In the case of Rzakhanov v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Chamber), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 June 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no. 4242/07)
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 Azerbaijani national, Mr Shakir Hajimurad oglu Rzakhanov
(Şakir Hacımurad oğlu Rzaxanov, “the
applicant”), on 8 January 2007.
. The applicant
was represented by Mr E. Zeynalov, a lawyer practising in Baku. The Azerbaijani
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov.
The applicant alleged, in particular, that his conditions
of detention in Gobustan Prison were harsh. He further complained that he had
been beaten and ill-treated by prison guards and that the domestic authorities
had not carried out an effective investigation into his claim of ill-treatment.
On 26 November 2009 the Court declared the
application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaints
concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention during the period after
15 April 2002, the date of the Convention’s entry into force with respect to
Azerbaijan, and the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by the prison
personnel to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility
and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. The applicant’s original conviction and commutation
of the death penalty to life imprisonment
The applicant was born in 1961 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and is currently serving a life sentence in Gobustan Prison.
On 18 July 1997 the Baku City Court convicted the
applicant of complicity in two counts of murder and complicity in arson and sentenced
him to death and confiscation of property. On 19 August 1997 the Supreme Court
upheld this judgment.
Following the conviction, the applicant was
transferred to the 5th wing of Bayil Prison, designated for convicts sentenced
to death. Despite the existence of the death penalty as a form of punishment
under the criminal law applicable at that time, the Azerbaijani authorities had
pursued a de facto policy of a moratorium
on the execution of the death penalty from June 1993 until the abolition of the
death penalty in 1998.
On 10 February 1998 Parliament passed the Law on
Amendments to the Criminal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and Correctional
Labour Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan in connection with the Abolition of
the Death Penalty in the Republic of Azerbaijan, which amended all the relevant
domestic legal provisions, replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment.
The penalties of all convicts sentenced to death, including the applicant, were
to be automatically commuted to life imprisonment.
On 28 March 1998 the applicant was transferred to
Gobustan Prison.
B. Conditions of detention in Gobustan Prison and the
applicant’s placement in solitary confinement
1. The applicant’s account of the conditions
As from his arrival at Gobustan Prison on 28
March 1998 until his placement in solitary confinement on 14 February 2008, the
applicant was held, with one other inmate, in cells measuring approximately
9-10 sq. m. During his detention, he changed cells several times and shared
them with different inmates. The standard cell had two beds, a small bedside
cupboard, and one small table and two chairs fixed to the cell floor. The toilet
area was separated from the rest of the cell by a one-metre-high stone wall.
The floor and ceiling were made of stone and concrete respectively. The
temperature inside the cell was very high in summer and very low in winter.
Central heating was available, but inadequate.
The window, which had metal bars, had no window pane
in it and, in winter, was covered with a transparent polyethylene film. The air
inside was stale and the cell could not be naturally ventilated. Until 2001,
the inmates were not allowed to possess or use ventilators. Likewise, until
2001, the inmates were not allowed to possess a radio. Subsequently, small
radios and ventilators were allowed. The food served in the prison was often of
poor quality and lacked sufficient meat and vitamins, and the menu was unvaried
and monotonous.
The inmates were allowed only fifteen to thirty
minutes of outdoor exercise per day. There were no other recreational or
educational activities.
Since 14 February 2008 he has been in solitary confinement,
without any formal decision, in a former “punishment” cell measuring 7.78 sq.
m. The applicant was not provided with a copy of the decision placing him in
that cell.
Following the information request of the
applicant’s mother (M.R.), by a letter of 27 February 2008 the prison governor
informed her that it was impossible to send her copies of the decisions on
punishment measures applied to the applicant, as these documents were
confidential and could be requested by the courts or a relevant higher authority.
By a letter of 10 April 2008 from the prison
authority, M.R. was informed that the placement of the prisoners in cells was
carried out according to the Prison Internal Disciplinary Rules and that the
conditions of the applicant’s cell complied with the legislation.
2. The Government’s account of the conditions
The applicant was detained in a cell measuring
at least 8 sq. m and designated for two inmates throughout his detention in
Gobustan Prison.
The window of the applicant’s cell can be opened
from the inside. The window is large enough and does not prevent natural light
and fresh air from coming in. The cell is also equipped with electric lights, a
ventilator and a radio set.
He also has the right to watch TV for four hours
a day and six hours a day at weekends and on holidays. The prison has a library
that the prisoners can use. The sanitary conditions are acceptable and the food
served is of good quality. The applicant has the right to one hour’s outdoor
exercise a day.
Since 1 September 2000, the inmates are
entitled, on a yearly basis, to one long (from one to three days) and three
short (of up to four hours each) personal visits and four food parcels (of up
to 31.5 kg each) from relatives, and six telephone calls (of up to ten minutes
each). They are able to spend up to 3.3 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per month on
staple items.
Since 24 June 2008 the number of visits by
relatives has been increased to two long and six short visits a year, the
number of food parcels to eight, and the number of telephone calls to
twenty-four. The monthly spending limit has been increased to AZN 25. The
prisoners’ correspondence is not limited.
The applicant was placed alone in a cell in
February 2008, because he did not get on with other prison inmates and always attracted
dislike. In this regard, the Government submitted that the applicant had committed
nineteen breaches of discipline between 28 March 1998 and 28 January 2010.
It appears from the documents submitted by the
Government that the first decision to place the applicant alone in a cell was taken
by the prison authorities on 25 July 2008. The duration of the solitary
confinement was not specified in that decision. The applicant’s placement alone
in a cell was justified as follows:
“The inmate Rzakhanov Shakir Hajimurad oglu, during the
execution of his sentence, attracts dislike, intentionally breaches the internal
rules of regime in the prison, tries to abscond, incites the inter-ethnic
conflicts and by creating psychological tensions between the life sentenced
inmates and by other means, tries to disturb the normal functioning of the
establishment. He tries to join other inmates in his unlawful actions.
Currently, as he is against the measures taken in the prison in order to ensure
the respect of the regime, he sends to various State and non-governmental
organisations defamatory information and complaints and tries to achieve his
goal this way. In addition, the inmate Rzakhanov could not get on with inmates
with whom he had previously shared the cell and intentionally created the
situation of conflicts.”
The second decision in this respect was
delivered on 4 August 2009 which is almost identical in its wording to the
decision of 25 July 2008 and reiterates the same reasons for the applicant’s
placement alone in a cell. Following the decision of 4 August 2009, the
applicant’s placement alone in a cell was extended every two months by a new
decision of the prison authorities.
In all the decisions, the justifications for the
applicant’s placement alone in a cell are almost identical to those described
in the decision of 25 July 2008.
The applicant’s placement alone in a cell ended
on 16 December 2010.
3. Remedies used by the applicant
On 16 and 20 March 2006 the applicant sent
complaints concerning the medical service, the quality of the bread and the toilet
facilities to the Ministry of Justice. By a letter of 26 April 2006 the
Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the quality of the bread had
been checked by the delegation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CPT) and it met the
quality requirements. The Ministry of Justice instructed the prison
administration to examine the applicant’s other complaints so that the appropriate
measures could be taken.
On an unspecified date, M.R. lodged an action
with the Garadagh District Court. She complained about the general conditions
of detention of her son and his placement in solitary confinement. She also
complained that her son’s cell did not meet the standard requirements, as there
was no sunlight in the cell and the cell’s window was very small.
On 31 October 2008 the Garabagh District Court
dismissed the claim. After visiting the prison, the judge held that the general
conditions of detention of the applicant met all the relevant requirements. He
described the applicant’s cell as follows:
“The applicant’s cell is the cell no. 221 situated in the unit no.
4. The cell is on the right side of the entrance of the unit. The living space
of the cell measures 2.75 x 2.90 metres. There is a window in the upper
part of the cell which measures 1.50 x 0.21 metres. This window is open and the
air is coming in without hindrance from it. Opposite to this window, there is
also a transom measuring 0.30 x 0.40 metres at the same level over the entrance
door. This transom was covered by the inmate Rzakhanov with a transparent
polyethylene film. The inmate states that it was done in order to prevent the
move of the air coming from the window in the cell. The floor of the cell is
made of wood. The toilet, situated in the middle of the cell, is separated from
the bed. The water supply is permanent in the cell. The artificial lighting
system is functioning in the cell. The pipe which is a part of the common
heating system of the unit passes through the cell under the window and is fixed
to the wall. The inmate says that there is no problem of heating when it is
cold. There is a TV set on the right side of the cell...”
As regards the particular complaint on the size
of the window, the judge noted that despite the fact that the size of the
window of the applicant’s cell did not meet the established standards, the
window in question was large enough and did not prevent natural light and fresh
air from coming in.
As to the applicant’s placement alone in a cell,
the judge considered it lawful. In this connection, he noted that by a decision
of 25 July 2008 the applicant was placed alone in a cell for breach of
disciplinary rules. The judge further noted that the inmate with whom the
applicant had been detained died in December 2006 and after his death the
applicant asked the prison authorities not to be placed with another inmate for
a year. A year later the applicant refused to share his cell with another
inmate. Another inmate (M.D.) was later placed in the same cell as the
applicant, however the applicant began to complain to the authorities, asking
for a single cell. Afterwards the applicant asked to be placed in the same cell
as inmate M.I., however this request was dismissed by the prison administration
for security reasons.
On 30 March 2009 the Court of Appeal and on 27
October 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court’s judgment of 31
October 2008.
On an unspecified date in 2009 the applicant
lodged a new action with the Garabagh District Court, complaining about his
conditions of detention.
On 20 November 2009 the Garabagh District Court
dismissed the applicant’s claim.
On 19 March 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal and on
12 November 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court’s judgment
of 20 November 2009.
C. Alleged ill-treatment in prison
1. The applicant’s version of the events
On 11 January 2004 the applicant was taken to
the office of one of the senior officers of the prison guard. He was first
admonished for sending “too many complaints to the Constitutional Court”. He
was then handcuffed and beaten with rubber truncheons and wooden clubs by
several prison guards, including the prison governor. The beating lasted around
forty minutes. He was then dragged out and placed in a punishment cell, where
he was held until 14 January 2004. He received no medical aid. The
applicant’s mother learned of his ill-treatment.
On 15 January 2004 the applicant was visited by
the Ombudsman, in the presence of his lawyer, relatives and the prison
governor. The applicant did not specify the purpose of the Ombudsman’s visit. According
to the applicant, the Ombudsman did not take any action, despite having seen
the signs of ill-treatment on his body.
On 17 January 2004 the applicant was visited by
the delegation of the Council of Europe’s Ago Group which is a monitoring group
of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe working on the honouring
of commitments by Azerbaijan. The applicant told them about the alleged
ill-treatment. The delegation also met the applicant’s mother. The delegation
informed the Deputy Minister of Justice of its concerns with the applicant’s
complaints. The Deputy Minister of Justice promised to launch an investigation.
However, no adequate investigation took place.
In July or August 2004 the applicant was taken
to the Medical Facility of the Ministry of Justice for a forensic examination.
However, the forensic experts attempted to hide the injuries by taking X-rays
of his uninjured leg instead of the injured leg. Therefore, he refused to
undergo further examination and was taken back to the prison.
2. The Government’s version of the events
On 11 January 2004 prison guards found a letter
in which the applicant called on other prisoners to go on hunger strike.
Following this, the prison guards tried to carry out a search on the applicant
who objected to this search.
On the same day, the prison administration
decided to transfer the applicant to a punishment cell for a period of fifteen
days. On 26 January 2004 the applicant was released from the punishment cell
following the end of the period of fifteen days.
. As
to the meeting with the Ombudsman, on 14 February 2004 the applicant met the
Ombudsman in the presence of his mother and lawyer. This meeting was filmed and
the video submitted to the Court. It appears from the video that in this
meeting the applicant was questioned by the Ombudsman, in the presence of his
mother and lawyer, about the allegations of ill-treatment. He told the
Ombudsman that he had not been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading
treatment by prison guards during his detention in Gobustan Prison.
. The
Government finally submitted that the Ago Group delegation of the Council of
Europe could not meet the applicant on 17 January 2004, because this delegation
visited Gobustan Prison three times, on 14 May 2002, 11 July 2003 and 4
February 2004, within the framework of its annual visit to Azerbaijan.
3. Remedies used by the applicant
In the summer of 2004 the applicant sent
complaints to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice about
his alleged ill-treatment by the prison guards.
Following the applicant’s complaint to the
Prosecutor General’s Office, an investigation was launched by the Garadagh
District Prosecutor’s Office. On 24 November 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor of
Garadagh District refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding that the
applicant had not been beaten on 11 January 2004. In particular, the prosecutor
noted that there was no evidence that the applicant had been ill-treated by
prison guards. No appeal was lodged against this decision.
On 28 May 2006 M.R. lodged, on behalf of the
applicant, a civil lawsuit with the Garadagh District Court, seeking
compensation for the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected by
prison guards. On 9 June 2006 the Garadagh District Court refused to admit the
complaint, because it did not meet the procedural requirements set out in
Article 149.2.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”). In particular, M.R.
failed to specify the respondents and indicate their names and address. No appeal
was lodged against this decision.
On an unspecified date M.R. lodged a new action
with the Garadagh District Court, seeking compensation for the alleged
ill-treatment. On 22 September 2006 the Garadagh District Court refused to
admit the lawsuit because it did not comply with the formal requirements set
out in Articles 149 and 150 of the CCP. The court noted that it was not
possible to establish who had signed the application and that there were no
documents relating to the allegations in the case file. The court also pointed
out that the applicant should apply to the prosecuting authorities in respect
of the alleged criminal acts of the prison guards, and a civil action should
meet the procedural requirements set out in Article 149 of the CCP. No appeal
was lodged against this decision.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. The Code on Execution of Punishments (“the CEP”)
According to Article 122 of the CEP, life
sentenced inmates are entitled, on a yearly basis, to two long (from one to
three days) and six short (of up to four hours each) personal visits, to eight
food parcels from relatives and to spend AZN 25 monthly. They have the right to
one hour outdoor exercise per day (Article 122.1.4).
According to Article 121 of the CEP, if
necessary, inmates could be detained alone in a cell by a reasoned decision of
the prison administration. The duration of this kind of detention should be specified
(Article 109.3). Article 109.2 of the CEP provides that an inmate has the right
to complain to the courts about a decision of the prison administration
concerning disciplinary measures.
B. The Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”)
. Chapter
LII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) lays down the procedure by
which parties to criminal proceedings could challenge acts or decisions of the
prosecuting authorities before a court. Article 449 provides that the victim or
his counsel can challenge acts or decisions of the prosecuting authorities
concerning, inter alia, refusal to institute criminal proceedings or to discontinue
criminal proceedings. The judge examining the lawfulness of the prosecuting
authorities’ actions or decisions can quash them if he or she finds them to be
unlawful (Article 451). The decision of the judge on the lawfulness of the
prosecuting authorities’ actions or decisions can be disputed before an
appellate court in accordance with the procedure established in Articles
452-453 of the CCrP.
C. Decree No. 16-T of 19 November 2010 of the Minister
of Justice on Internal Disciplinary Rules of Prisons
. Section
13 provides that inmates who expressly breach the rules of enforcement of a
punishment can be placed in solitary confinement by a reasoned decision of the
prison authority. In prison, an inmate may be placed in solitary confinement for
his own safety or when it is impossible to detain him with other inmates. A
decision to place an inmate in solitary confinement or to extend such a
placement is announced by the signature of this decision by the inmate. The
decision is reviewed every two months by the prison authority and is subject to
an appeal by the inmate.
D. Decree No. 13-T of 24 March 2004 of the Minister of
Justice on Internal Disciplinary Rules of Prisons, in force until 19 November 2010
Section 52
provides that in prison an inmate could be placed in solitary confinement at
his own request or for his own safety.
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL DOCUMENTS
A. Extracts from the 2nd General Report on
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment’s (“CPT”) activities covering the period from 1 January
to 31 December 1991
The relevant part of the Report reads as
follows:
“48. Specific mention should be made of outdoor exercise. The
requirement that prisoners be allowed at least one hour of exercise in the open
air every day is widely accepted as a basic safeguard (preferably it should
form part of a broader programme of activities). The CPT wishes to emphasise
that all prisoners without exception (including those undergoing cellular
confinement as a punishment) should be offered the possibility to take outdoor
exercise daily. It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise facilities should be
reasonably spacious and whenever possible offer shelter from inclement weather ...
56. The CPT pays particular attention to prisoners held, for
whatever reason (for disciplinary purposes; as a result of their "dangerousness"
or their "troublesome" behaviour; in the interests of a criminal
investigation; at their own request), under conditions akin to solitary
confinement.
The principle of proportionality requires that a balance be
struck between the requirements of the case and the application of a solitary
confinement-type regime, which is a step that can have very harmful
consequences for the person concerned. Solitary confinement can, in certain
circumstances, amount to inhuman and degrading treatment; in any event, all
forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible ...”
B. Extracts from the 21st General Report on
the CPT’s activities covering the period from 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2011
The relevant part of the Report reads as
follows:
“53. The CPT has always paid particular attention to prisoners
undergoing solitary confinement, because it can have an extremely damaging
effect on the mental, somatic and social health of those concerned.
This damaging effect can be immediate and increases the longer
the measure lasts and the more indeterminate it is. The most significant
indicator of the damage which solitary confinement can inflict is the
considerably higher rate of suicide among prisoners subjected to it than that among
the general prison population. Clearly, therefore, solitary confinement on its
own potentially raises issues in relation to the prohibition of torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ...”
C. Extracts from Recommendation (Rec(2006)2) of the
Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Prison Rules, adopted
on 11 January 2006 (“the European Prison Rules”)
The relevant part of the European Prison Rules
reads as follows:
Special high security or safety measures
“53.1 Special high security or safety measures shall only be
applied in exceptional circumstances.
53.2 There shall be clear procedures to be followed when
such measures are to be applied to any prisoner.
53.3 The nature of any such measures, their duration and
the grounds on which they may be applied shall be determined by national law.
53.4 The application of the measures in each case shall be
approved by the competent authority for a specified period of time.
53.5 Any decision to extend the approved period of time
shall be subject to a new approval by the competent authority.
53.6 Such measures shall be applied to individuals and not
to groups of prisoners.
53.7 Any prisoner subjected to such measures shall have a
right of complaint in the terms set out in Rule 70.”
Requests and complaints
“70.1 Prisoners, individually or as a group, shall have
ample opportunity to make requests or complaints to the director of the prison
or to any other competent authority.
...
70.3 If a request is denied or a complaint is rejected,
reasons shall be provided to the prisoner and the prisoner shall have the right
to appeal to an independent authority.
70.4 Prisoners shall not be punished because of having made a
request or lodged a complaint.
70.5 The competent authority shall take into account any
written complaints from relatives of a prisoner when they have reason to
believe that a prisoner’s rights have been violated ...”
D. Extracts from the
report to the Azerbaijani Government on the visit to Azerbaijan carried out by the
CPT from 8 to 12 December 2008
The CPT has carried out several visits to Azerbaijan in which it had the opportunity to examine the situation in Gobustan Prison. In
particular, the main purpose of the CPT’s visit of May 2005 (ad hoc) was
to examine the situation in Gobustan Prison. However, the CPT’s report on the
latter visit has not been made public. The last report of the CPT concerning Azerbaijan which has been made public is about its visit in December 2008. The relevant
part of the Report reads as follows:
“15. With an official capacity of 700, Gobustan Prison was
holding 634 inmates at the time of the visit. Of them, 219 were life-sentenced
prisoners, 60 were serving long sentences, 319 had been transferred from other
establishments for regime violations and 36 had been assigned to work at the
establishment. The delegation focussed its attention on the three units holding
life-sentenced prisoners (Nos. 4, 5 and 6).
16. In the above-mentioned units for lifers, the
delegation observed some improvements to material conditions. The cell
heating had been significantly improved, running water was provided on a
permanent basis in the cells, and the showers in Unit 4 had been renovated
(enabling prisoners to take more frequent showers). Further, renovation work
was underway in the shower facilities of Unit 6. In addition, the establishment’s
kitchen had been completely refurbished and properly equipped.
That said, conditions in the most dilapidated Unit 1 remained basically unchanged. Moreover, the prison
still did not supply inmates with an adequate range of personal hygiene
products (only soap and washing powder were provided on a regular basis) and
there was no laundry, prisoners thus being obliged to wash their clothes and
bed linen themselves or rely on their families.
17. In June 2008, a number of amendments had been made to
the Code of Enforcement of Punishments (CEP), inter alia, lifting the
restriction that no more than two life-sentenced prisoners be accommodated
together in a cell. The delegation observed that some cells were accommodating
three inmates. In general, the legal requirement of 4 m2 of living
space per prisoner was observed in all the cells visited (e.g. one prisoner in
cells measuring 7 to 8 m2; two prisoners in cells measuring 9 to 10
m2; three prisoners in cells measuring some 17 m2).
However, as stressed by the CPT in previous visit reports, given that prisoners
were locked up in their cells for 23 hours a day, living space was far
from generous.
18. As regards food, many inmates stated that the quality
had recently improved. Nevertheless, a number of complaints were heard that the
food served was monotonous, especially for those who had no means to buy
additional foodstuffs, and that no fruit was provided.
19. As already indicated (see paragraph 9), the
construction of a new high-security prison for 1,500 persons was underway. The
delegation was informed that Gobustan Prison would be closed down once the new
prison entered into service. The CPT would like receive a timetable for the
construction/commissioning of the new prison and information on its layout
plan.
In the meantime, the CPT recommends that measures be
taken at Gobustan Prison to ensure that:
- prisoners are systematically provided with a range of
personal hygiene items (including toothpaste, toothbrush, toilet paper, etc.)
in adequate quantities;
- the variety of the food provided to prisoners is
improved...
21. Turning to activities, the above-mentioned
amendments to the CEP had granted life-sentenced prisoners access to
television. The delegation observed that all cells in the lifers’ units were
equipped with a TV provided by the administration. Both prisoners and staff
affirmed that the possibility to watch television had led to a considerable
decrease in tension in the establishment.
It should be noted, however, that many prisoners complained
that they were allowed to watch television for only four hours a day. In response to the delegation’s comments,
the Azerbaijani authorities indicated in their letter of 4 March 2009 that it
had been decided “to prolong the time for watching TV by inmates”. The CPT
would like to receive information on the precise hours during which
life-sentenced prisoners are able to watch television.
22. Despite the above-mentioned improvement,
life-sentenced prisoners continued to spend 23 hours a day locked up in their
cells, without being offered any form of organised activity. Such a state of
affairs is totally unacceptable and constitutes a failure to implement
long-standing CPT recommendations. The CPT calls upon the Azerbaijani
authorities to take steps without further delay to devise and implement a
comprehensive regime of out-of-cell activities for life-sentenced prisoners at
Gobustan Prison.
In this context, the Committee must stress once again that it
can see no justification for keeping life-sentenced prisoners apart from other
prisoners. Reference has been made in this regard to the Council of Europe’s
Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation (2003) 23, on the “management by prison
administrations of life sentence and other long-term prisoners” of 9 October
2003. The CPT calls upon the Azerbaijani authorities to take due account of
the principles contained in Recommendation (2003) 23 when devising their policy
on the treatment of life-sentenced prisoners...
54. The CPT has serious misgivings about the practice
observed at Gobustan Prison of holding prisoners in solitary
confinement for prolonged periods of time. Reference should be made to the
case of a life-sentenced prisoner who had been held in solitary confinement
since February 2008. From the information gathered, it transpired that solitary
confinement had been imposed by the prison director due to the inmate’s
“disruptive behaviour” (i.e. inciting other prisoners to disobedience).
The prison director had invoked Section 121.1 of the CES which provides that
inmates may, if necessary, be kept in single cells on the basis of a reasoned
decision of the prison director. The decision had been made for an unspecified
period and was not subject to periodic review. Further, the prisoner concerned
claimed that he had not been given a copy of the director’s decision and that
it was only in June 2008 that his solitary confinement had been officially
acknowledged, after he had lodged a complaint with the court.
The application of a solitary
confinement-type regime is a step that can have very harmful consequences for
the person concerned and can, in certain circumstances, lead to inhuman and
degrading treatment. The CPT is of the view that the imposition of such a
regime should be based on an individual risk assessment of the prisoner
concerned, applied for as short a time as possible, and reviewed at regular
intervals. The Committee recommends that the Azerbaijani authorities take
steps to ensure that:
- a prisoner who is placed in solitary confinement by
the prison management is informed in writing of the reasons for that measure
(it being understood that the reasons given could exclude information which security
requirements reasonably justify withholding from the prisoner);
- a prisoner in respect of whom such a measure is
envisaged is given an opportunity to express his views on the matter;
- the placement of a prisoner in solitary confinement
is for as short a period as possible and is reviewed at least every three
months with a view to re-integrating the prisoner into mainstream prison
population...”
E. Extracts from the Response of the Azerbaijani
Government to the report of the CPT on its visit to Azerbaijan from 8 to
12 December 2008
56. The relevant part of the Response reads as follows:
“Regarding paragraphs 16, 18 and 19
With regard to renovation work, it has to be noted that as
stated in the Report the conditions have been substantially improved as a
result of refurbishment in several parts of the prison and these works
continue. Currently, the repair works are undertaken in 1, 2, 3 regime parts of
the prison for changing the water and sewerage systems.
Regarding the hygienic matters, it is noted that every regime
part was provided by a washing machine. At the same time, it was decided to
establish a centralized laundry. A stationary washing machine is planned to be
installed in the 3rd semester of 2009. After this, the prisoners
will not have to wash themselves their own clothes and linens.
According to Annex 24 of Decision No. 154 of the Cabinet of
Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated 25 September 2001, prisoners are
provided with hygienic means, that is, laundry soap (250 gr. per month), bath
soap (100 gr. per month), detergent (150 gr. per month), tooth brush (one per
year) and toothpaste (one per three months). Prisoners are regularly supplied
with these hygienic means. All the prisoners were provided with new toothpastes
and toothbrushes in the end of 2008 and in July of 2009. At the same time,
amendment proposals to the relevant decision of the Cabinet of Ministers
regarding more frequent provision of prisoners with toilet papers and women
prisoners with hygienic pads and also toothpastes and toothbrushes have been
developed and submitted for adoption.
As regards food, it has to be noted that according to the
nutrition norms approved by Decision 154 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the
Republic of Azerbaijan on 25 September 2001, accused persons, convicts and
also life-sentenced prisoners are provided with hot meals three times a day.
Daily volume of the meal norm is 3,000 calories. According to the norms set out
for the period of 2008 and first six months of 2009, the Department of
Logistics of the Penitentiary Service has provided to the prison as well as to
other penitentiary establishments various sorts of cereals, meat, fish and
other necessary nutrition products. Also, amendment proposals to the Decision of
the Cabinet of Ministers on food supply of elderly and life-sentenced prisoners
with fruits and dry fruits have been prepared and submitted for adoption.
Besides, it has to be taken into account that prisoners have the right to
receive parcels, packages and banderols, and spend their own money.
According to the Presidential Order of 11 June 2006 concerning
the relocation of the Gobustan prison, 15-hectare plot of land was allocated
for the construction of a new establishment in Umbaki settlement. The construction
started in July 2007. It is planned that this new premises will be able to hold
1,500 prisoners on average. It is envisaged to construct one-storey 22 regime corps. Each regime corp will have cells for up to 2,
4 and more prisoners. Open walking rooms in front of each cell, where the
inmates could walk freely during a day, with sanitary utilities, shower and
table are under development. The space of no less than 4 m2 was
allocated for each convict in prison. In two parts of the prison, the construction
of necessary separate infrastructures, as well as the cells that would make it
possible to engage in social labour and other activities and to receive
education, is envisaged. At present, the construction of the establishment
continues. Subject to full allocation of financial resources for this
construction, the prison is expected to start functioning in 2011.
Regarding paragraph 17
In compliance with internationally accepted minimal standards,
this norm constitutes 4 m2 for each prisoner in a multi-personal
cell and 6 m2 in a single cell. These minimal standards were based
on the broad analysis of the time the prisoners really spend in their cells.
In accordance with Article 91.2 of the Code of Execution of
Sentences of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the norm of living space for each
prisoner at penitentiary establishments, reformatory establishments and prisons
cannot be less than 4 m2, and in medical establishments cannot be
less than 5 m2. In the aftermath of the amendments made to the Code
of Execution of Sentences on June 24, 2008, restriction that existed in the
legislation concerning the detention of more than two life-sentenced prisoners
was lifted as indicated in the CPT Report. As a result of the application of
this provision in practice, the delegation noticed the detention of three
sentenced persons in the cells and observed that the legal requirements of
living space rules had been met.
It should be taken into account that this situation is driven
by the current structure and condition of the prison, as well as the
particularities of the prison contingent. As soon as a newly constructed prison
becomes operational, positive changes will be brought to the detention
conditions of prisoners including their living spaces...
Regarding paragraph 21
Relevant conditions were created for the prisoners detained at
penitentiary establishments and prisons to watch TV programs every day in a
centralized manner according to the amendments made to paragraph 243 of the
Internal Disciplinary Rules of Penitentiary establishments concerning the
amendments made to the Code of Execution of Sentences by Law of 24 June 2008.
The time to watch TV programs for prisoners is determined not more than 4 hours
in working days and 6 hours in day-off and holidays as a daily rule subject to
compulsory implementation. If necessary, this term may be extended one more hour by the administration. It should be
noted that the prisoners are allowed to freely watch TV programs of the
channels they want. At present, the prisoners watch TV programs in prison from
1800 to 2200. In accordance with the daily rule, during a
day until 1800, the prisoners are taken out for a walk, given
possibility to take a shower, to pass medical treatment and to see
administration. During this time measures are also carried out to ensure
security, to search prohibited items, etc. In the future, when a new
establishment is in operation, the extension of TV watching time for inmates
may be reviewed again because their walking and taking a shower will be
directly provided through the cells which will not require additional time.
Regarding paragraph 22
As mentioned above, the “State Program on development of
justice in Azerbaijan in 2009-2013” approved by the President of the Republic
of Azerbaijan on February 6, 2009 provides for the restoration of the existing
production spheres and the creation of new production spheres at penitentiary
establishments in order to involve the prisoners in socially useful labour.
In accordance with the current legislation, the life-sentenced
prisoners are entitled to engage in socially useful labour under prison
conditions. In order to secure a job to prisoners, including life-sentenced
inmates, the establishment of production departments and workshops is
envisaged. At the same time, in order to efficiently organize their free time,
it is planned to construct in the prison a playing field and a gym.
Detention of life-sentenced prisoners in isolation from the
rest of prisoners is determined by Article 56 of the Criminal Code and Article
72 of the Code of Execution of Sentences of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Such approach is based on the gravity of crimes committed by those prisoners and on
the high level of danger ...
Regarding paragraph 54
Currently, according to relevant
decisions made by the head of institution, six prisoners are held in single
cells for different reasons. According to Article 121.1 of the Code of
Execution of Sentences, prisoners may be transferred to single cells by a
decision of the head of institution with due consideration to their
personality, psychological state and relations with other prisoners. This is
not considered to be a disciplinary measure against the prisoner. According to
article 109 of the Code, prisoner is given the chance to explain his or her own
actions in written or oral form and prisoners have a right to appeal against
that decision to the court or the Ministry of Justice.
According to the existing legislation when prisoners
purposefully breach the rules of execution of punishment, they can be subject
to a disciplinary measure of being held under strict conditions from two to six
months. Considering the recommendations of CPT, based on the Order of the Head
of the Penitentiary Service dated 18 July 2009 the head of the prison was
instructed to review the decisions on detaining in solitary confinement at
least once in two months...”
F. Extracts from the Report of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Azerbaijan on the annual activity (2011) of the National Preventive Mechanism
against Torture
57. A National Preventive
Mechanism (NPM) for the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment was instituted by a presidential order of 28
December 2010. The NPM is presided by the Ombudsman of the Republic of Azerbaijan which publishes an annual report on the activity of the NPM. The relevant
part of the annual report of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Azerbaijan on the activity of NPM against torture (2011) concerning the conditions of detention
in Gobustan Prison reads as follows:
“The conditions in the cells.
The cells intended for the inmates sentenced to life
imprisonment consist of one room. In these cells one, two or four persons are
held. A sanitary facility and water tap are inside the cells and curtained with
a separator. The windows of the cells are partially in line with the standards,
floors are made of stone. Because of the lack of place in the Prison, the cells
previously used as punishment cells, the conditions of which were improved, are
now used as usual cells. The cells have two layered beds. The inmates can
access TV for four hours a day and radio all day long. They are entitled to one
hour (sick inmates up to three hours) outdoor exercise a day. Each building has
four outdoor exercise facilities and one bathroom. The inmates are entitled to
use the bathroom once a week. In the bathroom there is one shower. However,
efforts are made to improve inmates’ access to bathroom facilities ...”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONVENTION AS REGARDS THE APPLICANT’S CONDITIONS OF DETENTION IN GOBUSTAN
PRISON DURING THE PERIOD AFTER 15 APRIL 2002
The applicant complained that his conditions of
detention had been harsh in Gobustan Prison and had amounted to a breach of
Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Admissibility
The Court finds 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
The Government submitted that the applicant’s
conditions of detention in Gobustan Prison met the standards established by the
CPT and that the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated. The Government also
submitted that the applicant’s placement alone in a cell was due to his
attitude to the prison authorities, as he had expressly breached the
disciplinary rules and could not get on with other inmates.
The applicant disagreed with the Government’s
submissions and reiterated his complaints. He complained, in particular, about
the general conditions of his detention, the size of his cell and its
ventilation, the size of the cell’s windows, the duration of outdoor exercise
periods, and the quality of food. The applicant further submitted that his
placement in solitary confinement had been unlawful and unjustified.
2. The Court’s assessment
The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the
Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of a democratic
society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim’s
behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR
2000-IV).
According to the Court’s case-law, ill-treatment
must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of
Article 3 of the Convention. The assessment of this minimum level is relative;
it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the
treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and
state of health of the victim. Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is
“degrading” within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to
whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether,
as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her
personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. However, the absence of
such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this
provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR
2001-III, and Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 90, 21 July 2005).
When assessing conditions of detention, one must consider their cumulative
effects as well as the applicant’s specific allegations (see
Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).
. The
Court further notes that removal from association with other prisoners
for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to
inhuman treatment or degrading punishment (see Messina v. Italy (dec.),
no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V) and solitary confinement is not in itself in breach
of Article 3 (see Rohde, cited above, § 93). In assessing whether such a
measure may fall within the ambit of Article 3 in a given case, regard must be
had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration,
the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Lorsé and
Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 63, 4 February 2003).
On the other hand, complete sensory isolation, coupled with total social
isolation, can destroy the personality and constitutes a form of inhuman
treatment which cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any
other reason (see Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 120,
ECHR 2006-IX).
In the present case, the applicant complained
before the domestic courts and the Court, about the general conditions of his
detention in Gobustan Prison and his placement alone in a cell.
The Court observes at the outset that the
applicant himself did not deny that he had been detained in a cell measuring at
least 8 sq. m. throughout his detention and that Gobustan Prison was not
overcrowded. The Court considers that this accommodation standard appears
acceptable.
As regards the other conditions in the cell, the
Court notes that such factors as access to natural light or air, adequacy of
heating arrangements, compliance with basic sanitary requirements, the
opportunity to use the toilet in private, the state of ventilation and the
availability of recreation and other outdoor exercise in prison are relevant to
the assessment of whether the acceptable threshold of suffering or degradation
has been exceeded (see, for example, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §
84, 12 June 2008; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October
2007; Peers, cited above, §§ 70-72; and Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, § 54, 7 October 2010).
In the present case, the toilet is separated
from the rest of the cell and there is no problem of privacy in using the
toilet facilities. The cell may be lit by two electric lamps. There is a
ventilator and a radio set in the cell. The applicant has the right to watch TV
for four hours a day, and six hours a day at weekends and on holidays. He also
has access to the prison library.
However, the Court observes that the duration of
outdoor exercise of the applicant is limited to one hour a day and he is
confined to his cell for the rest of the time. In this connection, the Court
reiterates that of the elements relevant for the assessment of the conditions
of detention, special attention must be paid to the availability and duration
of outdoor exercise and the conditions in which prisoners may take it. The Court
has frequently observed that a short duration of outdoor exercise limited to
one hour a day was a factor that further exacerbated the situation of the
applicant, who was confined to his cell for the rest of the time without any
kind of freedom of movement (see Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United
Kingdom, nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09, § 213, 10 April 2012, and Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, § 88, 27 January 2011).
Moreover, the Court does not lose sight of the
fact that the applicant is a life sentenced inmate who has been subjected to this
regime since his arrival at Gobustan Prison. In this connection, the Court
considers that two long and six short visits of his family per year or occasional
meetings that the applicant had with his lawyer outside the cell cannot
significantly alter his confinement to the cell during twenty-three hours per
day (see Skachkov, cited above, § 54).
The Court also notes that as it was stressed by
the CPT’s report (see paragraph 55 above) no recreational or education activity
was available to prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment in Gobustan Prison and
this situation involved very little human contact, limited in principle to the
cellmate and to prison guards.
This situation was further exacerbated in the
case of the applicant by the fact that he had been placed alone in a cell from
14 February 2008 to 16 December 2010, approximately two years and ten
months, and spent almost twenty-three hours per day alone in his cell during
this period. In this connection, the Court notes that it is true that during
this period the applicant continued to enjoy the rights granted to other life
prisoners, such as to watch TV, to have a radio set in his cell, to receive and
to send correspondence and parcels, to have access to a library and to receive
visits from his lawyer and his family and he cannot be considered to have been
in complete sensory isolation or to have been totally isolated from social
contact, and that his isolation was partial and relative (see, mutatis
mutandis, Rohde, cited above, § 97, and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, §§ 32-33, 7 June
2011). However, even such a partial and relative isolation aggravated
the conditions of his detention involving for him less human contact than other
life prisoners sharing their cell with other inmates. For the applicant, human
contacts were practically limited to conversations with fellow prisoners during
the one-hour walk and occasional dealings with prison staff (see Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, § 82, 11 March 2004).
The Court wishes to reiterate that prolonged
solitary confinement is undesirable (see Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, §
122) and such a lengthy period may give rise to concern because of the risk of
harmful effects on mental health, as stated on several occasions by the CPT
(see Rohde, cited above, § 97). Moreover, solitary confinement,
even in cases entailing only relative isolation, cannot be imposed on a
prisoner indefinitely and should be based on genuine grounds, ordered only
exceptionally with the necessary procedural safeguards and after every
precaution has been taken (see Onoufriou v. Cyprus, no. 24407/04, § 70, 7 January 2010, and Ramirez Sanchez,
cited above, § 139).
In this connection, the Court observes that the
reasons given for the applicant’s placement alone in a cell were his attitude
to the prison guards and breaches of disciplinary rules, as well as his
allegedly unsubstantiated complaints to various authorities. The Court reiterates
in this respect that the solitary confinement should not be applied as a
punishment for sending complaints to various authorities and the latter action
of the applicant cannot be a substantive reason for his placement in solitary
confinement. Nothing indicates in the domestic law that solitary confinement
may be imposed when a prisoner sends complaints to domestic authorities.
Furthermore, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that the Government did
not convincingly show why it was necessary to separate the applicant from other
prisoners.
As to the procedural safeguards concerning the
application of the solitary confinement, the first available official decision
of the prison authority on the applicant’s placement alone in a cell was dated
25 July 2008. In these circumstances, it is not possible to establish on which
ground and by which decision the applicant was placed and detained alone in a
cell from 14 February to 25 July 2008. The Court also observes that the prison
authority reviewed its decision of 25 July 2008 for the first time only on 4
August 2009, more than one year later. During this period, the applicant was
deprived of the opportunity to benefit from the procedural safeguard providing
for a regular review of his solitary confinement, taking into consideration the
applicant’s personal circumstances, situation and behaviour.
In sum, having regard to the fact that the
applicant spent during his detention almost the entire day and night confined
to his cell, without any recreational and education activity, and that this situation
was exacerbated by his placement alone in a cell, without genuine grounds and
procedural safeguards, which involved for him less human contact, the Court
considers that the distress and hardship endured by the applicant during his
detention in Gobustan Prison after 15 April 2002 exceeded the unavoidable level
inherent in detention and to be considered as inhuman and degrading treatment.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE APPLICANT’S ILL-TREATMENT BY THE PRISON GUARDS
The applicant complained that he had been beaten
and ill-treated by prison guards on 11 January 2004, and that the domestic authorities
had not carried out an effective investigation into his complaints of
ill-treatment. Article 3 provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
The Government submitted that the applicant had
failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his ill-treatment claim. The
Government noted that effective domestic remedies were available in the
domestic law against any action or omission of prison guards. The Government
also rejected the applicant’s allegation concerning his ill-treatment. In
particular, the Government relied on a video recording of the applicant’s
meeting with the Ombudsman on 14 February 2004.
The applicant disagreed with the Government’s
submissions. He alleged, in particular, that the domestic remedies had been
ineffective, because they refused to admit his complaints for procedural
reasons. The applicant reiterated his complaints.
The Court observes that, in the present case,
the applicant complained to the prosecuting authorities and lodged a civil
action with domestic courts.
The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion
of domestic remedies does not require merely that applications should be made
to the appropriate domestic courts and that use should be made of remedies
designed to challenge decisions already given. It normally requires also that
complaints intended to be made subsequently at Strasbourg should have been made
to those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal
requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, inter alia,
Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).
In this connection the Court observes that following
the applicant’s criminal complaint the prosecution authorities opened an investigation.
However, by a decision of 24 November 2005, the Deputy Prosecutor of Garadagh
District refused to initiate criminal proceedings for lack of evidence
concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations. As with any decision by prosecuting
authorities concerning refusal to institute criminal
proceedings or to discontinue criminal proceedings, this decision was
subject to an appeal before the domestic courts, however the applicant did not
appeal against this decision (a contrario, see Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, §§ 22-27, 11 January 2007 ).
Concerning the civil action, the Court notes
that the applicant’s actions were rejected by the domestic courts for non-compliance
with the formal requirements for lodging a complaint. The applicant did not
appeal against those decisions.
The applicant did not state whether there were
special circumstances in the present case which would dispense him from the
obligation to challenge the prosecutor’s refusal to initiate criminal
proceedings or the court’s refusal to admit his civil action for failure to
comply with the procedural requirements. The Court reiterates that mere doubts
about the effectiveness of a remedy are not sufficient to dispense with the
requirement to make normal use of the available avenues for redress (see
Kunqurova v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 5117/03, 3 June 2005).
It follows that this complaint must be rejected
under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies.
II. APPLICATION OF
ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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
The applicant claimed
14,000 euros (EUR) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
The Government submitted that the applicant’s
claim was unsubstantiated and excessive.
The Court considers that the applicant has
suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated solely by the finding
of violations, 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 the applicant the sum of EUR 7,500 under this head, plus any
tax that may be chargeable on this amount.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 2,000 for costs
and expenses incurred before the Court.
The Government submitted that the applicant’s
claim was unsubstantiated and lacked the documentary evidence.
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 have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. The Court notes that the applicant was represented
before the Court and it is undisputed that the representative provided relevant
documentation and observations as requested by the Court. In these
circumstances, the Court finds it appropriate to award the applicant EUR 2,000
in respect of costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
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 UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaint under Article 3 of
the Convention concerning the applicant’s conditions of detention in Gobustan
Prison during the period after 15 April 2002 admissible and the remainder of
the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention as regards the applicant’s conditions of
detention in Gobustan Prison during the period after 15 April 2002;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final, in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 7,500 (seven
thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 (two
thousand euros) in respect of cost and expenses, plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant on those amounts, which are to be converted into
Azerbaijani manats (AZN) at the rate applicable on the date of settlement;
(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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 July 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre
Registrar President
