CASE OF LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN

FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 13527/18)
JUDGMENT
Art 2 (procedural) • Ineffective investigation into prison incident putting the

applicant’s life at risk • Omissions and unexplained discrepancies in the
domestic authorities’ conduct • Art 2 applicable given the serious and
imminent risk to the applicant’s life, his survival due to urgent medical
intervention, his ensuing critical condition and constant medical treatment
Art 2 (substantive) • Positive obligations • State’s failure to satisfy burden
of proof by providing satisfactory and convincing explanation as regards the
incident • Court unable to conclude that version of attempted suicide version
held up
STRASBOURG
20 May 2021
Request for referral to the Grand Chamber pending
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
In the case of Lapshin v. Azerbaijan,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
Jovan Ilievski,
Lado Chanturia,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
Ceyhun Qaracayev, ad hoc judge,
and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the application (no. 13527/18) 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 an Israeli, Russian and Ukrainian national, Mr Alexander Valeryevich
Lapshin (“the applicant”), on 7 March 2018;
the decision to give notice to the Azerbaijani Government (“the
Government”) of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the
Convention;
the decisions of the Russian and Ukrainian Governments not to intervene
in the case;
the withdrawal of Lətif Hüseynov, the judge elected in respect of
Azerbaijan, from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court) and
the decision of the President of the Section to appoint Ceyhun Qaracayev to
sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29
§ 1 (a));
the parties’ observations;
the respondent Government’s unsolicited submission of 1 April 2021,
and the decision not to admit it to the case file;
Having deliberated in private on 6 April 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns mainly the applicant’s complaints under Article 2
of the Convention that there was an attempt to his life in prison, and that the
domestic authorities failed to investigate the circumstances of the case.
THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Haifa, Israel. The
applicant was represented by Ms K.A. Moskalenko and Ms A. Maralyan,
lawyers practising in Strasbourg.
3. The Government were represented by their Agent Mr Ç. Əsgərov.
1
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised

as follows.
I. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
5. The applicant is a blogger and traveller.

6. When working for his blog posts, in April 2011 and October 2012 the
applicant travelled to the Nagorno-Karabakh region in a manner considered
unlawful in terms of the Azerbaijani law. In this connection, the Azerbaijani
authorities issued an international arrest warrant in respect of the applicant.
7. On the basis of the international arrest warrant, in December 2016 the
applicant was arrested in Belarus. On 7 February 2017 he was extradited to
Azerbaijan.
8. In Azerbaijan the applicant was placed in Kurdakhany prison.
9. On 20 July 2017 the applicant was convicted in Azerbaijan for
unlawfully traveling to Nagorno-Karabakh (Article 318.2 of the Criminal
Code: Crossing the State border outside the checkpoints). He was sentenced
to three years’ imprisonment and a mandatory expulsion from Azerbaijan
after he has served his prison sentence. Following his conviction, the
applicant instituted the relevant proceedings for his transfer to Israel where
he would serve the prison sentence.
10. On 11 September 2017 the applicant was pardoned by the President
of Azerbaijan. The Government provided two letters, dated 11 and
13 September 2017, allegedly handwritten by the applicant in Russian
thanking the President for pardoning him and thanking the prison officers
for saving him in prison in the context of the incident of 10 September
2017, described below (see paragraphs 12-19 below). The Government
submitted that these two letters had been written on 11 September 2017.
The applicant denied writing them (see paragraphs 67, 69 and 90 below).
11. On 14 September 2017, immediately after his discharge from the
hospital (see paragraph 19 below), the applicant was expelled to Israel.
II. THE INCIDENT OF 10 SEPTEMBER 2017
12. According to the applicant, on 10 September 2017, at about

midnight, while he was about to fall asleep in his cell in Kurdakhany prison,
where he was kept isolated from other inmates, the doors of the cell opened
and he was attacked by a group of masked men. One of the attackers held
his hands and legs, another one threw something (pillow or blanket) on his
face and a third one jumped on him and started strangling him with his
hands. The applicant was also beaten during the attack. Soon after the attack
began the applicant lost consciousness.
He regained consciousness after spending some two days in an intensive
medical care unit. He did not have voice, did not feel his tongue and the
2
right side of the face, and he had difficulties moving his right foot and hand.
He also had hearing impairments and could not at first properly coordinate
his movements.
13. According to the Government’s version of the events, on
9 September 2017 the applicant was expecting the arrival of his spouse,
together with their minor child, to visit him in prison. At the time, he was
held in the medical unit due to certain health issues. However, the child got
seriously ill in Tbilisi, Georgia, on their way to Baku. On the day of the
expected visit, the applicant learned this after talking twice to his wife on
the phone. Thereafter the prison officers noticed that the applicant became
depressed so the superintendent decided that he should be under constant
control in order to prevent him from taking any adverse actions.
On 10 September 2017 at 10.05 a.m. the prison guard A.A. observed that
the applicant had gone to the sanitary facility of his cell. A.A. reported this
to the superintendent Z.I., who ordered A.A. to control whether the
applicant would respond regularly to calls. Approximately three minutes
later, A.A. called the applicant and the applicant replied that he was in the
in-cell sanitary facility. When A.A. called the applicant for the second time,
the applicant did not respond. Thus, approximately at 10.12 a.m., A.A. and
Z.I. entered the room and found the applicant hanged on the towel rack on
the wall, using a shoulder strap. They immediately took the applicant off the
loop and put him on the bed and proceeded with artificial respiration. At
10.42 and 11.35 a.m. two emergency medical service teams attended to the
applicant and at 1.05 p.m. he was taken to the medical centre.
14. According to a medical report available to the Court in Azerbaijani
and English entitled “Epicrisis” of the Merkezi Clinic in Baku, dated
14 September 2017, the applicant was brought to that clinic on
10 September 2017 at 1.05 p.m. accompanied by a prison doctor. The
description of the applicant’s condition and his treatment flowing from the
report may be summarised as follows.
15. At the moment of the arrival, the applicant was unconscious and
could not express any complaints. However, the “surrounding persons”
explained that in early hours the prison staff had found him in the cell with
“violated consciousness and insufficient breath”. He had been immediately
given first aid and his life functions had been restored. However, his
consciousness had not been completely restored and his condition had not
stabilised so he was taken to the Merkezi Clinic.
16. At admission to the Merkezi Clinic the applicant was under sedation,
his speech was not clear and a psychomotor agitation was observed. There
were no visible changes in his musculoskeletal system. He had a surrounded
red spot in the frontal surface area of the throat and his breathing was
quickened with crepitation. A further CT examination of the throat revealed
that there was a linear break in the left part of the hyoid bone.
3
17. After the admission, the applicant was immediately taken for
intubation in the reanimation unit, where he was connected to the relevant
apparatus. Throughout the day his general condition was half-serious and he
was sedated. In the morning hours of the next day, 11 September 2017, the
applicant’s general condition was medium. He started breathing
spontaneously but with difficulties. The sedation was discontinued and the
applicant was able to answer questions with gestures. He had difficulties
talking. He underwent several examinations, including by a psychiatrist. On
the same day in the afternoon, at 4 p.m., the applicant’s consciousness was
clear and he continued breathing spontaneously. He had dysphonia and
respiratory tension while talking.
18. On 12 September 2017 the applicant’s consciousness was clear and
his breathing was satisfactory. However, he had difficulties swallowing so
was fed through a venous catheter. On the next day, 13 September 2017, the
dysphonia and the swallowing difficulties were still present, so feeding
through the venous catheter continued. However, no locomotive limitation
was observed in extremities. The applicant was examined by doctor R.C.
Some ecchymotic areas at frontal tongue “related to biting” were observed.
Problems with vocal chords were also observed.
19. On 14 September 2017 the applicant and his relatives “absolutely
refused [further] examination and treatment in general reanimation section,
and they return[ed] to Israel.”
III. THE DOMESTIC INQUIRY
20. According to the Government, after the incident of 10 September

2017, an official inquiry was immediately instituted to establish the
circumstances of the case. The inquiry was conducted by an investigator of
the Sabuncu District Prosecutor’s Office.
21. The Government provided to the Court several documents – in the
original language and English translations – concerning the inquiry they
referred to. These documents may be summarised as follows.
22. According to a Protocol on the examination of the incident scene
prepared by a senior investigator of the Sabuncu District Prosecutor’s
Office, dated 10 September 2017, the inspection of the scene was conducted
on the basis of the prison authorities’ report of attempted suicide by the
applicant in the prison’s medical-sanitary department. The Protocol
recorded that the applicant’s cell was located on the second floor of the
department. There was a surveillance camera attached to the celling of the
corridor. The metal door of the cell was equipped with a peephole and air
hole. In the cell, there were several items of personal belongings, namely a
notebook, pen, empty envelopes and an electric kettle. There were also two
beds that were tidy and the whole cell was tidy too, with no signs of
destruction and fighting. The sanitary facility was placed in the corner of the
4
cell and separated from the remainder of the cell by a plastic door. Inside
the sanitary facility there was a wall hook placed at the height of 1,90 m
from the ground. To the right of the wall hook there was a tightly fixed nail
which was also used as a wall hook. The nail was metal and the length of its
visible part was 3 cm. During the inspection, the senior guard Z.I. stated that
he had found the applicant hanged on the nail in question with a loop on his
neck. The inspection found a belt made of hard material on the junction of
the sanitary facility and the entrance door. The belt was 0,9 m long and
there was a loop on the belt. There were also two hoops located on the edge
of the belt beyond the loop. The Protocol concluded that “[n]o other items,
having importance for the case, were found.” The Protocol was
accompanied with photographs, which depict, amongst other, a belt tight in
a loop positioned on the floor.
23. According to an undated record containing a statement of the senior
prison guard Z.I., on the day of the incident he was in charge of supervising
the work of two on-duty guards, A.A. and T.A. At around 10.05 a.m., A.A.
informed Z.I. that the applicant had entered the in-cell sanitary facility so
Z.I. instructed A.A. to report if the applicant would linger in there or would
not respond to calls. At around 10.12 a.m., A.A. reported to Z.I. that the
applicant had not responded to calls so they immediately entered the cell. In
the in-cell sanitary facility they found the applicant hanged with a belt of his
bag on the nail designed for hanging towels. He was unconscious. Z.I.
started lifting him on his feet and the other guard opened the knot of the
belt. Z.I. then started providing artificial respiration to the applicant. The
prison doctors were also called in. At around noon the applicant was taken
by an ambulance to the specialised hospital. Z.I. could not explain the
applicant’s conduct. However, the applicant had told him two days before
that he had spoken to his wife who could not come to visit him because their
child got sick. The applicant had been in bad mood over this so Z.I.
informed the prison’s hierarchy. The head and deputy head of the prison and
the head of the medical unit had spoken to the applicant on 9 September
2017. Z.I. also confirmed that the applicant had never before attempted to
commit suicide in the prison.
24. According to an undated record containing a statement of the prison
guard T.A., he was on duty on the day of the incident with A.A. Their work
was supervised by Z.I. A few minutes after 10.05 a.m. A.A. called the
applicant, who had entered the in-cell sanitary facility, but the applicant did
not answer. They immediately reported that to Z.I. and they entered the cell.
They found the applicant hanged with a belt of his bag on the nail for
hanging towels. Z.I. lifted the applicant while T.A. and A.A. opened the
knot on the belt and hanged the belt [somewhere] in the room. They also
provided artificial respiration to the applicant and splashed his face with
water. Afterwards the applicant was provided medical aid by doctors and he
was taken to the hospital. T.A. did not hear that the applicant had ever
5
attempted suicide. However, the applicant had said to T.A. that he was
worried about and missing his family. Two days before the incident the
applicant had learned that his child got sick and was anxious over that. He
was thus treated with care in prison.
25. An undated statement of the prison guard A.A. confirmed that on the
day of the incident he was on duty with T.A. and under the supervision of
Z.I. After he had seen that the applicant entered the in-cell sanitary facility
at around 10.05 a.m., A.A. reported the matter to Z.I., who instructed him to
report if the applicant would linger in there. A few minutes later, A.A.
called the applicant and he answered. However, soon afterwards A.A. again
called the applicant and got no reply. A.A. therefore reported the matter to
Z.I. and they entered the cell. They saw the applicant hanged with a belt of
his bag on the nail for hanging towels. Z.I. immediately started lifting the
applicant while A.A. and T.A. opened the knot on the belt. They then put
the applicant on the floor and provided artificial respiration. They also
splashed water on his face. Afterwards the medical services intervened and
the applicant was taken to a specialised hospital. A.A. had no information
that the applicant would have ever attempted suicide in prison. The
applicant had only told them how he missed his family. A.A. heard that a
day or two before the incident the applicant’s child had fallen ill so the
applicant had been worried about that.
26. By a decision of 4 October 2017, the investigator refused to initiate a
criminal case into the incident. In his decision, the investigator referred to
the Protocol on the inspection of the scene, the statements of witnesses (Z.I.,
the head and a doctor of the prison’s medical-sanitary department, as well as
two medical assistants, and the prison guards T.A. and A.A.) and documents
from the prison files. He also referred – without further specification – to a
“medical epicrisis issued regarding [the applicant] on 11 September 2019”.
27. On the basis of this evidence, the investigator found that the
applicant had attempted to commit suicide in prison and that no elements of
criminal responsibility existed in that respect. The investigator also noted
that on 8 September 2017 the applicant had spoken to his wife and learned
that his child had fallen ill while traveling to visit him in Azerbaijan. The
child had a fever and was admitted to a hospital. The applicant had missed
his family and had been in a bad mood.
28. The investigator’s decision indicated that it should be served on the
applicant, who should be advised of the right to appeal before the relevant
prosecutor or the court. There is no indication or evidence available to the
Court of any steps taken to serve the decision on the applicant.
6
IV. OTHER DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE CASE
A. The applicant’s medical examinations and expert evidence
1. The applicant’s medical examinations in Israel

29. Upon his arrival in Israel, on 14 September 2017 (see paragraph 19
above), the applicant was admitted to the Chaim Sheba Medical Centre in
Tel Aviv, where he underwent physical and psychiatric examination.
30. According to a discharge letter of the Chaim Sheba Medical Centre
of 14 September 2017, there were indications of a strangulation attempt.
However, as it was not clear whether this was the result of a suicide attempt
or a violent attack, a psychiatric examination was requested.
31. A report on the psychiatric examination of the same day noted that
the applicant had visible signs of strangulation and multiple bruises. In the
course of the psychiatric interview, the applicant denied any suicidal
thoughts and argued that somebody had tried to kill him in prison. The
impression of the psychiatrist was that there was no evidence of psychosis
or dangerousness or affective disturbances. A diagnosis of possible acute
stress disorder was made.
32. In the next several days the applicant underwent further medical
examinations in Israel.
33. According to a medical report of 17 September 2017, the applicant
complained that he had been subjected to strangulation by hanging in a
prison in Azerbaijan. A neurological examination found that the applicant
regained speech and swallowing functions and physical strength, except for
the inability to lift the right arm. He had a trace of prick in the right shoulder
area with signs of hematoma. He also had hematoma on the right and left
forearms.
34. A medical report entitled “Visit summary” of 25 September 2017,
issued by the Rambam Medical Campus, noted that the applicant alleged
that on 10 September 2017 other inmates in a prison in Azerbaijan had tried
to strangle him with a rope. He had ended up in an intensive care unit and
started breathing spontaneously only on 13 September 2017. Since then he
had difficulties speaking and hardly managed to eat or drink. The “Visit
summary” report also referred to a medical examination of 18 September
2017 which had found signs of strangulation on the skin of the applicant’s
throat. These signs were no longer visible in a follow up examination. In
sum, the “Visit summary” report found that the “patient suffered a blunt
trauma of the throat two weeks ago”.
2. The medial expert reports provided by the applicant

35. The applicant privately commissioned two medical expert reports
concerning his injuries. In this connection, for the purpose of the medical
7
reports he provided the available documents concerning his medical

treatment in Azerbaijan and Israel and a series of photographs apparently
depicting the injuries he had sustained in the impugned incident. These
photographs, also available to the Court, show bruises and contusions on the
applicant’s face, tip of the nose, other probably upper parts of the body, left
inner forearm, and the right hand.
36. According to a report produced by a team of Russian doctors,
undated, the applicant did not try to commit suicide by hanging as many
indications of a hanging process were missing such as the lack of spinal,
fracture on the base of the skull, different characteristic haemorrhages,
vomiting and urinary and bowel incontinence. According to the report, there
was a simulation of a suicide attempt by unidentified persons, namely
strangulation of the applicant and then a simulation of hanging.
37. According to a report produced by a forensic expert from Croatia of
28 February 2018, the applicant sustained a number of blunt force injuries
of the face, body and arms. These injuries had been sustained several days
before they were mentioned in the medical documentation and several days
before the available photographs were taken. These blunt force injuries have
been applied by third party(ies). In addition, the applicant was strangulated
(manual strangulation) that resulted with hyoid bone fracture, laryngeal
oedema and ecchymolic haemorrhage in oral cavity at frontal tongue, as
well as soft tissue trauma of muscular structure with the consequences of
voice weakness and difficulty swallowing. This type of strangulation was
caused by third party(ies). It could be classified as an attempted murder. All
injuries that the applicant sustained could not be the result of a suicide
attempt.
38. The forensic expert further recommended asking for the medical
documentation from the prison and a report from the prison staff who found
the applicant in his cell providing description on how and where exactly he
was found. The expert also recommended clarifying how could it be
possible that the first medical documentation from the Merkezi Clinic had
not described or even mentioned any injuries while the following one
produced by the Chaim Sheba Medical Centre recorded (although without
any description) signs of strangulation and multiple bruises.
3. The medical expert report provided by the Government

39. After the notice of the present case was given to the Government,
they commissioned an expert report from the Scientific-Practical and
Educational Association of Forensic Medical Expertise and Pathological
Anatomy of the Ministry of Healthcare of Azerbaijan.
40. On 19 April 2019 a report was prepared by a team of experts. It
would appear that the experts had at their disposal various medical and other
records and reports concerning the incident at issue, including some of those
available to the Court (see paragraphs 14-19, 30-34 and 36 above).
8
41. The findings of the expert report may be summarised as follows.

Where appropriate, reference is made to the documents to which the experts
referred in their report.
42. According to a first intervention report of the prison medical team,
upon their arrival to the cell they found the applicant on the floor and the
prison guards providing him artificial respiration. The medical team
immediately administered a comprehensive first medical aid, which
included cardiac massage and mouth-to-month and mouth-to-nose
resuscitation as well as administration of different injections. The applicant
had a visible strangulation mark on the neck. A large amount of urinary
excretion was also found.
43. In his “explanation” of 10 September 2017 the senior prison guard
Z.I. stated that at around 10.15 a.m. he had looked through the peephole of
the applicant’s cell and saw that the applicant was not there. Z.I. had
therefore entered the cell and opened the door of the in-cell sanitary facility,
where he found the applicant trying to commit suicide by hanging himself
on a wall hook with the belt of his bag. Z.I. had immediately reported this to
his hierarchy and called other guards on duty. Together they had prevented
the applicant from committing suicide and afterwards the medical team took
over.
44. In an “explanation” of 10 September 2017, the prison guard T.A.
stated that at around 10.15 a.m. Z.I. had called him to come to the
applicant’s prison cell. Upon his (T.A.’s) arrival there, he had seen that the
applicant was trying to commit suicide by hanging himself on a wall hook
with the belt of his bag. Together with Z.I. they had prevented the applicant
from committing suicide and afterwards the medical team took over.
45. In an “explanation” of 10 September 2017, the prison guard A.A.
stated that at around 10.15 a.m. he had called Z.I. to come to the applicant’s
cell. When A.A. had entered the cell he saw the applicant in the in-cell
sanitary facility hanging himself on a wall hook with the belt of his bag.
Together with Z.I. they had prevented the applicant from committing
suicide and afterwards the medical team took over.
46. An “explanation” of 10 September 2017 was also provided by the
assistant to the chief of the shift A.I. He stated that at around 10.15 a.m. Z.I.
had reported to him via internal telephone line that the applicant had
attempted to commit suicide by hanging himself on a wall hook with the
belt of his bag. A.I. had then informed the medical team, who took over the
applicant’s treatment. A.I. also confirmed that the applicant’s security was
fully ensured by the prison guards.
47. According to a psychiatric report from the prison of 11 September
2017, the reason for the applicant’s act of self-harm was the fact that his
family lived abroad, his child was in hospital and conflict had arisen in the
sphere of inter-personal relationship. This psychiatric report was allegedly
based on the observations and conversations with the applicant.
9
48. The expert report also referred to eight photographs depicting the
various injuries which the applicant sustained. Three photographs said to
have been taken in the Merkezi Clinic on 10 September 2017, while other
photographs were taken elsewhere, probably in Israel. According to the
experts, the appearance of the traces on the applicant’s neck differed when
comparing the two groups of photographs. The experts considered the traces
depicted on the photographs taken in Israel to be an artefact.
49. The experts also challenged the findings of the expert report
provided by the Russian doctors (see paragraphs 36 above), pointing to the
alternative conclusions on the dynamic of injuries which the applicant had
sustained. In particular, they considered that certain indications confirmed
the suicide attempt by hanging, such as information from the initial medical
report showing, according to the experts, that the applicant had urinary and
bowel incontinence. Moreover, the medical reports recorded a tongue
injury, which was often observed in cases of hanging. The visible injuries
on the applicant’s forearms resulted when the intravenous injections had
been administered during the provision of the first aid, while some other
injuries could have resulted from convulsions during the hanging and
banging against the wall.
50. In conclusion, the experts found that on 10 September 2017 at about
10.15 a.m. the applicant had hanged himself on the wall rack in the in-cell
sanitary facility but was saved thanks to the vigilance of the prison guards.
In this connection, the experts also noted inconsistencies in the applicant’s
account of the events as recorded in different medical records. However,
they considered that this was confabulation resulting from amnesia (loss of
some part of memory), which occurs during hanging.
B. The applicant’s complaints to the Azerbaijani authorities
51. On 1 February 2018 the applicant sent an email to the Deputy

Prosecutor General of Azerbaijan requesting information about the
investigation into the incident of 10 September 2017, which he considered
to be attempted murder against him. He also explained that he was not able
to travel to Azerbaijan to pursue his complaints as he was on a published list
of undesirable persons in Azerbaijan so his entry to the country was
prohibited.
52. According to the applicant, as he received no reply, on 17 February
2018 he sent a letter to the Deputy Prosecutor General of Azerbaijan
requesting information on the course of investigation into the attempted
murder against him (in his letter the applicant described the incident in the
manner as noted in paragraph 12 above). The applicant stressed in his letter
that on 15 September 2017 he had voiced his allegations of attempted
murder in interviews given to several Russian, Israeli, Armenian, Ukrainian,
British and American media outlets.
10
53. The applicant explained that his letter to the Deputy Prosecutor
General of Azerbaijan was dispatched from Latvia where he was at the time
traveling. In this connection, the applicant provided a postal dispatch slip of
the Latvian post indicating that an item was sent on 17 February 2018 to the
Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The applicant
also provided a postal delivery report indicating that the same item was
delivered at destination on 28 February 2018. However, he never received a
reply to his complaints.
54. According to the Government, the Prosecutor General’s Office did
not receive the applicant’s letter. After the notice of the present case was
given to the Government, the Prosecutor General’s Office instructed an
internal inquiry into the matter.
55. On 26 April 2019 the Ministry of Transport, Communications and
High Technologies of Azerbaijan reported to the Prosecutor General’s
Office that a postman had lost the letter in unknown circumstances and that
the letter had not therefore been delivered at its destination. This report was
accompanied by a statement of the postman explaining that due to serious
health issues (not specifying which) and huge workload he had not been
able to perform his duties properly at the relevant time. He could not
remember in which circumstances he had lost the letter and the absence of
the recipient’s signature on the delivery note proved this. The postman’s
statement was supported by a statement of the Deputy Head of the relevant
post department.
V. OTHER RELEVANT FACTS
56. The applicant provided to the Court two CDs allegedly containing
audio recordings of the following telephone conversations:
- On 8 September 2017 between the applicant (from prison) and his
wife. The applicant’s wife informed the applicant that she would not be able
to visit him in prison because their daughter was unwell. They also
discussed the applicant’s anticipated transfer from Azerbaijan and whether
that could happen before the end of the month;
- On 11 September 2017 between the applicant’s wife and the prison
staff. In the conversation, the applicant’s wife mentioned that early on that
day a “decree” had been signed ordering the applicant’s release. She insisted
speaking to the applicant but a prison guard said that it was not possible at
the moment and reassured her that the applicant was fine.
57. The applicant also provided to the Court a certified English
translation of a document issued by the Global Consular Service of the
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated 13 February 2019, informing the
applicant that the Israeli authorities had received messages from the
Azerbaijani authorities stating that in response to the various publications in
11
the media ascribed to the applicant the Azerbaijani authorities intended to

renew criminal proceedings against him, with all the ensuing consequences.
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

58. Article 318.2 of the Criminal Code proscribes, inter alia, crossing of
the State border of the Republic of Azerbaijan outside the border
checkpoints. Other relevant domestic law has been summarised in
Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 47095/09, § 38, 4 May 2017.
THE LAW
I. PRELIMINARY ISSUE
59. The Government submitted that the applicant had not been properly
represented before the Court. In their view, the contact between the
applicant and his representatives was of a formal character and did not allow
the applicant to have knowledge of the proceedings. This was clear from
some misconceived Facebook posts made by the applicant about the course
of the present proceedings before the Court.
60. The applicant insisted that he had duly given a power of attorney to
his representatives before the Court and that he was in constant contact with
them. This was obvious from the fact that he had provided them with a
number of handwritten statements explaining various aspects of the case
pending before the Court. The applicant also denied that the Facebook posts
had been published on his Facebook account (see paragraph 69 below).
61. The Court reiterates that an applicant’s representative must not only
supply a power of attorney or written authority (Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of
Court) but that it is also important that contact between the applicant and his
or her representative be maintained throughout the proceedings (see V.M.
and Others v. Belgium (striking out) [GC], no. 60125/11, § 35,
17 November 2016).
62. In the present case, the applicant is represented before the Court on
the basis of a written power of attorney issued to Ms Moskalenko and
Ms Maralyan. It is not in dispute between the parties that during the
proceedings the representatives had also relied upon and provided to the
Court a number of written explanations given by the applicant. There is
therefore nothing in the case file that could call into question the
representatives’ account of their continuous contact with the applicant. This
conclusion is not called into question by the Government’s arguments as
regards the applicant’s alleged Facebook posts, which is a matter that the
Court will address below in the context of the Government’s objection of
abuse of the right of individual application (see paragraph 79 below).
12
63. In view of the above, the Court dismisses the Government’s

objection.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
64. The applicant complained that there had been an attempt to his life in
prison, and that the domestic authorities had failed to investigate the
circumstances of the case.
65. The applicant relied on Article 2 of the Convention, which reads as
follows:
“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of
his life intentionally ...
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this
article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely
necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”
A. Admissibility
1. The parties’ arguments

(a) The Government
66. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust
the domestic remedies with respect to the investigator’s decision not to open
a criminal case into the incident of 10 September 2017 which he could have
challenged before a court. They stressed that at the time of the adoption of
this decision the applicant had already left Azerbaijan and his whereabouts
had been unknown to the Azerbaijani authorities. Nevertheless, it had been
open to the applicant to seek that decision from the authorities. In this
connection, with respect to the applicant’s letter allegedly sent to the
Prosecutor General’s Office from Latvia, the Government argued that it had
been established that this letter had never reached its destination. Moreover,
there was no evidence that it was the applicant’s letter available now to the
Court that had actually been sent from Latvia. The Government further
stressed that the applicant had failed to indicate the return address on the
letter so it would not have been possible for the Azerbaijani authorities to
reach him. The Government also argued that the letter was undated and that
one-time attempt to reach the authorities could not satisfy the requirement
of necessary diligence to exhaust the domestic remedies.
67. The Government contended that the applicant had abused the right of
individual application for several reasons. In particular, he had made on
13
Facebook disparaging and highly offensive statements concerning the

Government’s Agent. The medical expert report produced by a group of
Russian doctors which the applicant provided to the Court was unreliable
and the doctors who produced the report were not experts but simply
physicians specialised in paediatrics. The applicant had also misled both the
Russian doctors and the Croatian forensic expert by not providing them the
relevant information. The applicant sought to mislead the Court by arguing
that he had not written the letters sent to the Azerbaijani President.
However, the Government had obtained a handwriting expert report finding
that he had written the letters. Moreover, the applicant had made various
other arguments before the Court which were misleading. He had not
provided the proper translation of the letter which he had received from the
Israeli authorities. The audio recordings of telephone conversation which he
had provided to the Court contained no reference to the date or time when
those conversations took place and were thus not admissible as evidence.
(b) The applicant

68. The applicant stressed that the investigator’s decision not to open a
criminal case into the incident of 10 September 2017 had never been served
on him. However, the Azerbaijani authorities had been aware of his address
in Israel. In any event, they could have sent him that decision electronically.
The applicant further pointed out that he had first made his complaints to
the Prosecutor General’s Office on 1 February 2018 via email. However, as
he received no reply, he sent a letter on 17 February 2018 via post from
Latvia, where he travelled at the time. Thus, the Government’s arguments as
regards the second letter that had allegedly been lost could not apply as
regards the email sent on 1 February 2018. Moreover, the applicant argued
that he had no effective remedies in Azerbaijan. In particular, according to
the information provided by the Israeli authorities (see paragraph 57 above),
it did not appear possible for him to return back to Azerbaijan. He also
contended that he had explained to the Prosecutor General’s Office that he
had been on a list of undesirable persons in Azerbaijan. Moreover, he was
perceived as a supporter of Armenia and an “Armenian spy” and thus any
complaint he might have had was without any prospect of success.
69. The applicant submitted that he had duly presented all relevant facts
to the Court and that it was the Government who made insulting statements
against his honour and dignity, and had sought to mislead the Court. He
argued that the Facebook account from which the disparaging statements
had been made did not belong to him. It contained incorrect information
about his education, place of residence and other personal details. In this
connection, the applicant suggested that he had been the target of
Azerbaijani media and politicians who sought to discredit him. The
applicant insisted that he had provided all available materials he had to the
medical experts. He stressed that the Russian doctors who provided the
14
expert report had been experienced medical doctors and thus qualified as
experts, while paediatrics was their additional qualification. The applicant
further argued that in one of the recorded telephone conversations his wife
made reference to the fact that on that day the applicant had been pardoned.
The date of the recording could therefore be established. As regards the
Israeli authorities’ document, the applicant pointed out that he had provided
a certified English translation of it. The applicant further insisted that he had
not written the letters of 11 and 13 September 2017 to the Azerbaijani
President as that was impossible given his health condition at that time. He
also contended that the handwriting expert report could not be accepted as it
was one-sided.
2. The Court’s assessment

(a) Applicability of Article 2 of the Convention
70. The applicability of Article 2 in the circumstances of the present
case has not been disputed by the parties. However, this being a matter that
goes to the Court’s jurisdiction and which the Court must establish on its
own motion (see, for instance, Jeanty v. Belgium, no. 82284/17, § 58,
31 March 2020), it finds it appropriate to note the following.
71. According to the Court’s case-law, the protection of Article 2 of the
Convention may be invoked not only in the event of the death of the victim
of violent acts. Article 2 also comes into play in situations where the person
concerned was the victim of an activity or conduct, whether public or
private, which by its nature put his or her life at real and imminent risk and
he or she has suffered injuries that appear life-threatening as they occur,
even though he or she ultimately survived (see, most recently, Tërshana
v. Albania, no. 48756/14, § 132, 4 August 2020, with further references).
72. In the present case, the medical and other evidence available to the
Court clearly shows that as a result of the incident of 10 September 2017 the
applicant’s life was at serious and imminent risk and that he survived due to
the urgent medical intervention. His situation remained critical for several
days after the incident and required constant medical treatment, including
reanimation and feeding through a venous catheter (see paragraphs 15-18
above).
73. It therefore follows, leaving aside at this point the parties’ different
accounts of the circumstances of the case, that Article 2 is applicable, even
though the applicant ultimately survived.
(b) Exhaustion of domestic remedies

74. The general principles on exhaustion of domestic remedies are set
out in Vučković and Others v. Serbia ((preliminary objection) [GC],
nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014).
15
75. The Court notes that there is no dispute between the parties that the
decision of the investigator of the Sabuncu District Prosecutor’s Office not
to open a criminal case concerning the incident of 10 September 2017 (see
paragraph 28 above) was not served on the applicant. Although it is true that
when that decision was adopted the applicant was no longer in Azerbaijan,
there is no indication that the Azerbaijani authorities took any measure, such
as through the diplomatic channels with Israel to which the applicant was
expelled (see paragraph 57 above, concerning the exchange of information
between the two countries) or otherwise, to establish his whereabouts and to
serve that decision on him.
76. The Court further notes that the applicant attempted to reach the
Azerbaijani authorities with a view to obtain information about any
investigation concerning his alleged attempted murder. He first sent an
email to the Prosecutor General’s Office on 1 February 2018 and then,
according to him, a letter via post in Latvia on 17 February 2018. In this
connection, whatever the circumstances of delivery of the applicant’s letter
of 17 February 2018 (see paragraphs 54-55 above), it should be noted that
the Government did not deny the receipt of the email sent by the applicant
on 1 February 2018. It therefore follows that the Azerbaijani authorities had
a possibility to contact the applicant and to inform him of the investigator’s
decision. However, they failed to take any initiative in that regard.
77. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaint
cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (compare
Shuriyya Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69460/12, §§ 42-44, 10 September
2020). The Government’s objection in this regard must therefore be
dismissed.
(c) Abuse of the right of individual application

78. An application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual
application in case of use of particularly vexatious, insulting, threatening or
provocative language by the applicant directed, inter alia, against the
respondent government or its Agent (see, for instance, Petrov and X
v. Russia, no. 23608/16, § 74, 23 October 2018). It may also be rejected on
this ground if it was knowingly based on untrue facts. However, the
applicant’s intention to mislead the Court must always be established with
sufficient certainty (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28,
ECHR 2014, with further references).
79. As regards, firstly, the Government’s argument that the applicant
used offensive language in Facebook posts directed against their Agent, the
Court notes that the applicant denied making the impugned posts and argued
that they had not been made on his Facebook account. In this connection, he
provided details differentiating his Facebook account from several other
false accounts apparently opened on his name (see paragraph 69 above). For
their part, the Government did not challenge the applicant’s explanations.
16
The Court cannot therefore establish that the applicant used offensive
language directed against the respondent Government’s Agent and thus
abused his right of individual application.
80. With respect to the other arguments made by the Government
concerning the relevance and probative value of different items of evidence
provided by the applicant, including the credibility of his different
submissions, the Court notes, having regard to the material available to it
and the applicant’s explanations (see paragraph 69 above), that there is
nothing allowing it to conclude that the applicant knowingly presented
untrue facts and intentionally sought to mislead the Court. The fact that the
Government disagree with the applicant on the essential aspects of his
submissions and the relevance and probative value of evidence he provided
cannot call into question this conclusion.
81. In this connection, it is important to stress that parties can submit
arguments and counter-arguments related to their cases and the Court can
accept or reject them, but such contentious submissions cannot in
themselves be regarded as an abuse of the right of individual application
(see Hoti v. Croatia, no. 63311/14, § 92, 26 April 2018, with further
references). Moreover, the Court is free to assess the admissibility and
relevance as well as the probative value of each item of evidence before it.
When assessing evidence it is not bound by formulae and adopts the
conclusions supported by the free evaluation of all evidence, including such
inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions (see
Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 315, 28 November 2017).
82. It therefore follows from the above that the Government’s objection
must be dismissed.
(d) Conclusion
83. The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint is neither manifestly
ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the
Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) The applicant

84. The applicant argued that the attempt to his life occurred while he
was under the full control of the authorities. However, the Government had
failed to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation concerning the
circumstances of the event. In this connection, relying on the available
audio recording, the applicant pointed out that on 11 September 2017 the
prison authorities had concealed to his wife that he was in the reanimation
17
unit. The applicant had also received a letter from the former Minister of
Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan and a well-known Azerbaijani politician
saying that his (the applicant’s) experience had shown that his activities in
favour of Armenia were not safe. The applicant further pointed out that
there were many inconsistencies in the statements of the prison guards as
reproduced in the Azerbaijani expert medical report when compared to their
statements given to the investigator of the Sabuncu District Prosecutor’s
Office (see paragraphs 23-25 and 43-46 above). These inconsistencies
concerned the critical aspects of the case, which called into question the
credibility of the authorities’ version of the events.
85. The applicant also argued that the Government’s submissions before
the Court were inconsistent and misconceived. In particular, he pointed to
the fact that the Government had not properly indicated the date on which
he had spoken to his wife. Moreover, the Government’s suggestion of his
emotional disturbance after the conversation with his wife had been
unsubstantiated and illogical. The same was true for the Government’s
suggestion that he – a man weighing around 85 kilograms – could hang
himself on a wall nail that was three centimetres long and at height of some
1,90 m above the ground. In any event, the Government provided no
explanation on how it was possible that he had had a shoulder strap of a bag
in his cell, how would he have managed to cut it off and why no bag was
found in the cell following the incident. The Government had also failed to
provide all relevant documents concerning his case and the expert report on
which they relied was unsubstantiated.
86. In the applicant’s view, the above circumstances suggested that the
Azerbaijani authorities were at least complicit in the attempted murder
against him. They had been aware that he had been under a threat from
other prisoners. Moreover, even if it would be accepted that he had
attempted suicide, as the Government incorrectly suggested, then it would
follow that the authorities had failed to take measures to protect his life.
However, the applicant insisted that this was not what had happened.
87. The applicant also argued that the domestic authorities had failed to
conduct an effective investigation into the attempted murder against him.
He stressed that in reality no investigation had been open. The inquiry that
had been conducted was superficial, hastily concluded and ineffective.
Thus, in particular, the authorities had failed to clarify the circumstances in
which he would have a bag belt in the cell; they had inconsistently recorded
the circumstances in which the belt had been found; they had failed to
address the inconsistencies in the prison guards’ statements about the
circumstances of the case; they had failed to interview him (the applicant) or
his wife; and there was no evidence that any forensic examination had been
conducted.
18
(b) The Government

88. The Government argued that the applicant’s allegations had been
inconsistent as regards the timing of the event. Moreover, for the reasons
already explained (see paragraph 67 above), the medical report produced by
a group of Russian doctors was unreliable. As regards the report produced
by the Croatian forensic expert, the Government argued that it was
inconsistent and incomplete, which was clear from the recommendations
made in that report (see paragraph 38 above).
89. On the other hand, the expert report provided by the Government
had been produced by a team of experts from Azerbaijan and that report had
been complete and reliable (see paragraphs 39-50 above). It had clearly
found that the applicant had attempted suicide by hanging in prison and
thereby confirmed the authorities’ version of the events. This report had also
refuted the findings made by the group of Russian doctors. In the
Government’s view, the report thereby effectively refuted the same findings
reached by the Croatian expert. In addition, the Government stressed that
the expert report produced by the Azerbaijani experts had taken into account
the statements of the prison guards as understandably there had been no
photographs of the applicant hanging from the belt. The report had also had
regard to the contradictory statements made by the applicant explaining
them as a post-hanging confabulation resulting from amnesia.
90. In the Government’s view, although the prison staff had been aware
of a suicide risk after the applicant had spoken to his wife on 9 September
2017, they had taken all the necessary measures to prevent that risk from
materialising. This was confirmed by the applicant himself in the letter
written to the Azerbaijani President of 13 September 2017, which an expert
from Azerbaijan confirmed as being written by the applicant.
91. The Government also submitted that the domestic inquiry into the
incident of 10 September 2017 had been effective. It had been instituted
immediately after the event and a number of investigative actions had been
taken, notably an inspection of the scene, questioning of witnesses and a
forensic examination. The inquiry had been conducted by the relevant
prosecutor’s office, which was a body independent of the prison service. In
his decision not to open a criminal case, the investigator had duly
scrutinised the available evidence. This decision, due to the applicant’s
failure to request its service, had never been challenged before the relevant
courts.
2. The Court’s assessment

(a) General principles
92. The Court refers to the general principles set out in cases under
Article 2 concerning suspicious or controversial circumstances of deaths in
custody (see, for instance, Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, no. 35403/06, §§ 71-76,
19
15 February 2011; Saribekyan and Balyan v. Azerbaijan, no. 35746/11,

§§ 59-63, 30 January 2020; and Shuriyya Zeynalov, cited above, §§ 66-71
and 80-83). These principles are accordingly relevant in the present case
where Article 2 is applicable even though the applicant ultimately survived
(see paragraph 73 above; and compare Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania
[GC], no. 41720/13, § 145, 25 June 2019).
93. Persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities
are under a duty to protect them. As a general rule, the mere fact that an
individual dies in suspicious circumstances while in custody should raise an
issue as to whether the State has complied with its obligation to protect that
person’s right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 27,
ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 70, 3 February
2011; and Karsakova v. Russia, no. 1157/10, § 48, 27 November 2014).
94. It is incumbent on the State to account for any injuries suffered in
custody, an obligation which is particularly stringent when an individual
dies (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99,
ECHR 2000-VII; Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 89, 14 February 2012;
and Çoşelav v. Turkey, no. 1413/07, § 53, 9 October 2012). In assessing
evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof “beyond
reasonable doubt”. However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of
sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted
presumptions of fact. Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part,
within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons
within their control in detention, strong presumptions of fact will arise in
respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention. Indeed, the
burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a
satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among other authorities,
Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 97-100, ECHR 2000-VII, and
Aktaş v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, §§ 289-91, ECHR 2003-V (extracts); see
also in general on the standard and burden of proof, Merabishvili v. Georgia
[GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 310-314, 28 November 2017).
95. In all cases where the Court is unable to establish the exact
circumstances of a case for reasons objectively attributable to the State
authorities, it is for the respondent Government to exhibit solid evidence
that can refute the applicant’s allegations. The Court has also noted the
difficulties for applicants to obtain the necessary evidence in support of
allegations in cases where the respondent Government are in possession of
the relevant documentation and fail to submit it. If the authorities then fail to
disclose crucial documents to enable the Court to establish the facts or
otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation, strong
inferences may be drawn. The Court’s reliance on evidence obtained as a
result of the domestic investigation and on the facts established within the
domestic proceedings will largely depend on the quality of the domestic
20
investigative process, its thoroughness and consistency (see Tagayeva and

Others v. Russia, nos. 26562/07 and 6 others, § 586, 13 April 2017).
96. The conduct of the parties when seeking evidence may be taken into
account (see Wolf-Sorg v. Turkey, no. 6458/03, § 63, 8 June 2010). The
Court has attached significant weight to situations in which the police or
investigating authorities behaved in a suspect manner or accepted the
credibility of certain evidence despite the existence of serious indices
pointing to the need for caution (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97,
§ 120, ECHR 2002-IV).
97. The obligation to carry out an effective investigation into unlawful
or suspicious deaths is well established in the Court’s case-law. In
particular, where it is not clearly established from the outset that the death
has resulted from an accident or another unintentional act, and where the
hypothesis of unlawful killing is at least arguable on the facts, the
Convention requires that an investigation which satisfies the minimum
threshold of effectiveness be conducted in order to shed light on the
circumstances of the death (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey
[GC], no. 24014/05, § 133, 14 April 2015, and Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase
v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 171, 25 June 2019).
98. In order to comply with the requirements of Article 2 of the
Convention, the investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable
of leading to the establishment of the relevant facts and to the identification
and, if appropriate, punishment of those responsible. This is an obligation
which concerns the means to be employed and not the results to be
achieved. The authorities must take reasonable steps available to them to
secure the evidence concerning an incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness
testimony and forensic evidence (see, as a recent authority, Vazagashvili
and Shanava v. Georgia, no. 50375/07, §§ 80-81, 18 July 2019, with further
references).
99. Furthermore, the investigation’s conclusions must be based on
thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements. Failing
to follow an obvious line of inquiry undermines to a decisive extent the
investigation’s ability to establish the circumstances of the case and, where
appropriate, the identity of those responsible. The authorities must always
make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on
hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation (see El-Masri
v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 183,
ECHR 2012, and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç, cited above, § 175).
100. While compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 2 is
assessed on the basis of several essential parameters, including those
mentioned above, these elements are interrelated and each of them, taken
separately, does not amount to an end in itself. They are criteria which,
when taken jointly, enable the degree of effectiveness of the investigation to
be assessed (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase, cited above, § 171).
21
101. In this connection, the Court also finds it important to stress that,
although it has recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a
first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the
circumstances of a particular case, where allegations are made under
Article 2 of the Convention, it has to apply a “particularly thorough
scrutiny” even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have
already taken place (see, for instance, Aktaş v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 271,
ECHR 2003‑V (extracts), and Ayvazyan v. Armenia, no. 56717/08, § 88,
1 June 2017, with further references). In the context of Article 2, the Court
has held that any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its
capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person
responsible is liable to fall foul of the required measure of effectiveness
(see, for instance, Armani da Silva, v. the United Kingdom [GC],
no. 5878/08, § 233 in fine, 30 March 2016).
(b) Application of these principles to the present case

102. In line with the above-cited case-law, the Court considers it
appropriate to start its examination of the merits of the application by first
addressing the procedural limb of the applicant’s complaint under Article 2,
namely whether or not the domestic inquiry into the circumstances of the
case was effective, and then turning to the substantive limb, namely the
question of whether the State can be held responsible for the impugned
incident.
(i) The procedural limb
103. It is undisputed that the incident in question putting the applicant’s

life at risk required the domestic authorities to conduct an official effective
investigation. It is also undisputed that the domestic inquiry into the
circumstances of the incident commenced promptly and that some relevant
investigative measures were taken, namely the inspection of the site and the
questioning of the prison guards who were on duty at the relevant time (see
paragraphs 20-28 above). The Court observes, however, that there were
serious deficiencies and inconsistencies in the manner in which the inquiry
was conducted and in the investigator’s findings closing the inquiry.
Consequently, many obvious questions concerning the incident putting the
applicant’s life at risk while in hands of the Azerbaijani authorities
remained unanswered.
104. In particular, following the incident the applicant was not examined
by a forensic expert and no forensic assessment of his injuries was carried
out. The Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of a prompt forensic
examination, which is often crucial as signs of injury might disappear rather
quickly, resulting in the complete or partial loss of evidence (see, for
instance, Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, § 59, 17 April 2012). Thus,
22
a timely forensic examination could have enabled the reaching of crucial

conclusions as to the existence, time and nature of the applicant’s injuries.
105. It is further noted that the protocol on the examination of the scene
indicated that the prison was equipped with video surveillance (see
paragraph 22 above). As the Court often remarked in its case-law, footages
of video surveillance may be critical evidence to establish the circumstances
of the relevant events (see Magnitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos. 32631/09
and 53799/12, § 269, 27 August 2019, with further references). However,
there is no indication that the investigator sought to obtain the recordings
from the video surveillance, which could have clarified who had entered the
applicant’s cell and what had actually happened on the day of the incident.
106. In this connection, it is noted that there were serious inconsistencies
in the prison guards’ statements, which were never clarified during the
inquiry. Thus, for instance, having regard to their statements given to the
investigator, it is not clear whether Z.I. and A.A. alone, or T.A. together
with them, entered the applicant’s prison cell and who exactly did what in
the provision of the first medical aid to the applicant (see paragraph 23-24
above). These inconsistencies are particularly striking when compared to the
“explanations” which the prison guards apparently gave on the day of the
incident, as summarised in the medical expert report which the Government
produced in the proceedings before the Court (see paragraphs 43-46 above).
These “explanations”, in so far as they were made on 10 September 2017 as
the expert report suggests, ought to have been taken into account by the
investigator and compared against the statements which the prison guards
gave when questioned by him. In other words, in accordance with the
Court’s case-law, such inconsistencies needed to be ironed out by
meticulous comparison of the relevant statements with one another in
relation to specific details (see, Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia,
no. 9390/05, § 68, 3 November 2011). However, the investigator failed to
do so.
107. Another striking feature which called for an explanation is the fact
that the inspection of the scene found no bag in the applicant’s cell from
which he had allegedly taken the belt used for his suicide attempt. Indeed,
the Protocol on the examination of the scene found and identified different
items of the applicant’s personal belongings but not a bag (see paragraph 22
above). Moreover, the investigator failed to consider and examine whether it
would have been possible for the applicant to have a belt in the prison cell
given that such an object can certainly be used as a dangerous item and is
normally not available to prisoners. It is also noted that on the day in
question the applicant had been under careful surveillance because of an
alleged suicide risk (see paragraph 13 above).
108. The Court has also held in its case-law that in some instances
reconstruction of the events may be needed in order to clarify suspicious
circumstances of injuries or death which occurred at the hands of the
23
authorities (see, for instance, Petrović v. Serbia, no. 40485/08, § 88 in fine,

15 July 2014, with further references). In the present case, in the Court’s
view, it is difficult to accept on the basis of the evidence available that a
grown up person – a man weighing 85 kilograms (see paragraph 85 above)
– could have hanged himself on a wall nail of 3 cm length and at a height of
some 1, 90 m from the ground by using a 0,9 m long belt (see paragraph 22
above). This therefore required further examination and explanation by, for
instance, an attempt to reconstruct the event.
109. The above-noted omissions and unexplained discrepancies in the
conduct of the domestic authorities are sufficient for the Court to conclude
that the inquiry into the incident in prison putting the applicant’s life at risk
has been ineffective and in breach of the respondent State’s procedural
obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.
(ii) The substantive limb
110. At the outset, it is worth reiterating that the incident in question

happened under the exclusive control and knowledge of the authorities.
Thus, according to the Court’s case-law, it is for the authorities to provide a
satisfactory and convincing explanation. Otherwise, the Court may draw
strong inferences on the respondent State’s responsibility under the
substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraphs 94-95
above).
111. In the proceedings before the Court the Government submitted a
medical expert report produced by a group of Azerbaijani experts
supporting the finding of the suicide attempt reached by the domestic
inquiry. This expert report challenged the applicant’s allegations
considering them to be confabulation resulting from amnesia which occurs
during hanging (see paragraphs 39-50 above). On the other hand, the
applicant submitted two expert medical reports – one prepared by a group of
Russian doctors and another by a Croatian forensic expert – suggesting that
he had been victim of a violent attack and strangulation attempt in prison
(see paragraphs 35-38 above). The parties also submitted different other
pieces of evidence supporting their respective versions of the events.
112. In this regard the Court finds it important to stress that the evidence
which the parties put before it, and their diverging views on the
circumstances of the impugned incident, are normally a matter to be
examined in the domestic proceedings. The role of the Court is not to serve
as a first-instance tribunal of fact. Though the Court is not bound by the
domestic findings and remains free to make its own appreciation in the light
of all the material before it, in normal circumstances it has to work on the
relevant findings reached by the domestic authorities, or a lack thereof, and
draw the necessary inferences. This is the logic underpinning the Court’s
subsidiary role and its rules on the standard and burden of proof (see
24
paragraphs 94-95 and 102 above; see also Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy
[GC], no. 23458/02, § 180, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
113. It therefore suffices for the Court to note that the applicant’s
allegation of attempted murder, with the alleged crime being disguised as
attempted suicide, is plausible, despite certain inconsistencies in his
recollection of the facts, which may indeed be linked to the psychological
effects of the trauma (see paragraph 31 above).
114. The Court notes that even leaving aside the Russian expert report
which the Government challenged as not being prepared by the forensic
experts, the fact remains that this report reached the same conclusion as the
report produced by the Croatian forensic expert, namely that the applicant
had been a victim of attempted murder by strangulation (see
paragraphs 36-37 above). The expertise of the author of the latter report has
not been called into question by the Government. Moreover, that report is
sufficiently detailed and substantiated by the documents available to the
Court (see paragraphs 35, 37-38 and 88 above).
115. The Court further notes that the Government’s attempt to underpin
the attempted suicide version with a motive of the applicant’s frustration for
not being able to see his family for a visit is not convincing. There is no
evidence before the Court that before the impugned incident the applicant
demonstrated, in prison or otherwise, any suicidal tendencies. While the
prison guards’ statements were ambiguous suggesting that at the relevant
time the applicant had not been in a good mood, the senior prison guard Z.I.
explicitly confirmed that the applicant had never before attempted to
commit suicide (see paragraph 23 in fine above). Moreover, the applicant’s
psychiatric assessment in Israel, which the Government did not call into
question, found no suicide risk (see paragraph 31 above).
116. The only suggestion of the applicant’s suicidal tendency was made
in the medical expert report provided by the Government in the proceedings
before the Court (see paragraph 47 above). However, this seems to be based
on a psychiatric assessment of 11 September 2017 that, in so far as it seems
to be referring to the conversations with the applicant, can seriously be
called into question given the applicant’s state of health at the relevant time
(see paragraph 17 above). The same is true for the Government’s suggestion
that on that day the applicant wrote two letters thanking the Azerbaijani
President (see paragraph 10 above). This is particularly hard to believe in
view of the difficulties which the applicant had with his writing right arm,
as recorded in the Israeli medical records (see paragraph 33 above).
117. In any event, it is not convincing that the applicant who was
expecting to be transferred from Azerbaijan to Israel would try to commit
suicide for not having his family for a visit (see paragraphs 9 and 56 above).
It is also noted that in the telephone conversation that took place on
11 September 2017 – the day of the applicant’s pardon by the President –
the prison staff did not disclose to the applicant’s wife that he had allegedly
25
attempted suicide and was in a life endangering situation, but rather tried to
conceal the event and his condition (see paragraphs 10 and 56 above).
118. As regards the medical expert report provided by the Government,
it suffices to note that its assessment starts from, and significantly relies on,
the prison guards’ “explanations”, which the Court already found to be
inconsistent (see paragraph 106 above). Moreover, not all the documents on
which it relies, such as the psychiatric and the first intervention medical
team’s report, were disclosed to the Court so it is impossible to ascertain the
consistency of the findings. It is noted, however, that the expert reports, by
relying on the initial medical report, takes as one of the critical indications
of hanging the fact that the applicant had urinary and bowl incontinence (see
paragraphs 42 and 49 above). At the same time, the Court cannot but note
that the Protocol on the examination of the scene recorded no traces of
urinary or bowl incontinence at the scene but, on the contrary, it found the
whole cell to be tidy (see paragraph 22 above). It is therefore difficult to
accept the findings of this report as providing sufficient explanation for the
impugned incident.
119. In sum, having regard to the above findings, and its assessment
under the procedural limb of Article 2 (see paragraphs 103-109 above), the
Court is unable to conclude that the version of attempted suicide holds up. It
follows that the respondent State failed to satisfy the burden of proof resting
on it to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as regards the
incident during which the applicant’s life was put at risk.
120. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the
Convention under its substantive limb.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
121. The applicant complained of ill-treatment and humiliation during

his transfer from Belarus to Azerbaijan and during his stay in prison in
Azerbaijan. He also alleged that he had been kept in solitary confinement
for a period of seven months. The applicant relied on Article 3 of the
Convention.
122. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the
parties and its findings under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court
considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present
application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the
remaining complaints (see, for instance, Centre for Legal Resources on
behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156,
ECHR 2014, and Gulyan v. Armenia, no. 11244/12, § 95, 20 September
2018).
26
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
123. 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
124. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of

non-pecuniary damage.
125. The Government contested this claim.
126. The Court finds that the applicant has undoubtedly suffered
non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violations found. It therefore
decides to award him the sum claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
127. The applicant also claimed EUR 5,700 for the costs and expenses
for his legal representation before the Court. He asked that the award be
paid to the account of his representatives.
128. The Government contested this claim considering it
unsubstantiated. They suggested that the applicant’s representatives worked
free of charge.
129. The Court notes that the applicant failed to produce any contract
with his representatives or other relevant documents showing that he had
paid or was under a legal obligation to pay the fees charged by his
representatives. The Court therefore dismisses the claim for costs and
expenses (see Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, § 120,
25 June 2020, with further references).
C. Default interest
130. 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT,
1. Declares, unanimously, the applicant’s complaint that there was an

attempt to his life in prison, and that the domestic authorities failed to
investigate the circumstances of the case, under Article 2 of the
Convention, admissible;
27
2. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the

Convention under its procedural limb;
3. Holds, by 6 votes to 1, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the

Convention under its substantive limb;
4. Holds, unanimously, that there is no need to rule separately on the

remainder of the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the
Convention;
5. Holds, by 6 votes to 1,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance
with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until
settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a
rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank
during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses, unanimously, the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just

satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 May 2021, pursuant to

Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Victor Soloveytchik Síofra O’Leary

Registrar President
In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of

the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judge Ceyhun Qaracayev is
annexed to this judgment.
SOL
VS
28
LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION
PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF

JUDGE QARACAYEV
1. In the present case, I have voted in favour of a finding of a violation
of Article 2 under its procedural limb because of specific gaps in the
Government’s arguments and the evidence which they submitted,
particularly with regard to the absence of recordings from surveillance
cameras in the particular corridor at the Pre-trial Detention Facility.
2. Having said that, I find it difficult to follow the majority’s reasoning
when it comes to the finding of a violation of Article 2 under its substantive
limb, since it contains a number of ambiguities and speculative statements
in this regard. In my view, the majority failed to convincingly demonstrate
that the applicant had been able to carry out his “mission” as regards sharing
the burden of proof.
3. The first of those ambiguities relates to the physical injuries allegedly
sustained by the applicant. The medical examination at the Merkezi Clinic
in Baku on 10 September 2017 revealed a linear break in the left part of the
hyoid bone (paragraph 16), and on 13 September – some ecchymotic areas
at frontal tongue “related to biting” (paragraph 18). It appears that no other
injuries were observed on the applicant. In Israel, however, a psychiatric
examination revealed “multiple bruises” on his body (paragraph 31). It is
not clear on which parts of the applicant’s body those injuries were
discovered. According to the medical report of 17 September 2017, the
applicant had “a trace of (a) prick in the right shoulder area with signs of
hematoma. He also had a hematoma on the right and left forearms”
(paragraph 33). A medical report entitled “Visit Summary” of 25 September
2017, issued by the Rambam Medical Campus, noted that the applicant had
alleged that on 10 September 2017, other inmates in a prison in Azerbaijan
had tried to strangle him with a rope (paragraph 34) and that he had
“suffered a blunt trauma of the throat two weeks (previously)”. Sadly, the
majority failed to properly assess such obvious discrepancies.
4. Secondly, while the majority noticed the failure of the respondent
Government to conduct a prompt and thorough forensic examination of the
applicant, they overlooked the facts that the medical staff had examined the
applicant on his arrival at the Merkezi Clinic and had monitored his
treatment, with relevant observations and conclusions included in his
medical record, and, most importantly, that on 14 September 2017 the
applicant and his relatives had “absolutely refused further examination and
treatment in the general reanimation section, and (had) returned to Israel”
(paragraph 19). Moreover, the utmost importance attaches to the fact that
the applicant did not request a forensic report from Israeli specialists
immediately on his arrival in Israel when his alleged injuries should have
still been visible. On the contrary, he did so several months later, requesting
such a report in Russia and in Croatia, based on the photographs, allegedly
29
taken after his arrival in Israel. In this connection, it must be stressed that
the majority even failed to notice that no date or location had been given for
those photographs. Surprisingly, the Croatian medical expert was able to
ascertain, just by looking at the photographs, quite precisely, that the
applicant had sustained injuries from a “blunt instrument” “several days
before the available photographs” had been taken. Was the Court able to
establish a causal link between the “injuries from a blunt instrument” and
the alleged “attempted murder”, having regard to the above-mentioned fact
concerning the date and location of the photographs taken in Israel?
Absolutely not.
5. Thirdly, in paragraph 113, without any detailed analysis, the majority
states that the applicant’s allegation of attempted murder is “plausible”. The
last sentence of that paragraph attempts to attenuate the said speculative
statement. A reference should be made to the Court’s conclusions in Malik
Babayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 30500/11, 1 June 2017, § 69), stating in quite
similar circumstances that “any allegation that the applicant’s son was
murdered would be purely speculative” (with further references). The
second last sentence of paragraph 114 states that the expertise of the
Croatian forensic expert has not been called into question. In my view, that
is disputable. Firstly, it appears from the materials in the case file that the
Government had drawn the Court’s attention to the above discrepancies in
the report (see, paragraph 7 above). Secondly, the forensic report submitted
by the Government noted that “the traces depicted on the photographs taken
in Israel ... w[ere] an artefact” (paragraph 48). It should be noted that those
injuries were absent from the medical record of the Merkezi Clinic, and
only appeared in Israel.
6. Fourthly, the majority also casts doubt on the validity of the
applicant’s two letters to the Azerbaijani President. That doubt is based on
the Israeli experts’ observation concerning the applicant’s inability to raise
his right arm (see paragraph 33). In paragraph 116, the judgment elaborates
on the findings of the Israeli experts and refers to the applicant’s difficulties
with his writing (right) arm. I wonder why a person who is unable to move
his hand cannot write a short letter on a hard surface, and the judgment does
not attempt to explain that matter. On this last point, I should also note that
in his submissions the applicant had not commented on the forensic
graphology report submitted by the Government. Therefore, the statement
has no meaningful purpose to serve in this context. Accordingly, the last
sentence of paragraph 116 that “this is particularly hard to believe because
of the difficulties which the applicant had with his writing right arm, as
recorded in the Israeli medical records” is to be considered as speculative.
7. Fifthly, the Court should, in my view, avoid such speculative
statements as “it is illogical that the applicant who was expecting to be
transferred from Azerbaijan to Israel would try to commit suicide”
(paragraph 117). Adhering to the facts of the case, we can see that,
30
according to the documents on file, on 23 August 2017 the applicant had

requested a pardon from the Azerbaijani President and had referred the lack
of movement in the proceedings concerning his transfer to Israel. Nothing in
the materials of the case file and the judgment itself makes it possible to
infer or even imply that the applicant had known that a decision on his
pardon and/or his possible transfer to Israel would be made in his favour, or
that he could even expect any positive news in this regard. Indeed, it is
logical to assume that the absence of any indication concerning the
applicant’s future would have led to his obvious frustration and a conclusion
diametrically opposed to the one set out in paragraph 117. On the other
hand, given that the Presidential pardon was issued on 11 September 2017,
one may assume that some preparatory work had been carried out well
before that date, and that several Azerbaijani officials responsible for the
case had been involved and therefore had had information about it.
Consequently, instead of inserting the above-mentioned categorical
statement in paragraph 117, the majority would have done better to ask
whether it was logical for the authorities, which had known well in advance
that the applicant would be pardoned on or around 11 September 2017, to
allow his murder to happen on 10 September 2017. Besides, how logical
would it have been for them to let this murder happen, and then suddenly
change their mind (in a matter of minutes) and proceed to save his life (and
provide him with treatment in one of the best healthcare institutions in
Azerbaijan).
8. In conclusion, the ambiguities, discrepancies and speculative
statements set out above undermine the credibility of the Court’s reasoning,
which cannot serve, as it stands, as a sufficient basis on which to find a
violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb.
31

CASE OF LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE OF LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 13527/18)

Art 2 (procedural) • Ineffective investigation into prison incident putting the

Request for referral to the Grand Chamber pending

In the case of Lapshin v. Azerbaijan,

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised

I. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

5. The applicant is a blogger and traveller.

II. THE INCIDENT OF 10 SEPTEMBER 2017

12. According to the applicant, on 10 September 2017, at about

III. THE DOMESTIC INQUIRY

20. According to the Government, after the incident of 10 September

IV. OTHER DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE CASE

A. The applicant’s medical examinations and expert evidence

1. The applicant’s medical examinations in Israel

2. The medial expert reports provided by the applicant

reports he provided the available documents concerning his medical

3. The medical expert report provided by the Government

41. The findings of the expert report may be summarised as follows.

B. The applicant’s complaints to the Azerbaijani authorities

51. On 1 February 2018 the applicant sent an email to the Deputy

V. OTHER RELEVANT FACTS

the media ascribed to the applicant the Azerbaijani authorities intended to

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

63. In view of the above, the Court dismisses the Government’s

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

1. The parties’ arguments

Facebook disparaging and highly offensive statements concerning the

(b) The applicant

2. The Court’s assessment

(b) Exhaustion of domestic remedies

(c) Abuse of the right of individual application

1. The parties’ submissions

(a) The applicant

(b) The Government

2. The Court’s assessment

15 February 2011; Saribekyan and Balyan v. Azerbaijan, no. 35746/11,

investigative process, its thoroughness and consistency (see Tagayeva and

(b) Application of these principles to the present case

(i) The procedural limb

103. It is undisputed that the incident in question putting the applicant’s

a timely forensic examination could have enabled the reaching of crucial

authorities (see, for instance, Petrović v. Serbia, no. 40485/08, § 88 in fine,

(ii) The substantive limb

110. At the outset, it is worth reiterating that the incident in question

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

121. The applicant complained of ill-treatment and humiliation during

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

123. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

124. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of

B. Costs and expenses

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT,

1. Declares, unanimously, the applicant’s complaint that there was an

2. Holds, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the

3. Holds, by 6 votes to 1, that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the

4. Holds, unanimously, that there is no need to rule separately on the

6. Dismisses, unanimously, the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 May 2021, pursuant to

Victor Soloveytchik Síofra O’Leary

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF

according to the documents on file, on 23 August 2017 the applicant had