5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Baku. 6.  He was a journalist and at the relevant time was working as editor‑in‑chief of the Demokrat newspaper. He was also a member of the Musavat Party. 7.  On 2 April 2011 a number of opposition parties held a demonstration at Fountains Square in Baku. The applicant went to the place where the demonstration would be held, intending to participate in it. 8.  On arriving at Fountains Square at around 2.15 p.m. on 2 April 2011, the applicant was arrested by a group of police officers and taken to the Nasimi District Police Office (“the NDPO”). 9.  After his arrival at the police office, the applicant was placed in the exercise yard of the NDPO temporary detention centre with other arrested persons. A few minutes later the deputy head of the NDPO, S.N., arrived at the detention centre with two men, one of whom was wearing a police uniform while the other was in plain clothes. The applicant introduced himself as a journalist and asked S.N. the reasons for his arrest. The two men accompanying S.N. then held the applicant’s arms while S.N. punched and kicked him in different parts of his body. After having physically assaulted the applicant, S.N. and the other two men left the detention centre. 10.  At around 11 p.m. on 2 April 2011 the applicant was given a formal warning, under Article 298 of the Code of Administrative Offences, for participating in an unauthorised demonstration and was released from detention. 11.  The Government maintained that the applicant had not been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in police custody. 12.  The Government also submitted an administrative offence record drawn up at 4.30 p.m. on 2 April 2011, according to which the applicant had been warned, under Article 298 of the Code of Administrative Offences, for violation of the rule regulating the organisation and holding of gatherings. The applicant had signed the record and made a comment confirming his participation in the demonstration. 13.  On 4 April 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Nasimi district prosecutor’s office, claiming that on 2 April 2011 he had been ill-treated by S.N. in police custody. 14.  On 6 April 2011 the investigator in charge of the case questioned the applicant, who reiterated his allegation of ill-treatment. In particular, he stated that on 2 April 2011, while he had been detained in the exercise yard of the temporary detention centre of the NDPO with other arrested persons, he had been beaten by S.N. and two other men, one of whom had been wearing a police uniform while the other had been in plain clothes. When he had asked S.N. the reasons for his arrest, the two men accompanying S.N. had held his arms and S.N. had physically assaulted him by punching and kicking him in different parts of his body. 15.  On 6 April 2011 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert. It appears from forensic report no. 01/MES dated 9 April 2011 that the expert noticed a bruise (qançır) measuring 4.5 by 2.5 cm on the outer side of the applicant’s right calf (baldır). He concluded that the injury had been caused by a hard blunt object and that the time at which it had been inflicted corresponded to 2 April 2011. 16.  On 12 and 14 April 2011 the investigator questioned T.Y. and N.S. as witnesses in connection with the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint. The two witnesses, who had also been arrested on 2 April 2011 and detained in the temporary detention centre of the NDPO, confirmed that on 2 April 2011 the applicant had been beaten by S.N. in the exercise yard of the NDPO temporary detention centre. In this connection, T.Y. stated that, when S.N. and two other men had arrived at the temporary detention centre, S.N. had begun insulting the applicant. S.N. had also kicked him in the stomach. As the applicant had objected to it, S.N. and the two men accompanying him began to beat the applicant. N.S. also stated that S.N. and the two men accompanying him had begun insulting the arrested persons immediately after their arrival at the temporary detention centre. As the applicant had objected to their attitude, they had beaten him severely. 17.  On 15 April 2011 the investigator questioned S.N., who refuted the applicant’s allegations. S.N. claimed that he had not used force against the applicant and that, in any event, he had not been on the premises of the NDPO between 1 and 7 p.m. on 2 April 2011 when the applicant had been taken there. 18.  On 18 April 2011 the investigator separately questioned two police officers, M.V. and R.M., who had been on guard duty at the NDPO on 2 April 2011. The wording of their statements was identical. They each stated that none of the persons arrested on 2 April 2011 had been placed in the exercise yard of the temporary detention centre and that none of them had been beaten. They also stated that S.N. had not been present when the arrested persons had been taken to the police office. 19.  On 20 and 22 April 2011 the investigator separately questioned two police officers, I.M., who had participated in the applicant’s arrest on 2 April 2011, and I.S., who was the neighbourhood police officer for the area where the applicant was arrested. Their statements were identical. They each claimed that the applicant had not been placed in the exercise area of the temporary detention centre and had not been beaten in police custody. They also claimed that S.N. had not been present at that time at the police office. Moreover, I.M. stated that when he had taken the applicant to the police office he had not been aware of any injury on the applicant’s body. However, such an injury might have been inflicted during the unlawful demonstration. 20.  On 25 April 2011 the deputy prosecutor of the Nasimi district prosecutor’s office issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment. In his decision, after having summarised the conclusions of the forensic report and the statements given by the applicant, T.Y. and N.S., as well as S.N. and the other four police officers questioned during the inquiry, the prosecutor concluded in one sentence that the available evidence did not disclose any appearance of a criminal act. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“As no appearance of a criminal act was disclosed in the material collected during the inquiry at the request of Hajili Mustafa Mustafa oglu, who claimed that on 2 April 2011 he had sustained injury as a result of a beating by the deputy head of the NDPO, S.N., the institution of criminal proceedings should be refused.” 21.  On 5 January 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Nasimi District Court, arguing that the prosecutor’s decision was unsubstantiated. In particular, he claimed that the prosecutor had not taken into consideration the conclusions of the forensic report and the statements from T.Y. and N.S. The applicant also complained that the prosecutor had failed to give any explanation as to the circumstances in which the injury had been caused. 22.  It appears from the transcript of the court hearing of 16 January 2012 that in the proceedings before the Nasimi District Court the applicant’s lawyer asked the court to hear T.Y. and N.S., who had testified during the inquiry in support of the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment. He also asked the court to order the examination of video recordings from the NDPO’s security cameras. In reply to the lawyer’s requests, the investigator in charge of the case stated at the hearing that the NDPO’s security cameras were only for surveillance purposes and did not record. The court granted the lawyer’s request concerning the examination of the video recordings from the security cameras. 23.  On 24 January 2012 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the complaint, finding that the prosecutor’s decision of 25 April 2011 had been lawful and properly substantiated. The court held that, although the expert had noticed a bruise on the applicant’s body, it had not been established that the injury had been inflicted by S.N. As regards the video recordings, the court noted that they were no longer available. The NDPO had replied to its request relating to the examination of the video recordings that the security cameras in question had not contained a memory card and, therefore, the video recordings had been automatically deleted one month later. The judgment made no mention of the witness statements made in favour of the applicant’s ill-treatment claim. 24.  On 27 January 2012 the applicant appealed against the decision, reiterating his previous complaints. In particular, he complained that the prosecutor had failed to give any explanation of how the injury noticed by the forensic expert had been caused. He also requested the appellate court to hear T.Y. and N.S., claiming that the first-instance court had ignored their witness statements without any reason. The applicant further complained about the conflicting explanations given by the investigator and the Nasimi District Court as to the impossibility of obtaining video recordings from the NDPO’s security cameras. Whereas the investigator had explained that those cameras were simply for surveillance purposes and did not record, the first-instance court had indicated in its decision that the impossibility was due to the absence of memory cards in the security cameras, which led to automatic deletion of the video recordings one month later. 25.  On 6 February 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 24 January 2012. The appellate court’s decision made no mention of the applicant’s particular complaints.