FIFTH SECTION
\nCASE OF ASLANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
\n(Application no. 35402\/07)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n15 November 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Aslanov v. Azerbaijan,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n YonkoGrozev, President, Having deliberated in private on 16 October 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 35402\/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 (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by an Azerbaijani national, Mr ArifInshallaogluAslanov (Arif\u0130n\u015falla o\u011flu Aslanov\u2013 \u201cthe first applicant\u201d), on 6\u00a0August\u00a02007.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant was represented by Mr E. Guliyev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr\u00a0\u00c7.\u00a0Asgarov.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant alleged, in particular, that the domestic courts had failed to justify his pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 March 2008 the Court was informed of the first applicant\u2019s death in detention on 22 January 2008 and the wish of his son, Mr Emil ArifogluAslanov (Emil Arifo\u011flu Aslanov \u2013 \u201cthe second applicant\u201d), to continue the proceedings before the Court in his stead. The second applicant also raised on his own behalf a new complaint in connection with the first applicant\u2019s death in prison and was represented before the Court by the same lawyer, Mr\u00a0E.\u00a0Guliyev. Those submissions were added to the original application.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 August 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. By a letter of 21 June 2018, the second applicant informed the Court that he will be represented by Ms S. Aghayeva, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan, following the death of Mr E. Guliyev.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant was born in 1955 and at the time of the events lived in Baku. The second applicant was born in 1986 and resides in Baku.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The medical documentation in the case file shows that the first applicant suffered from a number of serious illnesses before his arrest. In particular, he suffered from end-stage kidney failure andfrom 28\u00a0January\u00a02006 underwent dialysis in a specialist centre three times per week. He also suffered from a number of cardiovascular diseases and twice underwent surgery on his heart.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant further suffered from a severe form of type\u00a02\u00a0diabetes and, as a result of the chronic diabetes, had severe problems with his eyesight for which he underwent surgery in 2005. As a result of the above-mentioned illnesses, he had very limited physical mobility. In particular, he could hardly move and was incapable of changing his clothes or taking a bath without assistance.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Institution of criminal proceedings against the first applicant and his remand in custody<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 June 2007 the first applicant was arrested by agents of the Ministry of National Security (\u201cthe MNS\u201d) on suspicion of planning to murder Z.F., at that time the head of the Absheron District Executive Authority, because of a professional dispute between them.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 June 2007 the first applicant was charged with the attempted murder of a public official under Articles 29 and 277 of the Criminal Code. On the same day the prosecutor requested that the judge apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (h\u0259bsq\u0259timkant\u0259dbiri).<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 June 2007 the Sabail District Court, referring to the official charges brought against the first applicant and the prosecutor\u2019s request, remanded the first applicant in custody for three months. The judge substantiated the necessity of the measure by the seriousness of the first applicant\u2019s alleged criminal acts and the possibility of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cHaving examined the material in the criminal case and having agreed with the submissions of the First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Azerbaijan that the accused, A. Aslanov, attempted to commit a particularly serious crime, that it was needed to prevent his unlawful actions, that there were sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, he would abscond from the investigation and disrupt the establishment of the truth about the case and relying on Articles … decided …\u201d<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 June 2007 the first applicant appealed against that order, claiming that his detention was unlawful. He submitted, in particular, that there was no justification for remanding him in custody. He also complained that the court had failed to take into account his personal situation, such as his state of health and age, when it had ordered his pre\u2011trial detention.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 July 2007 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appellate court made no mention of the first applicant\u2019s particular complaints. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cThe court bench considers that the first-instance court, having taken into account that A. Aslanov could obstruct the investigation, the nature of the criminal act, and the fact that the punishment for committing such an act is over two years\u2019 imprisonment, was correct in considering it necessary to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of him.<\/p>\n Therefore, the court bench does not consider that the representative\u2019s appeal should be allowed at this stage of the investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant\u2019s medical care and death in detention<\/strong><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 June 2007 the first applicant was taken to the pre-trial detention facility of the MNS and detained in a cell alone.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 June 2007 the first applicant\u2019s state of health significantly deteriorated and he was urgently transferred to the medical facility of the Penitentiary Service (\u201cthe medical facility\u201d). However, as it was impossible to undergo dialysis there, the first applicant was taken to the Central Oil Workers\u2019 Hospital, where he had regularly undergone dialysis before his arrest.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0It appears from the medical documentation in the case file that, following the first applicant\u2019s dialysis at the Central Oil Workers\u2019 Hospital, he was taken directly to the medical facility, where he remained until his death.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 January 2008 the first applicant\u2019s situation worsened during his dialysis at the Central Oil Workers\u2019 Hospital. He died the same day.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0His death certificate dated 24 January 2008 indicates that the cause of death was acute heart failure.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0A post mortem report dated 25 January 2008 also concluded that the death had resulted from acute heart failure.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0A criminal inquiry into the first applicant\u2019s death was launched by the Nizami District Prosecutor\u2019s Office. By a decision of 1 February 2008 it refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding that there had been no criminal aspect to his death.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 February 2008 the first applicant\u2019s family was provided with a copy of that decision. It does not appear from the case file that that decision was appealed.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Remedies used<\/strong><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 June 2007 the first applicant\u2019s lawyer asked the investigating authorities to order a forensic medical examination in order to establish whether the first applicant\u2019s detention was compatible with his state of health. In that connection, he submitted that the first applicant suffered from a number of serious illnesses which could not be treated in detention.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 July 2007 the investigator in charge of the case ordered a forensic medical examination. The investigator asked the experts to establish whether the first applicant suffered from coronary heart disease, postinfarctioncardiosclerosis, end-stage kidney failure, diabetes and poor eyesight and if so, to determine the level of seriousness of the conditions and establish whether he could continue his medical treatment in the medical facility where he was being detained.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The two experts issued forensic medical report no. 124\/TM, which indicated that the examination had begun on 9 July and ended on 23\u00a0July\u00a02007. The report confirmed that the first applicant suffered from a number of serious illnesses. However, the experts concluded that he could be treated in the medical facility if he was under the full control of an endocrinologist, ophthalmologist, cardiologist and nephrologist and continued his dialysis.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 July 2007 the first applicant\u2019s lawyer asked the investigator to order a new forensic examination with the participation of foreign experts. In particular, he noted that the first applicant could not be provided with dialysis or adequate medical assistance in respect of other conditions in the medical facility and that his detention in these circumstances amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0By a decision of 6 August 2007 the investigator dismissed the request. The part of the decision regarding the first applicant\u2019s medical care in detention reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn accordance with the forensic report\u2019s findings, in the medical facility where he was detained the accused A. Aslanov was placed under the full control of the doctors specialising in the medical fields indicated in the report and the continuity of his [dialysis] has, until now, been ensured.\u201d<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 September and 11 October 2007 the first applicant\u2019s lawyer asked the Ministry of Justice to provide him with a copy of the document listing the serious illnesses precluding the detention of prisoners. By a letter of 7\u00a0November 2007 the Ministry of Justice refused to provide it, finding that the document in question was irrelevant to the first applicant\u2019s case as it concerned prisoners who had already been convicted as a result of a final court decision.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 November 2007 the first applicant\u2019s lawyer lodged a civil action with the Sabail District Court, complaining of incompatibility of the first applicant\u2019s detention with his state of health and inadequate medical treatment. In particular, the lawyer asked the court to acknowledge a violation of the first applicant\u2019s right to medical assistance in detention and declare unlawful the Ministry of Justice\u2019s decision not to provide him with the document listing the serious illnesses precluding the detention of prisoners. On 27 November 2007 the first applicant\u2019s lawyer asked the President of the Sabail District Court to examine the case as soon as possible in view of the real risk to the first applicant\u2019s life.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 January 2008 the first applicant\u2019s lawyer received a copy of a decision dated 3 December 2007 by the Sabail District Court refusing to examine on the merits the complaint lodged on 23 November 2007. The Sabail District Court refused to admit the action on the grounds that the first applicant had failed to specify the rights that he considered had been breached.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 February 2008 the first applicant\u2019s lawyer on behalf of his family lodged an appeal against the Sabail District Court\u2019s decision of 3\u00a0December 2007, claiming that it was unlawful.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0By a decision of 7 February 2008 the Sabail District Court quashed its decision of 3 December 2007 and decided to examine the complaint on the merits.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Sabail District Court\u2019s decision of 4 March 2008, the first-instance court decided to leave without examination the action due to failure of the parties to attend the hearing. The court relied on Article\u00a0259.0.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provided that the action was left without examination if the parties failed to attend the hearing without asking in advance the court to examine the action in their absence.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant\u2019s trial and the appeal proceedings after his death<\/strong><\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date the criminal investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Assize Court for trial.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 October 2007 the Assize Court held a preliminary hearing. The first applicant requested that the court discontinue his pre-trial detention. In that regard, he submitted that his continued detention violated his rights under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention as it was incompatible with his state of health and he was not being provided with adequate medical assistance.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day the Assize Court dismissed the request, finding that the preventive measure of remand in custody should be left unchanged. The Assize Court made no mention of the first applicant\u2019s particular complaints and did not provide any reasons for his continued detention. The decision was not amenable to appeal.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 November 2007 the Assize Court found the first applicant guilty under Articles 29 and 277 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to eleven years and three months\u2019 imprisonment. The court held that he had attempted to murder Z.F., but that the planned murder had not been completed for reasons beyond his own control.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0Following the first applicant\u2019s death on 22 January 2008 (see\u00a0paragraph 17 above), on 21 February 2008 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal decided to continue the appeal proceedings in respect of the first applicant at the request of the second applicant.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0On 29 May 2008 it dismissed the appeal and upheld the Assize Court\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 October 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the first applicant\u2019s conviction.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0Chapter LII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (\u201cthe CCrP\u201d) lays down the procedure by which parties to criminal proceedings may challenge the actions or decisions of the prosecution authorities before the courts. Article 449 provides that a victim or his counsel may challenge such actions or decisions as,inter alia, the prosecution authorities\u2019 refusal to institute criminal proceedings or to terminate them. The judge examining the lawfulness of the prosecution authorities\u2019 actions or decisions may overrule them if he or she finds them to be unlawful (Article 451). This decision is amenable to appeal in accordance with the procedure established in Articles\u00a0452 and 453 of the CCrP.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The relevant provisions of the CCrP concerning pre-trial detention are described in detail in the Court\u2019s judgments inFarhadAliyev v.\u00a0Azerbaijan (no. 37138\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 83-102, 9\u00a0November 2010) andMuradverdiyev v.\u00a0Azerbaijan (no. 16966\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a035\u201149, 9 December 2010). The relevant decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court concerning pre-trial detention are described in detail in the Court\u2019s judgment in Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 49192\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a031\u201132, 6\u00a0March 2014).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0PRELIMINARY ISSUE<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0The Court at the outset notes that the first applicant, Mr ArifAslanov, died after lodging the application on 6 August 2007 and that his son, Mr Emil Aslanov, (the second applicant)has expressed his wish to continue the proceedings before the Court (see paragraph 4 above). It has not been disputed that the second applicantis entitled to pursue the application on behalf of the first applicant and the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. However, for reasons of convenience, the text of this judgment will continue to refer to Mr ArifAslanov as \u201cthe first applicant\u201d, even though only the second applicant is today to be regarded as having the status of applicant before the Court (see GulubAtanasov v. Bulgaria, no.\u00a073281\/01, \u00a7 42, 6\u00a0November 2008, and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no.\u00a036229\/11, \u00a7 62, 25 June 2015).<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0The second applicant complained that the State had failed to protect his father\u2019s life while in detention and that there had been no effective investigation into his death. Article 2 of the Convention provides as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0Everyone\u2019s right to life shall be protected by law. …\u201d<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the first applicant\u2019s family had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, they pointed out that the Nizami District Prosecutor\u2019s Office had launched a criminal inquiry into the first applicant\u2019s death in detention and that on 1 February 2008 the investigator in charge of the case had refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of any criminal aspect to his death. However, the first applicant\u2019s family had never challenged this decision before the domestic courts.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The second applicantmaintained his complaint.<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that in the present case, following the first applicant\u2019s death in detention, the prosecution authorities launched a criminal inquiry and that, by a decision of 1 February 2008, the Nizami District Prosecutor\u2019s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of any criminal aspect to his death. As with any decision by the prosecution authorities concerning a refusal to institute or to discontinue criminal proceedings, this decision was amenable to appeal before the domestic courts (see paragraph 40 above), however the secondapplicant did not appeal (compare Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 47095\/09, \u00a7 45, 4\u00a0May\u00a02017, and Malik Babayev v.\u00a0Azerbaijan, no. 30500\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 31-54, 1\u00a0June 2017).<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0Moreover, the second applicant did not state whether there were special circumstances in the present case which dispensed him from having to challenge the investigator\u2019s refusal to institute criminal proceedings. 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 (seeKunqurova v.\u00a0Azerbaijan (dec.), no.\u00a05117\/03, 3 June 2005).<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and\u00a04 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant complained that he had not been provided with adequate medical treatment in detention and that his detention had been incompatible with his state of health. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the first applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, pointing out that he had had a wide range of legal opportunities at his disposal to complain of a lack of medical treatment. In particular, a civil action concerning a lack of medical treatment constituted an effective remedy and the first applicant could have also benefited from an administrative remedy. However, he had only raised the issue of his poor state of health before the domestic authorities in his appeal against the Sabail District Court\u2019s detention order dated 21 June 2007.<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant disagreed with the Government\u2019s submissions, reiterating his complaint. In particular, he pointed out that on 23 November 2007 he had lodged a civil action with the Sabail District Court, but it had never been examined by the domestic courts.<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0It is undisputed by the parties and the Court also found that at the material time under Azerbaijani law the institution of civil proceedings before the domestic courts constituted an effective remedy in respect of complaints concerning a lack of medical assistance in detention (see Insanov v.\u00a0Azerbaijan, no. 16133\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a086-98, 14 March 2013, and Akif\u00a0Mammadov v.\u00a0Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 46903\/07, \u00a7\u00a029, 13 May 2014). However, the parties differ as to the question whether the first applicant used the above remedy.<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that it is clear from the documents in the case file that the first applicant lodged a civil action with the Sabail District Court, which decided on 7 February 2008, following a series of procedural decisions, to examine the action on the merits (see paragraphs 28-31 above). However, by a decision of 4 March 2008, the Sabail District Court decided to leave without examination the action due to failure of the parties to attend the hearing (see paragraph 32 above).<\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 under the Convention 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, \u00a7 34, Series A no. 200).<\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0However, in the present case the first applicant\u2019s lawyer,failing to comply with the procedural requirements,did not appear before the Sabail District Court which decided, on 4 March 2008, to leave without examination the civil action. No appeal was lodged against that decision. Moreover, it was not stated before the Court that the secondapplicant and his lawyer had not been informed of that hearing or the Sabail District Court\u2019s decision of 4 March 2008(compareHummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos.\u00a09852\/03 and 13413\/04, \u00a7 88, 29 November 2007), or whether there were any other special circumstances in the present case which would dispense them from the obligation to comply with the procedural requirements.<\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and\u00a04 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention, the first applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to justify his pre-trial detention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention, which reads:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph\u00a01\u00a0(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant maintained his complaint, arguing that the domestic courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the domestic courts had given sufficient and relevant reasons for the contested decisions.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0The Court refers to the summaries of its case-law set out in Allahverdiyevv. Azerbaijan (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 51-55), which are equally pertinent to the present case.<\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0The first applicant\u2019s detention was first ordered by the Sabail District Court on 21\u00a0June 2007.That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 11\u00a0July 2007. His detention was subsequently upheld on 5 October 2007 by the Assize Court, which decided at the preliminary hearing that the preventive measure of remand in custody should remain unchanged.<\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that both the Sabail District Court and the Court of Appeal used a standard template when ordering the first applicant\u2019s pre\u2011trial detention (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above). In particular, both courts limited themselves to repeating a number of grounds for detention in an abstract and stereotyped way, without giving any reasons why they considered those grounds relevant to the first applicant\u2019s case. They failed to mention any case-specific facts relevant to those grounds and to substantiate them with relevant and sufficient reasons (see FarhadAliyev, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0191-94, and Muradverdiyev, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a087-91, both cited above). Moreover, the Assize Court upheld the first applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention without providing any reasons (see\u00a0paragraph\u00a035 above). In their decisions the domestic courts made no mention of the first applicant\u2019s arguments in favour of his release on account of his state of health (see Koutalidis v.\u00a0Greece, no. 18785\/13, \u00a7 51, 27\u00a0November 2014).<\/p>\n 64.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that by using a standard formula, which merely listed the statutory grounds for detention without addressing the specific facts of the first applicant\u2019s case, and by failing to justify his continued detention, the authorities failed to give \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d reasons to justify the first applicant\u2019s pre\u2011trial detention.<\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 66.\u00a0\u00a0Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the first applicant also complained of a lack of impartiality on the part of the judges and, more generally, of a lack of independence in the judicial system of Azerbaijan.<\/p>\n 67.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of all the material before it, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the provision relied on by the first applicant.<\/p>\n 68.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n VI.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 69.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Pecuniary damage<\/em><\/p>\n 70.\u00a0\u00a0The second applicant claimed 17,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) in respect of pecuniary damage. He submitted that his family had spent that sum on the first applicant\u2019s medical treatment and on sending him food parcels in detention. He further submitted that in the absence of any receipts proving those expenses, he would leave it to the Court\u2019s discretion to decide the exact amount to be awarded under this head.<\/p>\n 71.\u00a0\u00a0The Government asked the Court to reject the claim.<\/p>\n 72.\u00a0\u00a0The Court does not find any causal link between the damages claimed and the violation found (see Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no.\u00a040984\/07, \u00a7\u00a0186, 22 April 2010; Efendiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 27304\/07, \u00a7\u00a060, 18\u00a0December 2014; and Yagublu v. Azerbaijan, no. 31709\/13, \u00a7\u00a068, 5\u00a0November 2015). Accordingly, it rejects the second applicant\u2019s claim in respect of pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Non-pecuniary damage<\/em><\/p>\n 73.\u00a0\u00a0The second applicant claimed 90,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 74.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the claim was unsubstantiated and excessive.<\/p>\n 75.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has found a breach of the first applicant\u2019s rights under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 65 above). Noting that the second applicant has standing to pursue the application in the late first applicant\u2019s stead (see paragraph 42 above) and making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the second applicant the sum of EUR 3,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 76.\u00a0\u00a0The second applicant claimed EUR 2,000 for legal services incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and EUR 780 for translation expenses. In support of his claim, he submitted four contracts concluded on various dates with a lawyer in the amount of AZN 1,200.<\/p>\n 77.\u00a0\u00a0The Government considered that the amounts claimed by the second applicant were unsubstantiated and excessive. They arguedthat the contracts submitted fell outside the scope of the present case and that the second applicant could only claim AZN 300 in respect of legal costs incurred before the investigating authorities.<\/p>\n 78.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court\u2019s 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 in the present case the second applicant did not submit any evidence of translation expenses and that the contracts concluded with a lawyer only amounted to AZN 1,200. However, only two of the four contracts, totalling AZN 600, concerned the period when the domestic courts examined the issue relating to the first applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention. Therefore, having regard to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR\u00a0500 covering costs under all heads.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 79.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that the second applicant has standing to pursue the application in the first applicant\u2019s stead;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the first applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 5 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the second applicant, Mr Emil Aslanov, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a03,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the second applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the second applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 November 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Milan Bla\u0161ko\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 YonkoGrozev
\nGabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
\nL\u04d9tif H\u00fcseynov, judges,
\nand Milan Bla\u0161ko, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n