Rezoluția interimară CM/ResDH(2017) 429 Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului Ilgar Mammadov împotriva Azerbaidjanului (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 5 decembrie 2017, cu ocazia reuniunii 1302 a delegaților miniștrilor) Cerere Cauza Hotărârea Definitivului la 15272/13 Ilgar MAMMADOV 22/05/2014 13/10/2014 Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede ca Comitetul să supravegheze executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea"), Reamintind Rezoluția interimară CM/ResDH(2017)379 care, în scopul punerii în întârziere, are intenția de a sesiza Curtea cu ocazia celei de a 1302-a reuniuni (DH) din 5 decembrie 2017, în conformitate cu art. 46 alineatul (4) din convenție, dacă Republica Azerbaidjan și-a încălcat obligația, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1), de a se conforma hotărârii Curții din 22 mai 2014 în cauza Ilgar Mammadov , și invitând Republica Azerbaidjan să își prezinte în mod concis opinia cu privire la această chestiune până la 29 noiembrie 2017 cel târziu, reamintind din nou că, în hotărârea sa menționată anterior, Curtea nu numai că a constatat o încălcare a articolului 5 1 din Convenție, având în vedere că nici un fapt sau nicio informație nu au fost obținute ca urmare a unor suspiciuni care justifică acuzațiile aduse reclamantului sau arestării sale și arestării sale provizorii, dar și a unei încălcări a articolului 18 coroborat cu art. 5, întrucât scopul real al acestor măsuri a fost de a-l reduce la tăcere sau de a-l pedepsi pentru că a criticat guvernul obligația statului pârât, în conformitate cu art. 46 alin. (1) din Convenție, de a se conforma tuturor hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile statului pârât, dacă este necesar, a unor măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura în care este posibil de către Restitutio in maim la cererea Comitetului, la prima sa examinare a cauzei la 4 decembrie 2014, sub aspectul măsurilor individuale impuse în lumina hotărârii menționate anterior, de a asigura eliberarea fără întârziere a reclamantului numeroase decizii și rezoluții interimare ulterioare ale Comitetului care subliniază deficiențele fundamentale ale procedurilor penale, revelate prin concluziile Curții la art. 18 din Convenția combinată cu art. 5 și care solicită eliberarea imediată și necondiționată a reclamantului că procedura penală diligentă împotriva reclamantului se încheie la 18 noiembrie 2016 în fața Curții Supreme, fără ca consecințele încălcărilor constatate de Curtea Europeană să fi fost trase, în special cea a articolului 18 coroborat cu art. 5 că au trecut mai mult de trei ani de la data la care hotărârea Curții a devenit definitivă și că reclamantul rămâne în instanță pe baza procedurii viciate Consideră că, în aceste circumstanțe, neasigurându-se cu eliberarea necondiționată a reclamantului, Republica Azerbaidjan refuză să se conformeze hotărârii definitive a Curții Hotărârea de a sesiza Curtea, în conformitate cu art. 46 alineatul (4) din convenție, cu privire la întrebarea dacă Republica Azerbaidjan nu este conformă cu obligația sa în conformitate cu art. 46 litera (a) din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene (TFUE) privind chestiunea ridicată în fața Curții este anexată (numai în limba engleză). Anexă: Văzute de Republica Azerbaidjan 1. La 1298 În cazul în care, în conformitate cu art. 46 alineatul (4) din Convenție, se aplică art. 46 alineatul (1) din Convenția de instituire a Comunității Europene a Drepturilor Omului și cu art. 46 alineatul (4) din Convenția de instituire a Comunității Europene a Drepturilor Omului și a Drepturilor Omului, se aplică art. 46 alineatul (1) din Convenția de instituire a Comunității Europene a Drepturilor Omului. Azerbaijan (nr. 151771/13, 22 May 2014). 2. In respons to the Committee On 4 February 2013 the applicant was sarcinad with criminal official offices under Articols 233 (organising or activly participating in actions causing a breach of public order) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or health) of the Criminal Code, and arrested by the decision of the Nasimi District Court. On 30 April 2013 the applicant was încarced under Articols 220.1 (mass disorder) and 315.2 of the Criminal Code. 4. on 17 March 2014 the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes convicted the aplicant under Articols 220.1 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code and sended him to seven years 5. on 24 September 2014 the Sheki Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the court of first instance. art. 407.2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan provides that the judgment shall be final immediately after delivery of the decision of the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, as from 24 September 2014, the applicant was not under the pre-trial detention; he was serving hi sentince. 6. on 22 May 2014 the Court (Prima Secțiune) adoptăd judgment, in which it found încălcarea articolului 5 alineatul (1) (c) and 4, art. 6 alineatul (2) din Convenție și art. 18 din Convenția taken in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention. This judgment was final on 13 October 2014. The COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS 7. Rule 6 of the CM Rules reads as folows: În cazul în care, într-un act de procedură transmisted to the Committee of Ministers in acordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Court has decided that there has been a violation of the Convention or its protocols and/or has awarded just satisfaction to the insulted party under Article 41 of the Convention, the Committee shall invita the High Contracting Party send to information it of the measures which the High Contracting Party has taken or intents to take in consecvence of the judgment, having revised to its obligation to abide by it under Article 46 paragraph 1, of the Convention. 2. Atunci când supravegherea executării unei hotărâri de către High Contracting Party se referă lad, pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers shall examinează: a. whether any just satisfaction awarded by the Court has been paid, inclusivding as the case may be, default interest; and b. if required, and taking into account the discretion of the High Contracting Party send to choose the meanssary to comply with the judgment, whether: i. individual measures have been taken to ensure that the încălcarea has ceased and that the insulted party is put, as far as posibil, in the same as as that party enjoyed prior to the violation of the convention; ii. general Measures have been adopted, prevening new infloritions similar to that or those found or putting an end to continuating incalcations. amount of 22,000 EUR paid to the aplicant in respect of moraly damage and costs and expenses. By its decision of 13 October 2015, the Supreme Court quashed the Sheki Court of Appeal The case was remitted to the Sheki Court of Appeal for a new examination in compliment with the domesticprocedural rules and the Convention requirements. 10. on 29 April 2016 the Sheki Court of Appeal finalized Examination of the applicant 11. În decembrie 2015, under Article 52 of the Convention, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe launched an inquiry to find out how the domestic law in any member state makes sure that the convention is implemented. 12. on 11 January 2017 the set up by the Secretary General visied Azerbaijan and held discutions, with judicial, legislative and executive authorities, to cover all issues raported to execution of the Court 13. on 10 February 2017, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan semnd Executive Order 14. Executive Order covered a number of questions raised by the Court in its judgment, inclusiving existence of reasonable suspecte of having committed an offence at the time of arrest and consideration of alternative measures of restract by supportities. 15. Further umanization of penal policies in Azerbaijan was listed among the aims of the document. It said that, in application of measures of restraint by investigation authorities and scurts, provision of criminal procesure law Reference grounds for arrest should be strictly compliment with, and the level of application of alternative sanctions and measures of procedural compulsion extended to attain aims of pedepseshment and of measure of restraint through non-custodial means. 16. The President of the Republic of Azerbaijan recommended to the Supreme Court, the General Prosecutor 17. The President also recommended to the Office of the Prosecutor General to start with examination of alternative measures of restraint when considering motions for arrest. 18. It was also recommended to the scurts that they analized the existence of reasonable suspectes of individual mais having committed an offence and grounds for arrest, when deciding on measure of restraint, and arguments in favor of alternative measures. 19.Acording to Executive Oder, the Supreme Court shall hold continued analizes of case law of the scurts requiption of arrest and impozitation of impresionment. 20 on 20 October 2017 the Milli Medjlis of the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code, amending more than three hundred provisions of the criminal legislation. Along with penalization of anumite actes, the law provides for introduction of sanctions alternative to imprisonment and more simplified rules reference early release. It shall enter into force on 1 decembrie 2017. The law provides for Incluzion of Article 76.3.1-1 opening possibility of conditional release after serving of two-thrids of the term of imprisonment impuned for commitment of serious infractions. Further to this amendment, the aplicant would be elgible for conditional release as from 4 August 2017. 21. La 1 decembrie 2017, Parliament shall also examinează, in the third reading, amendements to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, which are in line with the recommendations addresed in the Presidential Decree. 22. In the meantime, following the recommendations given to the investigation and juridic authorities, the number of detainees held in the pretrial detention facilities continues to decrease: the number of detainees held in pretrial detention facilities decreased by 25% in nine months. În plus, numărul de hotărâri judecătorești privind arrest of individuals decreased by 24% in comparation to 2016. 23. In sum, having privition to absence of the Court
Résolution intérimaire CM/ResDH(2017)429
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
Ilgar Mammadov contre Azerbaïdjan
(adoptée par le Comité de Ministres le 5 décembre 2017,
lors de la 1302
e
réunion des Délégués des Ministres)
Requête
Affaire
Arrêt du
Définitif le
15172/13
22/05/2014
13/10/2014
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «
la Convention
» et «
la Cour
»),
Rappelant sa Résolution intérimaire CM/ResDH(2017)379 signifiant, aux fins de mise en demeure, à la République d’Azerbaïdjan son intention de saisir la Cour, lors de sa 1302e réunion (DH) du 5 décembre 2017, conformément à l’article 46 § 4 de la Convention, de la question de savoir si la République d’Azerbaïdjan avait manqué à son obligation, au regard de l’article 46 § 1, de se conformer à l’arrêt de la Cour du 22 mai 2014 dans l’affaire
Ilgar Mammadov
, et invitant la République d’Azerbaïdjan à transmettre de manière concise son opinion sur cette question avant le 29 novembre 2017 au plus tard
;
Rappelant à nouveau
a)
que dans son arrêt précité, la Cour a non seulement constaté une violation de l’article 5
§
1 de la Convention, considérant qu’aucun fait ou aucune information n’avaient été produits donnant lieu à des soupçons justifiant les accusations portées contre le requérant ou son arrestation et sa détention provisoire, mais aussi à une violation de l’article 18 combiné avec l’article 5, considérant que le but véritable de ces mesures avait été de le réduire au silence ou de le punir pour avoir critiqué le gouvernement
;
b)
l’obligation de l’État défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46 § 1 de la Convention, de se conformer à tous les arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’État défendeur, si nécessaire, de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par
restitutio in integrum
;
c)
l’appel du Comité, lors de son premier examen de l’affaire le 4 décembre 2014, sous l’angle des mesures individuelles requises à la lumière de l’arrêt précité, à assurer la libération du requérant sans retard
;
d)
les nombreuses décisions et résolutions intérimaires ultérieures du Comité soulignant les défaillances fondamentales dans la procédure pénale, révélées par les conclusions de la Cour sous l’article 18 de la Convention combiné avec l’article 5, et demandant la libération immédiate et inconditionnelle du requérant
;
e)
que la procédure pénale diligentée contre le requérant s’est achevée le 18 novembre 2016 devant la Cour Suprême sans que les conséquences des violations constatées par la Cour européenne aient été tirées, en particulier celle de l’article 18 combiné avec l’article 5
;
f)
que plus de trois années se sont écoulées depuis que l’arrêt de la Cour est devenu définitif et que le requérant reste emprisonné sur la base de la procédure viciée
;
Considère que, dans ces circonstances, en n’ayant pas assuré à la libération inconditionnelle du requérant, la République d’Azerbaïdjan refuse de se conformer à l’arrêt définitif de la Cour
;
Décide de saisir la Cour, conformément à l’article 46 § 4 de la Convention, de la question de savoir si la République d’Azerbaïdjan ne s’est pas conformée à son obligation en vertu de l’article 46
§
1
;
L’opinion concise de la République d’Azerbaïdjan sur la question soulevée devant la Cour est jointe en annexe (en anglais uniquement).
Annexe
: Vues de la République d’Azerbaïdjan
th
meeting of 25 October 2017, the Ministers’ Deputies adopted Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)379, in which the Committee served formal notice on the Republic of Azerbaijan of its intention, at its 1302nd meeting (DH) on 5 December 2017, to refer to the Court, in accordance with Article 46 § 4 of the Convention, the question whether the Republic of Azerbaijan has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention arising following the Court’s judgment in Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no.15172/13, 22 May 2014).
2.In response to the Committee’s invitation extended in the Deputies’ above Interim Resolution, the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan submit their views concerning the question of execution of the Court’s judgment in the above case.
3.On 4 February 2013 the applicant was charged with criminal offences under Articles 233 (organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or health) of the Criminal Code, and arrested by the decision of the Nasimi District Court. On 30 April 2013 the applicant was charged under Articles 220.1 (mass disorder) and 315.2 of the Criminal Code.
4.On 17 March 2014 the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes convicted the applicant under Articles 220.1 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.
5.On 24 September 2014 the Sheki Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the court of first instance. Article 407.2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan provides that the judgment shall be final immediately after delivery of the decision of the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, as from 24 September 2014, the applicant was not under the pre-trial detention; he was serving his sentence.
6.On 22 May 2014 the Court (First Section) adopted judgment, in which it found violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 4, Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, and Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention. This judgment was final on 13 October 2014.
7.Rule 6 of the CM Rules reads as follows:
“1. When, in a judgment transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Court has decided that there has been a violation of the Convention or its protocols and/or has awarded just satisfaction to the injured party under Article 41 of the Convention, the Committee shall invite the High Contracting Party concerned to inform it of the measures which the High Contracting Party has taken or intends to take in consequence of the judgment, having regard to its obligation to abide by it under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
2.When supervising the execution of a judgment by the High Contracting Party concerned, pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers shall examine:
a. whether any just satisfaction awarded by the Court has been paid, including as the case may be, default interest; and
b. if required, and taking into account the discretion of the High Contracting Party concerned to choose the means necessary to comply with the judgment, whether:
i. individual measures have been taken to ensure that the violation has ceased and that the injured party is put, as far as possible, in the same situation as that party enjoyed prior to the violation of the Convention;
ii. general measures have been adopted, preventing new violations similar to that or those found or putting an end to continuing violations.”
8.On 25 December 2014 a total amount of 22,000 euros was paid to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
9.By its decision of 13 October 2015, the Supreme Court quashed the Sheki Court of Appeal’s judgment of 24 September 2014, finding that the lower court’s rejection of the applicant’s requests for examination of additional witnesses and other evidence had been in breach of the domestic procedural rules and the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. The case was remitted to the Sheki Court of Appeal for a new examination in compliance with the domestic procedural rules and the Convention requirements.
10.On 29 April 2016 the Sheki Court of Appeal finalized examination of the applicant’s case and upheld the judgment of the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes of 17 March 2014. It, particularly carefully addressed the Court’s conclusions drawn in the present judgment and remedied the deficiencies found in the proceedings leading to the applicant’s conviction.
11.In December 2015, under Article 52 of the Convention, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe launched an inquiry to find out how the domestic law in any member state makes sure that the convention is properly implemented.
12.On 11 January 2017 the mission set up by the Secretary General visited Azerbaijan and held discussions, with judicial, legislative and executive authorities, to cover all issues related to execution of the Court’s judgment in the applicant’s case. Authorities have confirmed their readiness to examine all avenues suggested by the mission to further execute the Court’s judgment.
13.On 10 February 2017, President of the Republic of Azerbaijan signed Executive Order “On improvement of operation of penitentiary, humanization of penal policies and extension of application of alternative sanctions and non-custodial procedural measures of restraint”.
14.Executive Order covered a number of questions raised by the Court in its judgment, including existence of reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence at the time of arrest and consideration of alternative measures of restraint by relevant authorities.
15.Further humanisation of penal policies in Azerbaijan was listed among the aims of the document. It said that, in application of measures of restraint by investigation authorities and courts, provisions of criminal procedure law concerning grounds for arrest should be strictly complied with, and the level of application of alternative sanctions and measures of procedural compulsion extended to attain aims of punishment and of measure of restraint through non-custodial means.
16.The President of the Republic of Azerbaijan recommended to the Supreme Court, the General Prosecutor’s Office and instructed the Ministry of Justice with elaboration of the draft laws concerning decriminalisation of certain crimes; provision of the sentences alternative to imprisonment; development of grounds for non-custodial measures of restraint and sentences alternative to imprisonment; wider application of institutions of substitution of remainder of imprisonment by lighter punishment, parole and suspended sentence; extension of cases of application of measures of restraint alternative to arrest; simplification of rules for amendment of arrest by alternative measures of restraint; and further limitation of grounds for arrest for low-risk or less serious crimes.
17.The President also recommended to the Office of the Prosecutor General to start with examination of alternative measures of restraint when considering motions for arrest.
18.It was also recommended to the courts that they examine the existence of reasonable suspicions of individual’s having committed an offence and grounds for arrest, when deciding on measure of restraint, and arguments in favour of alternative measures.
19.According to Executive Oder, the Supreme Court shall hold continued analysis of case law of the courts concerning application of arrest and imposition of imprisonment.
20.On 20 October 2017 the Milli Medjlis of the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code, amending more than three hundred provisions of the criminal legislation. Along with decriminalization of certain acts, the law provides for introduction of sanctions alternative to imprisonment and more simplified rules concerning early release. It shall enter into force on 1 December 2017. The law provides for inclusion of Article 76.3.1-1 opening possibility of conditional release after serving of two-thirds of the term of imprisonment imposed for commitment of serious crimes. Further to this amendment, the applicant would be eligible for conditional release as from 4 August 2017.
21.On 1 December 2017 the Parliament shall also examine, in the third reading, amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Penal Code, which are in line with the recommendations addressed in the Presidential Decree.
22.In the meantime, following the recommendations given to the investigation and judicial authorities, the number of detainees held in the pretrial detention facilities continues to decrease: the number of detainees held in pretrial detention facilities decreased by 25% in nine months. In addition, the number of judicial decisions concerning the arrest of individuals decreased by 24% in in comparison to 2016.
23.In sum, having regard to absence of the Court’s any ruling to secure the applicant’s immediate release and the discretion of the High Contracting Party to choose the means necessary to comply with the Court’s judgment, the Government consider that they implement necessary measures to comply with the Court’s judgment in the present case.”