
Mechanisms for swift release to parents or appropriate adults should be prioritized.
86. The Committee notes with concern that, in many countries, children languish in
pre-trial detention for months or even years, which constitutes a grave violation of
article 37 (b) of the Convention. Pre-trial detention should not be used except in the
most serious cases, and even then only after community placement has been carefully
considered. Diversion at the pre-trial stage reduces the use of detention, but even
where the child is to be tried in the child justice system, non-custodial measures
should be carefully targeted to restrict the use of pre-trial detention.
87. The law should clearly state the criteria for the use of pre-trial detention, which
should be primarily for ensuring appearance at the court proceedings and if the child
poses an immediate danger to others. If the child is considered a danger (to himself or
herself or others) child protection measures should be applied. Pre-trial detention
should be subject to regular review and its duration limited by law. All actors in the
child justice system should prioritize cases of children in pre-trial detention.
88. In application of the principle that deprivation of liberty should be imposed for
the shortest appropriate period of time, States parties should provide regular
opportunities to permit early release from custody, including police custody, into the
care of parents or other appropriate adults. There should be discretion to release with
or without conditions, such as reporting to an authorized person or place. The
payment of monetary bail should not be a requirement, as most children cannot pay
and because it discriminates against poor and marginalized families. Furthermore,
where bail is set it means that there is a recognition in principle by the court that the
child should be released, and other mechanisms can be used to secure attendance.”
50. In January and February 2012 the United Nations Committee on the
Rights of the Child considered the combined third and fourth periodic report
of Azerbaijan and adopted the concluding observations
(CRC/C/AZE/CO/3-4) dated 12 March 2012. The relevant part of these
concluding observations states as follows:
“Administration of juvenile justice

8
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

75. While noting that the State party has undertaken the provision of some training
programmes on juvenile justice for law-enforcement professionals and has initiated
attempts to enact legislation on juvenile justice, the Committee remains deeply
concerned at the lack of significant improvement regarding the State party’s juvenile
justice system, despite the Committee’s recommendations in 1997
(CRC/C/15/Add.77, paras. 28 and 49) and 2006 (CRC/C/AZE/CO/2, para. 67). It
remains particularly concerned that:
(a) The State party has not adopted legislation on juvenile justice that addresses the
situation of children in conflict with the law in accordance with the provisions of the
Convention;
(b) There are no law-enforcement personnel specialised in child-related
investigations and in interrogation of children in conflict with the law;
(c) There are offences for which persons under the age of 18 are tried as adults;
(d) Persons under the age of 18 are often held in pre-trial detention for long periods
and are not always detained separately from adults, particularly in the case of female
detainees;
(e) Alternatives to the deprivation of liberty are not sufficiently considered and
applied, and persons under the age of 18 can be sentenced to detention for a period of
up to 10 years;
(f) The conditions of detention are often poor and inadequate, and overcrowding is
frequently a serious problem;
(g) Recovery, assistance and reintegration services for persons under the age of 18
in conflict with the law are insufficient.
76. The Committee reiterates its previous recommendations and urges the State
party to bring the system of juvenile justice fully into line with the Convention, in
particular articles 37, 40 and 39; with other United Nations standards in the field of
juvenile justice, including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), the United Nations Guidelines
for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines), the United
Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty and the
Guidelines for Action on Children in the Criminal Justice System; and with the
recommendations of the Committee made at its day of general discussion on juvenile
justice (CRC/C/46, paras. 203-238). In this regard, the Committee recommends that
the State party:
...
(c) Take all necessary measures to ensure that persons under the age of 18 are
deprived of liberty only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time,
in particular by developing and implementing alternatives to custodial sentences,
including the establishment of diversion centres and/or legal clinics for children in
conflict with the law;
...”

9
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

51. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the
Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment,
pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

52. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicants

complained that the domestic courts had failed to justify the need for their
pre-trial detention and to provide reasons for their continued detention.
Article 5 § 3 of the Convention reads as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c)
of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by
law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or
to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

A. Admissibility

53. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes
that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be
declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties’ submissions

54. The applicants maintained that the domestic courts had failed to
provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying their pre-trial detention. In
particular, they submitted that the domestic courts had merely quoted the
relevant legal provisions, without assessing their particular circumstances.
55. The Government contested the applicants’ submissions, pointing out
that the domestic courts had correctly assessed the applicants’ situation and
had delivered justified decisions on their pre-trial detention. They
furthermore submitted that the domestic courts had provided relevant and
sufficient reasons justifying the need for the applicants’ continued pre-trial
detention.

2. The Court’s assessment

56. The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law
and set out in the judgment Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC]

10
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

(no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016), which are equally pertinent to the
present case.
57. As regards the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes
of Article 5 § 3, the Court notes that this period commenced on 7 March
2013, when the applicants were arrested, and ended on 6 May 2014, when
the Baku Court of Serious Crimes convicted them. Thus, the applicants
were both held in pre-trial detention for one year, one month and twenty
nine days in total.
58. The Court notes that the applicants’ pre-trial detention was extended
by a number of decisions delivered by the Nasimi District Court and the
Baku Court of Appeal, which also dismissed the applicants’ requests to be
placed under house arrest rather than in pre-trial detention (see paragraphs
17-24 and 26-35 above). In that connection, the Court observes that both the
first-instance court and the appellate court used a standard template. In
particular, the domestic courts limited themselves to repeating a number of
grounds for detention in an abstract and stereotyped way, without giving
any reasons why they considered those grounds relevant to the applicants’
cases. They also failed to mention any case-specific facts relevant to those
grounds and to substantiate them with relevant and sufficient reasons (see
Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 191-94, 9 November 2010;
Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16966/06, §§ 87-91, 9 December 2010;
and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, §§ 64-68, 20 February 2014). The
Court also finds it striking that the domestic courts relied on the first
applicant’s way of life and links with foreign States as grounds for his
continued detention, without providing any explanation or information in
support of their reasoning (see paragraphs 20 and 22 above).
59. The Court notes that the domestic courts also cited irrelevant
grounds when they extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention. In
particular, they stated that more time was needed to complete the
investigation (see paragraphs 20, 23, 26 and 33 above). However, the Court
reiterates that, under Article 5 § 3, grounds such as the need to implement
further investigative measures, or the fact that proceedings have not yet
been completed, do not correspond to any of the acceptable reasons for
detaining a person pending trial (see Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan,
no. 49192/08, § 60, 6 March 2014, and Mammadov and Others
v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, § 99, 21 February 2019).
60. The Court also cannot overlook the fact that the domestic courts
completely disregarded the second applicant’s age in their decisions
extending his pre-trial detention. In that connection, the Court notes that the
second applicant’s pre-trial detention as a minor should have been
considered as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period
of time in accordance with Azerbaijan’s international obligations (see
paragraphs 48-50 above) and Article 434.2 of the CCrP (see paragraph 45
above). However, the domestic courts did not even try to elaborate in their
decisions on why this exceptional measure should have been taken in

11
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

respect of the second applicant (compare Nart v. Turkey, no. 20817/04,

§ 33, 6 May 2008; Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 46, 19 January
2012; and Mahmut Öz v. Turkey, no. 6840/08, § 36, 3 July 2012).
61. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that, by
using a standard formula merely listing the grounds for detention without
addressing the specific facts of the applicants’ cases, and by citing irrelevant
grounds, the authorities failed to give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to
justify the need for the extension of the applicants’ pre-trial detention.
62. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONVENTION,

TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE
CONVENTION

63. The applicants argued under Article 18 of the Convention that their
Convention rights had been restricted for purposes other than those
prescribed in the Convention. Article 18 provides:
“The restrictions permitted under [the] Convention to the said rights and freedoms
shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been
prescribed.”

A. Admissibility

64. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes
that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be
declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. The parties’ submissions

65. The applicants submitted that their arrest and detention had been
politically motivated and had been applied with the intention of punishing
and silencing them as NIDA members. In that connection, they submitted
that they had actively participated in protests against deaths of soldiers in
the Azerbaijani army and that a number of members of NIDA had been
arrested and detained over the previous few years on account of their
activities.
66. The Government’s submissions were exactly the same as those that
they had made in Rashad Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 48653/13
and 3 others, §§ 114-15, 7 June 2018).

12
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

2. The Court’s assessment

67. The Court will examine the applicants’ complaint in the light of the
relevant general principles set out by the Grand Chamber in its judgments in
Merabishvili v. Georgia ([GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 287-317, 28 November
2017) and Navalnyy v. Russia ([GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 Others,
§§ 164-165, 15 November 2018), as well as in the light of the Grand
Chamber’s findings in its judgment in Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2)
([GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 425, 429 and 436, 22 December 2020).
68. The Court considers at the outset that in the present application the
complaint under Article 18 constitutes a fundamental aspect of the case that
has not been addressed above in relation to Article 5 § 3 and merits a
separate examination.
69. The Court furthermore observes that the circumstances of the present
case and the complaint raised under Article 18 of the Convention by the
applicants are similar to those already examined by the Court in the case of
Rashad Hasanov and Others (in which the Court found a violation of
Article 18 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 5). In
particular, the applicants in the present case and the four applicants in the
case of Rashad Hasanov and Others were arrested and detained mainly on
the basis of the same criminal charges and were subsequently prosecuted
and convicted within the framework of the same criminal proceedings (see
Rashad Hasanov and Others, cited above, §§ 5-12 and §§ 65-66).
70. However, unlike in the case of Rashad Hasanov and Others, in the
present case the Court was not called upon to examine whether the
applicants were deprived of their liberty in the absence of a “reasonable
suspicion” of their having committed a criminal offence, as the applicants
did not appeal the original decisions depriving them of their liberty (see
paragraphs 9 and 13 above) and did not raise this complaint in their appeals
against the extension of their pre-trial detention, and thus did not exhaust
domestic remedies in this regard. The present case should therefore be
distinguished from cases in which an applicant’s right or freedom was
restricted for a purpose that was not prescribed by the Convention; in those
cases no issue arose in respect of a potential plurality of purposes (compare,
for example, Rashad Hasanov and Others, cited above, § 119; Aliyev
v. Azerbaijan, nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, § 206, 20 September 2018; and
Navalnyy, cited above, § 166). In the present case the Court must deal with
the issue of plurality of purposes in the examination of the applicants’
complaint under Article 18 of the Convention. The Court will thus examine
whether the domestic authorities’ decisions to keep the applicants in pre-
trial detention also pursued an ulterior purpose, and, if that is the case,
whether that ulterior purpose was the predominant purpose of the restriction
of the applicants’ right to liberty (compare Merabishvili, cited above,
§§ 318-54).

13
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

71. As regards the question of whether the applicants’ continued pre-

trial detention pursued an ulterior purpose, the Court has already found in
the case of Rashad Hasanov and Others (cited above, §§ 122-24) that the
joint public statement of 8 March 2013 issued by the Prosecutor General’s
Office and the MNS clearly targeted NIDA and its members, stating that
“illegal attempts to undermine the social-political stability established in the
country have recently been made by some radical destructive forces”. It is
also clear from the above-mentioned statement that from the very beginning
of the criminal proceedings, within the framework of which the applicants
were kept in pre-trial detention, the law-enforcement authorities tried to link
the applicants’ alleged possession of narcotic substances and Molotov
cocktails to their membership in NIDA by stating, without any reservation,
that “since mid-2012 all three individuals, being addicted to narcotic
substances and having become members of NIDA through the Internet, had
actively participated in a number of the organisation’s illegal activities” (see
paragraph 14 above) (see Rashad Hasanov and Others, cited above, § 122).
72. The Court furthermore held that the prosecution authorities intended
to demonstrate that NIDA and its members were “destructive forces” and an
organisation carrying out “a number of illegal activities”, solely relying on
the fact that narcotic substances and Molotov cocktails had allegedly been
found in the flats of NIDA members (ibid., § 123).
73. The Court also considers that the institution of criminal proceedings
against the applicants by the prosecuting authorities and their subsequent
pre-trial detention were used by the domestic authorities to prevent the
organisation of further protests against the government. In that connection,
the Court attaches weight to the timing of the institution of criminal
proceedings against the applicants on the eve of the demonstration
scheduled for 10 March 2013, following a series of demonstrations against
the government in which the applicants and other members of NIDA had
actively participated (compare Mammadli v. Azerbaijan, no. 47145/14,
§ 102, 19 April 2018, and Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan,
nos. 63571/16 and 5 others, § 153, 13 February 2020). The Court also does
not lose sight of the fact that the prosecuting authorities in their statement of
8 March 2013 tried to portray twenty-eight leaflets worded “democracy
urgently needed, tel: + 994, address: Azerbaijan” (təcili demokratiya tələb
olunur, tel : + 994, ünvan: Azərbaycan), found in the first applicant’s flat,
as illegal material proving the applicants’ intention to incite violence and
civil unrest during the unlawful demonstration scheduled for 10 March 2013
(see paragraph 14 above).
74. The Court considers that the above-mentioned elements are
sufficient to enable it to conclude that there was an ulterior purpose in the
applicants’ pre-trial detention; namely, it was aiming at punishing and
silencing NIDA members for their active involvement in the demonstrations
held against the government regarding the deaths of soldiers serving in the
army.

14
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

75. The Court must now determine whether the ulterior purpose in
question was the predominant purpose of the restriction of the applicants’
right to liberty. It reiterates that precisely which purpose is predominant in a
given case depends on all the relevant circumstances. In assessing that
point, the Court will have regard to the nature and degree of reprehensibility
of the alleged ulterior purpose, and will bear in mind the fact that the
Convention was designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of
a democratic society governed by the rule of law (see Merabishvili, cited
above, § 307).
76. In that regard, the applicants’ case should be viewed against the
backdrop of the arbitrary arrest and detention of government critics, civil
society activists and human-rights defenders in the country. The Court
points out that in the case of Aliyev (cited above, § 223) it found that its
judgments in a series of similar cases reflected a pattern of arbitrary arrest
and detention of government critics, civil society activists and human-rights
defenders through retaliatory prosecutions and misuse of the criminal law in
breach of Article 18. The Court reaffirmed this finding in its recent
judgments relating to the arrest and detention of civil society activists,
including members of NIDA (see Natig Jafarov v. Azerbaijan,
no. 64581/16, §§ 64-70, 7 November 2019; Ibrahimov and Mammadov,
cited above, §§ 151-58; and Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 2),
no. 30778/15, §§ 113-20, 27 February 2020) and considers that the
applicants’ situation in the present case reflects this pattern.
77. The Court further notes that the authorities apparently attached
utmost importance to their actions targeting NIDA as an organisation and its
administration. It therefore appears that the institution of criminal
proceedings against the applicants and their subsequent pre-trial detention
were used by the domestic authorities to prevent the organisation of further
protests against the government regarding deaths of soldiers serving in the
army (see paragraph 73 above) and, also, to paralyse NIDA’s activities
through the subsequent arrest and detention of four board members of
NIDA in March and April 2013. The Court has already found that their
arrest and detention had been in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
and Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 (see Rashad
Hasanov and Others, cited above, §§ 108 and 127). All of the above points
to a predominance of the ulterior purpose pursued by the authorities in the
applicants’ case.
78. This is also seen in the way that the domestic courts handled the
extension of the applicants’ pre-trial detention. In particular, the domestic
courts did not solely fail to give “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons to
justify the need for the extension of the applicants’ pre-trial detention, but
also completely ignored the second applicant’s age – a major element
which, if it had been taken into account, would probably have resulted in his
rapid release from pre-trial detention (see paragraph 60 above).

15
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

79. Bearing in mind all the circumstances of the case, the Court is
satisfied that the ulterior purpose of the restriction of the applicants’ liberty
resulting in their continued pre-trial detention constituted the predominant
purpose, which was to punish and silence NIDA members for their active
involvement in the demonstrations held against the government regarding
deaths of soldiers serving in the army.
80. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 18 of the
Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 5 § 3.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

81. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols
thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to
the injured party.”

A. Damage

1. Pecuniary damage
82. The second applicant claimed 124,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage. In that connection, he submitted that 121,391 US dollars
(USD) belonging to his father had been taken by the law-enforcement
authorities during the search carried out of his flat and that the remaining
part of the claimed amount corresponded to the sum that his family had
spent on sending him food and regularly visiting him in prison.
83. The Government asked the Court to reject the claim.
84. As to the part of the part of the claim concerning the amount of
money taken by the law-enforcement authorities during the search, the
Court notes that the present application does not concern the lawfulness of
the search in question. Moreover, the second applicant himself stated that
the money in question had belonged to his father, who is not an applicant in
the present case before the Court. Accordingly, the Court does not discern
any causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage
alleged.
85. As regards the part of the claim concerning the sum that his family
had spent on sending him food and regularly visiting him in prison, even
assuming a causal link between the pecuniary damage alleged and the
violations found, the Court notes that the second applicant did not submit
relevant documentary evidence supporting this claim.
86. Accordingly, it rejects the second applicant’s claims in respect of
pecuniary damage.

16
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

2. Non-pecuniary damage
87. Under this head, the first applicant claimed EUR 25,000 and the
second applicant EUR 100,000.
88. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed by the
applicants were unsubstantiated and excessive. They furthermore submitted
that 10,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) would constitute reasonable
compensation for the non-pecuniary damage allegedly sustained by the
applicants.
89. The Court considers that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary
damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of a
violation, and that compensation should thus be awarded. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the
Convention, the Court awards each applicant the sum of EUR 20,000 under
this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.

B. Costs and expenses

90. The first applicant claimed EUR 2,000 and the second applicant
claimed EUR 10,000 for legal services incurred in the proceedings before
the Court and the domestic courts. They submitted the relevant contracts
concluded with their representatives. The second applicant asked that the
compensation in respect of costs and expenses be paid directly into his
representative’s bank account.
91. The Government considered that the amounts claimed by the
applicants were excessive. In their view, AZN 1,000 would constitute
reasonable compensation for costs and expenses in respect of the first
applicant and AZN 1,500 in respect of the second applicant.
92. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown
that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to
quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its
possession and the amount of work carried out by the applicants’
representatives, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of
EUR 1,500 to the first applicant and the sum of EUR 2,000 to the second
applicant, covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicants. The Court also specifies that the amount
awarded in respect of the second applicant is to be paid directly into the
bank account of his representative.

C. Default interest

93. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate
should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank,
to which should be added three percentage points.

17
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

FOR THESE REASON, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the applications admissible;

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

in respect of both applicants;

4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention

taken in conjunction with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of
both applicants;

5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final, in accordance
with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be
converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, to each applicant, in respect of non-pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), to the first
applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, in respect
of costs and expenses;
(iii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), to the second applicant, plus
any tax that may be chargeable to him, in respect of costs and
expenses, to be paid directly into his representative’s bank
account;
(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;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 February 2021, pursuant

to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Victor Soloveytchik Síofra O’Leary

Registrar President

18
 AZIZOV AND NOVRUZLU v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT

APPENDIX

No. Application Lodged on Applicant name, Represented by

no. year of birth,
place of residence

1. 65583/13 27/09/2013 Mammad AZIZOV Fariz Namazli

1992
Shaki

2. 70106/13 17/10/2013 Shahin NOVRUZLU Nemat Karimli

1995
Baku

19