CASE OF ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence .

The applicant has been involved in various political organisations and local and international non - governmental organisations for DATE . In DATE he co - founded a political organisation named ORG ( “ REAL ” ) whose initial goal was to oppose the proposed changes to the LAW , which included abolition of the limits on the re - election of the president , at the constitutional referendum of DATE . In DATE the applicant was elected REAL ’s chairman . In this capacity , he expressed views opposing the current Government ( for more detail , see an earlier judgment of this ORG , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) . According to the applicant , REAL was quickly becoming one of the main political forces opposed to the ruling Government . In DATE it announced that it was beginning a process of transforming itself into a political party .

The applicant had intended to stand as a candidate in the presidential elections of DATE , but was unable to do so owing to the events giving rise to the present case and his nomination as a candidate was rejected by the electoral authorities ( for more detail , see PERSON , cited above , § § DATE and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . During the events giving rise to the present case , he also made an unsuccessful attempt to have himself registered as a candidate for repeat parliamentary elections in ORG No . CARDINAL in DATE .

Following the applicant ’s arrest described below , another member of the REAL board , Mr PERSON , was arrested under charges of illegal entrepreneurship , tax evasion and abuse of power ( for more detail , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . According to the applicant , CARDINAL other current or former members of the REAL board were forced to leave the country owing to the “ pressure by the Government ” .

In the below - mentioned criminal proceedings , CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - defendants was Mr PERSON , who was a deputy chairman of ORG and who also worked as a columnist for the PERSON newspaper ( see PERSON , no . DATE , DATE ) . Pursuant to a presidential pardon decree of CARDINAL DATE , Mr PERSON was released from serving the remainder of his prison sentence .

The circumstances relating to the ORG events and the applicant ’s visit to PERSON are described as follows in ORG ( cited above , § § DATE ) :

“ B. The GPE events of DATE

On DATE rioting broke out in the town of GPE , located to the northwest of GPE . According to media reports quoting local residents , the rioting was sparked by an incident involving V.A. , the son of ORG and nephew of the Head of ORG ( ‘ IDEA’ ) . It was claimed that after being involved in a car accident , V.A. had insulted and physically assaulted passengers of the other car , who were local residents . On hearing of the incident , CARDINAL ( perhaps CARDINAL ) of local residents took to the streets and destroyed a number of commercial establishments ( including ORG ) and other property in GPE thought to be owned by ORG family .

On DATE ORG and ORG issued a joint press statement , placing the blame for the rioting on ORG , a hotel manager , and his relative [ El . M. ] , who had allegedly been drunk and who , it was claimed , had committed acts of hooliganism by damaging local ORG property and inciting people to riot .

Meanwhile , [ ORG , ] the Head of IDEA , V.A. ’s uncle , publicly denied that ORG belonged to his family .

C. The applicant ’s role in the GPE events

On DATE the applicant travelled to GPE to get a firsthand account of the events . On DATE he described his impressions from the trip on his blog . The entire post read as follows :

‘ DATE TIME I spent a little longer than TIME in GPE , together with [ another member ] of our GPE [ REAL ] and our media coordinator ... First , here is [ the summary of ] what I wrote on ORG during TIME using my phone :

- We have entered the town .

- There is a lot of police and their number is growing . The protesters gather TIME or CARDINAL and make speeches . We are in front of the building of the [ Ismayilli District ] Executive Authority . There are around QUANTITY police officers in this area .

- The cause of the events is the general tension arising from corruption and insolence [ of public officials ] . In short , people have had enough . We are having conversations with local residents .

- The [ ethnic ] NORP of the village of GPE are also fed up ; they tried to come to [ GPE ] to support the protest , but the road was blocked and they were sent back .

- Everybody is preparing for the night .

- We are leaving ORG , returning to GPE . The matter is clear to us . PERSON was the first call . PERSON is the second . After the third call , the show will begin .

We came back after having fully investigated the situation in GPE . I wrote that clashes would again take place in the evening , by posting ‘ everybody is preparing for the ORG [ on ORG ] . People there had been saying ‘ We ’ll give them hell in TIME ; we have procured supplies’ ( meaning the fuel for Molotov cocktails had been bought ) . People are angry . There are also those who do not care and who are afraid , but those who are not afraid are very exasperated and will continue the protest at TIME . This is no longer a political situation where we could stay there and try to change something ; this is already a situation of disorderly crisis which requires conciliatory steps by the ORG to be resolved .

No one should fool oneself or others . The events in GPE were not and are not a calm peaceful protest , it is an extremely violent but just protest and the responsibility for it lies with PERSON .

As it is with all revolutionary processes , in the beginning the political initiative is still in the hands of the President , but by not taking action he is gradually losing this initiative . When [ such leaders ] begin to react to the situation , it is usually too late and their actions have no effect . PERSON , PERSON , and all others have gone this way’ . ”

DATE before posting the above in his blog , on his way back by car from GPE to GPE on DATE , CARDINAL TIME the applicant gave a live interview to ORG by phone , stating in particular as follows ( as quoted in the domestic courts’ judgments ) :

“ Our impressions are such that , after the PERSON events , this is the most serious warning to the NORP leadership that the ORG can no longer be governed in this manner . So , we saw a lot of police . And so , we saw CARDINAL members of various forces , the police and internal troops in front of [ the IDEA building ] . And people held discussions in small groups and from time to time small groups united and , for example , shouted slogans . Their main demand was for [ the Head of the IDEA ] to apologise for these events . Because it is claimed that his relative had caused the initial incident [ that sparked the riot ] . However , the government representatives consider that the ORG is not responsible [ for these events ] . Thereafter we spoke to many people from the local population . All of them were discontent , and the main reason was , of course , TIME event , that is apparently the car accident [ that sparked the riot ] . But in reality there are deep social and economic problems at the root of this incident . A few families , a few small groups control the entire economy of the whole region , all of them are one another ’s relatives , there can be no talk of any competitive , just economy , social infrastructure is undeveloped , people live from pension to pension . Then , there are many complaints . Ordinary people say , for example , that when cash for pensions is brought [ to the region ] by a bank car , the cash is put into ATMs and is available for withdrawal DATE . The people suspect that that money is invested for interest during DATE and those responsible for this make profit from the interest gained on the social funding of the entire region . ”

Subsequent circumstances are described as follows in ORG ( cited above , § § DATE ) :

“ CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant posted more information on his blog concerning the events , citing the official websites of ORG and ORG and publishing screenshots of those sites . In particular , he noted that , according to those sources and to information posted on GPE ’s ORG account , ORG was actually owned by V.A. This directly contradicted the earlier denial by the Head of IDEA . The information cited by the applicant was removed from the aforementioned Government websites and GPE ’s ORG page within TIME of the applicant publishing his blog entry . However , the blog entry itself was extensively quoted in the media .

On DATE ORG and ORG issued a new joint press statement concerning the events in GPE . It noted that QUANTITY people had been charged with criminal offences in connection with the events of DATE , and had been detained pending trial . In addition , CARDINAL people had been arrested in connection with their participation in ‘ actions causing a serious breach of public ORG ; some of them had been convicted of ‘ administrative offences’ and sentenced to a few days’ ‘ administrative detention’ or a fine , while others had been released . The statement further noted that ‘ lately , biased and partial information has been deliberately disseminated , distorting the true nature of the mentioned events resulting from ORG , including information about large numbers of injured people and the disappearance of CARDINAL individual . The statement refuted that information , noting that CARDINAL people had been admitted to the regional hospital with injuries and that no one had disappeared . It further stated , inter alia , the following :

‘ Following the carrying out of inquiries , it has been established that on DATE the Deputy Chairman of ORG , PERSON , and the Cochairman of ORG , PERSON , went to ORG and made appeals to local residents aimed at social and political destabilisation , such as calls to resist the police , not to obey officials and to block roads . Their illegal actions , which were calculated to inflame the situation in the country , will be fully and thoroughly investigated and receive legal assessment.’

On DATE the applicant commented on that statement on his blog . He noted that the Government had taken a decision to ‘ punish and frighten’ him , and that there were several reasons for that : firstly , the applicant ’s blog posting of CARDINAL DATE , which had revealed facts embarrassing the Government ; secondly , the fact that REAL had raised a public debate on the DATE legislative amendments aimed at keeping secret information concerning shareholders in companies , creating ‘ a more clandestine environment for stealing the oil ORG ; thirdly , the applicant ’s earlier criticism of ORG , in which he compared it to ‘ a zoo’ , following enactment of the legislation placing ‘ severe limitations on the freedom of ORG by ‘ introducing unjustifiably high monetary penalties for attending unauthorised ORG ; and lastly , ORG ‘ quickly accumulating ORG prior to the presidential election , becoming a ‘ serious barrier in the eyes of the traditional [ political ] ORG and threatening ‘ to spoil the repeat of the election farce performed DATE after PERSON . ”

On DATE ORG charged the applicant with criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL ( organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order ) and CARDINAL ( resistance to or violence against public officials , posing a threat to their life or health ) of LAW , in connection with his alleged involvement in a riot in the town of GPE on DATE . On DATE the applicant was charged under Articles CARDINAL ( mass disorder ) and CARDINAL of LAW , thereby replacing the original charges .

The applicant , PERSON and CARDINAL other defendants , ORG and ORG , charged solely in connection with the events of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) and ( c ) below ) were joined as defendants to the existing criminal case concerning the events of DATE .

The specific actions attributed to the applicant were described as follows :

“ Beginning at TIME on DATE , PERSON ,

having taken advantage of the fact that from TIME on DATE a group of persons in the town of ORG had engaged in acts of malicious hooliganism causing a serious breach of public order , had deliberately burned , in a publicly dangerous manner , property belonging to various persons [ including ] ORG , CARDINAL cars , CARDINAL mopeds and scooters , and an auxiliary building located in the yard of a private residential house , and had committed acts of violence against Government officials ,

having , in his false way of thinking , considered [ the above events ] as a ‘ ORG ,

aiming to make the above acts develop and acquire a continuous character in order to create artificial tension and to violate the social and political stability in the country ,

being a resident of GPE , arrived in GPE and , together with Tofiq PERSON Yaqublu and with the active participation of others , [ committed the following : ]

organised , as an active participant , acts causing a serious breach of public order , by means of openly and repeatedly inciting town residents [ ORG ] , [ M.A. ] and others , who had gathered at the square near the administrative building of ORG located on the Nariman FAC opposite to the administrative building of [ the IDEA ] , [ to do the following : ]

[ i ] NORP to enter in masses into the area in front of the building of [ the IDEA ] , which is the competent body of the executive power of GPE , and by doing so to create difficulties for the movement of traffic and pedestrians , [ ii ] to disobey the lawful demands to disperse , made by Government officials wanting to stop their illegal behaviour , [ iii ] to resist uniformed police officers protecting the public order , by way of committing violent acts posing danger to [ police officers’ ] life and health , using various objects , [ iv ] to disrupt the normal functioning of [ the IDEA ] , State enterprises , bodies and organisations , as well as public - catering , commercial and public - service facilities , by way of refusing to leave , for a long period of time , the areas where the acts seriously breaching the public order were being committed , and [ v ] to stop the movement of traffic , by way of blocking the central avenue and the Nariman FAC , and

was finally able to achieve that , at TIME in the town of GPE , a group of persons consisting of [ ORG ] , [ GPE ] and others had marched in masses from the mentioned square in the direction of the administrative building of [ the IDEA ] and had thrown stones at officers of the relevant bodies of ORG who were preventing [ this march ] in accordance with the requirements of the law .

By these actions , PERSON committed the criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL [ later replaced by Article CARDINAL ] and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE . ”

The circumstances relating to the applicant ’s pre - trial detention and the pre - trial proceedings are described in detail in PERSON ( cited above , § § DATE ) .

In that judgment , the ORG found that , during the pre - trial period , the applicant had been deprived of his liberty without a “ reasonable suspicion ” of having committed a criminal offence , in breach of the requirements of LAW ( c ) of the Convention ( ibid . , LAW CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , that he had not been afforded a proper judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention in breach of LAW ( ibid . , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , that his right to presumption of innocence under LAW had been breached owing to the prosecuting authorities’ prejudicial statements made before he had been proved guilty according to law ( ibid . , LAW CARDINAL ) , and that the restriction of the applicant ’s liberty had been applied for purposes other than bringing him before a competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence , constituting a breach of LAW taken in conjunction with LAW ( ibid . , § § DATE ) .

After completion of the pre - trial investigation , the applicant ’s case was sent to trial at ORG . The applicant was to be tried , together with CARDINAL others , in connection with the ORG events .

The applicant ’s formal indictment sent by the prosecution to the trial court appears to have essentially repeated the initial accusations against him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It added , however , that as a result of the acts of mass disorder committed at TIME on DATE , CARDINAL specifically named police officers had been subjected to violence threatening their lives and health ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Out of the CARDINAL other defendants :

( a ) CARDINAL were accused of participating in the riots on DATE ( which involved actions breaching public order , burning of private property , and acts of violence against public officials ) . They were charged under LAW , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ;

( b ) one defendant , Mr Tofiq Yaqublu , also an opposition politician , was accused , like the applicant , of “ organising ” and actively participating in public disorder on DATE by means of inciting local residents to commit acts breaching public order and acts of violence . Like the applicant , he was charged under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ; and

( c ) CARDINAL defendants , ORG and GPE , were accused of participating , together with the applicant and PERSON , in the continuation of the riot on DATE ( which involved actions breaching public order and acts of violence against public officials ) . They were also charged under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing at which it examined a number of applications lodged by the applicant and other defendants .

NORP In particular , the applicant applied to the court requesting , firstly , that it hold its hearings in a larger courtroom which could accommodate media representatives and , secondly , that it allow for video and audio recording of the hearings . The court rejected the first request , noting that no media representatives had asked to attend the hearings . It also rejected the second request , finding that the victims of the criminal offences participating in the preliminary hearing had objected to being recorded during the trial .

After a break in the preliminary hearing , the defence lodged an objection to the composition of the court , referring to the fact that it had rejected the CARDINAL previous requests . The court refused to examine the objection , finding that it was ill - founded and intended to delay the trial . It noted in this connection that most of the text of the objection had been preprinted before the hearing , indicating an intention by the defence to object to the composition of the court no matter what happened at the hearing .

The defence then applied to the court with the following requests :

( a ) that the applicant be released from detention , with reference to LAW and various provisions of the domestic law ;

( b ) that the proceedings against the applicant be discontinued owing to the absence of corpus delicti and on the grounds that the charges against him were false ; and

( c ) that the evidence against the applicant obtained at the pre - trial stage , including statements by a number of prosecution witnesses ( including those mentioned in DATE and CARDINAL below ) , be declared inadmissible on the grounds that it had been unlawfully obtained , and that letters from ORG ( “ the ORG RPD ” ) and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) also be declared inadmissible on the grounds that they contained information that had not been verified independently by the prosecution authorities .

By an interim decision of CARDINAL DATE , delivered following the preliminary hearing , ORG for ORG decided to reject the applicant ’s requests as unsubstantiated , and to “ keep unchanged ” the preventive measure of remand in custody .

The trial spanned TIME hearings . During the course of the hearings , ORG for Serious Crimes examined testimonial evidence , as well as video recordings and other material .

At the time of communication of the application to the respondent Government , the ORG requested the parties to submit , inter alia , “ the transcripts of the first - instance and higher courts’ hearings , in the parts relating to the applicant ” . The applicant was not in possession of copies of the trial transcripts , as he was allowed only to consult them . The Government failed to submit full copies of the transcripts of the firstinstance hearings in the parts relating to the applicant , and limited themselves to submitting a small selection of transcripts of the preliminary hearing and transcripts of hearings of DATE and DATE and DATE , where the first - instance court dealt with various procedural matters . Parts of the transcripts containing full statements of the witnesses and their cross - examination were not submitted . The ORG also submitted a selection of transcripts of appellate and cassation hearings .

Below is a brief summary of the evidence examined by the trial court , as described in the court ’s judgment itself as well as , where relevant , in the indictment and in the parties’ submissions .

The statements of the CARDINAL defendants charged with participation in the events of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) above ) concerned only the events of DATE and did not include any pertinent information about the events of CARDINAL DATE . The court examined both the statements they had made at the trial hearings and their pre - trial statements .

When heard at the trial hearings , CARDINAL of the above - mentioned CARDINAL defendants pleaded not guilty and made statements differing from those made at the pre - trial stage . CARDINAL of them alleged that they had given their pre - trial statements under duress , either psychological pressure or physical ill - treatment . At the conclusion of the trial , QUANTITY of them retracted their allegations of ill - treatment in custody .

One of the above - mentioned CARDINAL defendants admitted his guilt and confirmed his pre - trial statement admitting participation in public disorder on DATE .

ORG and GPE , the defendants charged with participation in clashes with the police in the morning ( TIME ) and the afternoon ( around TIME ) of DATE ( allegedly after having been incited by the applicant ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( c ) above ) , did not mention the applicant or PERSON in their statements .

At the trial hearings , ORG pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been beaten and tortured by investigators at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings with the purpose of obtaining a statement favourable to the prosecution . He stated that CARDINAL a.m. and TIME on DATE , there was a crowd of a CARDINAL people moving in the direction of the IDEA building . The police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd , and in response the protesters threw stones at the police . ORG further stated that in TIME DATE , and more specifically between TIME , he had not been in the town at all but had been attending a funeral in a nearby village . A number of other witnesses gave statements , some of which confirmed his version of the events ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .

In his pre - trial statement , ORG had stated that he had been in the town in TIME DATE and had participated in the clashes with the police ; he had not specified the exact time .

At the trial hearings , ORG pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been beaten by investigators at the pre - trial stage with the purpose of obtaining a statement favorable to the prosecution . In addition , the investigators had demanded a bribe in the amount of MONEY from him . As to the events of DATE , PERSON stated that he had been in the town TIME and that there had been many people in the town centre . In TIME , he had left ORG for another town . According to the applicant , in order to prove this , PERSON had asked the court to examine records of the calls made from his mobile phone during TIME DATE , but the court failed to do so .

In his pre - trial statement , ORG had stated that on DATE he had joined the crowd of protesters and thrown stones at the police ; he had not specified the exact time .

Lastly , Tofiq Yaqublu and the applicant testified as follows .

At the trial hearings , Tofiq Yaqublu stated that he had arrived in GPE at or shortly after TIME on DATE , together with journalists GPE and GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) and another journalist . They parked close to a GPE building located near the LAW building . They saw a number of police officers in the area . There were also many journalists waiting to interview the head of IDEA . Tofiq Yaqublu spoke to those journalists for TIME . He then received a call on his mobile phone and , while talking on the phone , saw the applicant together with a REAL member , GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He stopped for TIME to quickly greet the applicant . The situation in the area was calm . He then went to see the burned hotel , where he was approached by CARDINAL or QUANTITY police officers who asked him to accompany them to a police station . In the police station , he was taken to GPE , a senior police officer of ORG ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) , who enquired about the reasons for his visit to GPE . TIME also asked by phone to go to the police station . Both of them were told to leave PERSON and to report in GPE that the situation in the town had calmed down . They were then allowed to leave the police station . According to PERSON , not counting the time he had spent at the police station , he spent TIME in total in GPE . During that time , he did not see any crowds or any clashes and did not hear anyone shouting slogans . He left PERSON at TIME

Tofiq Yaqublu ’s statement at the trial slightly differed from his pre - trial statement . In particular , in his pre - trial statement , Tofiq Yaqublu had stated that he had arrived in GPE at TIME There he had seen a small group of CARDINAL to CARDINAL young locals . He had approached them and questioned them very briefly about the events of the previous night .

NORP In his statement at the trial hearings , the applicant submitted that his arrest had been politically motivated . As to the events in question , he stated that , after hearing about the events of DATE in the news , DATE he and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had gone to GPE by car . At TIME on DATE they had entered ORG and had arrived in the GPE town centre at TIME On the way to the town centre , they stopped from time to time and spoke to local residents , without getting out of the car , to receive information about the events that had taken place up to that time . In the town centre , they parked at the central square , where there was a group of journalists . He spoke to the journalists who told him that , despite the situation being calm at that moment , there was an atmosphere of tension in the town . While standing next to the journalists , he then posted some observations on his ORG page . Just then he saw PERSON passing by , speaking on his mobile phone . They greeted each other . After that , he , GPE and CARDINAL of the journalists went to a nearby teahouse . While they were in GPE , there were no crowds of protesters and no violent clashes happening . After spending TIME in the teahouse , they left the town . On the way back to GPE , he gave a telephone interview to ORG .

The trial court heard CARDINAL witnesses , the majority of whom were prosecution witnesses . CARDINAL of them had the status of victims of criminal offences and were mostly either police officers who had allegedly suffered minor injuries or owners of damaged or destroyed property .

The majority of witnesses and victims of the criminal offences gave statements concerning solely the events of DATE . According to their statements , there was a spontaneous riot by local residents in TIME DATE , sparked by violent behaviour of the director of ORG ( ORG ) and his companion ( El . PERSON ) , both of whom were heavily inebriated , after a car accident in which they had been involved . ORG and GPE . PERSON repeatedly insulted and physically assaulted the other car ’s driver and some local residents who were in the vicinity of the accident . This resulted in a fight where GPE and GPE . PERSON got beaten up and , with more people joining the fight , it eventually escalated into a riot . The riot continued late into the night and resulted in injuries to a number of people , including several police officers , and the destruction of various property .

The victims included the owner , employees and guests of the hotel and a few bystanders who had lost their property , as well as a number of injured police officers . For example , CARDINAL of the victims , V.Az . , a maid employed by the hotel , stated that some of her personal belongings had been destroyed during the events of CARDINAL DATE .

Two police officers stated that there was public disorder on TIME DATE ( according to CARDINAL , TIME ; according to the other , TIME ) . A crowd moved from the area near the administrative building of ORG in the direction of the LAW building , throwing stones at the police . CARDINAL of the QUANTITY police officers , E.A. , stated that TIME , he had been injured by a stone thrown at him and had been immediately taken to hospital .

S.K. , a senior police officer of the Ismayilli RPD , gave a lengthy statement about the events of DATE . As to those of CARDINAL DATE , he stated that Tofiq Yaqublu had been detained and brought to him at the police station , and that at that time he had been informed that the applicant had also been in GPE but had been “ lost among the crowd and disappeared ” . PERSON had spoken to PERSON for TIME , and thereafter the latter had been released . According to PERSON , there had been outbreaks of unrest throughout DATE on DATE .

CARDINAL residents of GPE or various villages around PERSON made statements , mostly very scant , containing various types of information relating to the events of DATE . None of those ORG statements related directly to the charges against the applicant or PERSON . CARDINAL of them stated that on TIME DATE , they had travelled in the same bus as ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) from CARDINAL of the villages in GPE Region to the town of GPE , and had arrived in the evening , by which time there was unrest in the town . CARDINAL of them specified that they had arrived in the town TIME , while CARDINAL others stated that they had arrived TIME or when “ it was already dark ” . One did not specify the time of arrival .

Ten police officers mentioned in their pre - trial statements that they had seen the applicant on DATE . Some of them stated that there had been disorder TIME and TIME on DATE . They further stated that on TIME DATE ( according to CARDINAL of them , at TIME ; according to CARDINAL of them , at TIME ; according to CARDINAL of them , TIME ; and CARDINAL of them did not specify the exact time ) , they had seen a crowd gathered near the administrative building of ORG ( CARDINAL of them specified the size of the crowd , CARDINAL of whom stated that there were CARDINAL people , and the other – CARDINAL people ) . According to the documents in the case file , CARDINAL of them stated that the people moved to the area close to ORG along the “ hospital road ” , which was the informal name for ORG used by locals . All CARDINAL of them further stated that they had also seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu among the crowd , inciting people to act unlawfully by telling them to “ block the road , disobey orders , throw stones , go towards the IDEA building ” , and that , following this , the crowd had moved towards the IDEA building and thrown stones at the police .

According to their own pre - trial statements ( as summarised in the first - instance court ’s judgment ) , CARDINAL of the above - mentioned police officers had allegedly been hit by stones thrown by the crowd on TIME CARDINAL DATE . All CARDINAL of them were recognised as “ victims of crime ” . CARDINAL of them stated that they had not sustained any injuries because they had been wearing thick DATE coats , while the others either stated that they had received only minor injuries or did not mention any injuries . CARDINAL of them was the police officer who subsequently retracted his pre - trial statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , including the allegation that he had been hit by a stone . There were no medical records or other evidence in respect of any injuries to those police officers . According to the applicant , the very first time the above - mentioned QUANTITY police officers were questioned about the events of DATE was DATE , DATE , and it was at that time that it was first alleged that they had had stones thrown at them on TIME DATE . The Government remained silent in respect of these specific allegations by the applicant and did not submit any relevant documentary evidence refuting them . Neither did the ORG submit full copies of these police officers’ pre - trial statements or relevant excerpts of the trial transcripts reflecting their statements at the trial hearings .

One of the above - mentioned QUANTITY police officers gave a differing statement during the trial hearings , claiming that he had been at the police station the whole day on DATE . He stated that he had not seen any of the accused committing or inciting others to commit acts of disorder . He explained that he had signed his pre - trial statement without having read it . According to the applicant , DATE after the first - instance court had delivered its judgment , that police officer was dismissed from the police service .

According to the applicant , another police officer also initially retracted his pre - trial statement , giving a similar explanation to that of the above - mentioned officer , but after a break in the hearing , he asked to be heard again and informed the court that he confirmed the content of his pretrial statement . The Government did not submit the transcripts reflecting the statements of this witness at the trial and did not otherwise comment on the above allegation by the applicant .

The other police ORG statements at the trial hearings appeared to confirm their pre - trial statements .

According to the first - instance court ’s judgment , CARDINAL residents of GPE , ORG and GPE , stated that DATE TIME on DATE they had seen a crowd of people near the administrative building of ORG . They had also seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu inciting them to riot , after which the crowd moved in the direction of the LAW building committing acts of mass disorder . Both ORG and GPE specified that the crowd moved in the direction of the building of ORG , and from there in the direction of the LAW building , along the “ hospital road ” ( FAC ) .

According to the applicant , during cross - examination by the defence , which was not reflected in the first - instance court ’s judgment , both of those witnesses , especially ORG , had given answers contradicting their earlier statements . In particular , the applicant claimed in his appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that , in his witness statement , ORG had said that from TIME on DATE he had been at his relative ’s home for lunch . After lunch , sometime before TIME , he had gone to the area next to ORG , where he had seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu inciting a large crowd of people to riot and that thereafter the crowd had attacked the police with stones . During cross - examination at the trial hearings , in response to a question by the defence , he had stated that , in connection with this criminal case , he had participated as a witness in the questioning by the prosecution authorities DATE after the ORG events , and that he had not been a participant in any other investigative steps and had not signed any other procedural documents relating to this case . Following that response , the defence produced a copy of the record of the inspection of the damage to ORG house , which had been conducted from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the record , ORG had been present during the inspection as an attesting witness and had signed the inspection record . Despite the fact that this had revealed a clear inconsistency between the record and ORG testimony and his responses to the defence ’s questions , raising a number of questions as to the witness ’s integrity and the truthfulness of his statements , the presiding judge had hastily dismissed the witness without giving the defence an opportunity to ask any more questions .

Similarly , according to the applicant , witness GPE ’s statement contained contradictory details and he had been unable to respond to the defence ’s questions seeking clarification . Moreover , the defence had found out that that witness ’s son was an employee of the burned hotel owned by V.A.

The Government remained silent in respect of the above - mentioned allegations by the applicant in respect of ORG and GPE ’s self - contradictory statements and did not submit any relevant documentary evidence refuting them . Neither did the Government submit full copies of these witnesses’ pre - trial statements or relevant excerpts of the trial transcripts reflecting their statements at the trial hearings .

One resident of a nearby village , PERSON , who had been in the town on DATE , stated , briefly , that there had been disorder in the centre of the town QUANTITY that he had seen the applicant and PERSON in the crowd . PERSON specified that the protesters moved towards the town centre along the “ hospital road ” ( FAC ) . According to the applicant , PERSON also stated that he had not heard exactly what the applicant and Tofiq Yagublu had been saying to people around them ( see paragraph CARDINAL below for more detail ) .

GPE , a journalist , stated that he had arrived in GPE CARDINAL p.m. and TIME together with GPE He had seen several other journalists in the town centre . There had been no rioting or clashes with the police at that time . The applicant did not make any inflammatory statements to local residents . After a while , the witness had gone to a teahouse together with the applicant .

GPE , the applicant ’s colleague from REAL who had travelled together with the applicant and GPE to GPE , stated that they had arrived in the town at TIME There had been no rioting or clashes with the police at that time . After staying in the square near the IDEA building for CARDINAL to thirty minutes , they had gone to a teahouse . At TIME they had left the town .

I.A. , a journalist , stated that there had been some disturbances in the town TIME and that the police had used water cannons and rubber bullets against the protesters . At TIME other journalists had arrived from GPE . The applicant and PERSON had arrived with them . At that time , there had been no unrest and no clashes with the police . The applicant had invited him for a tea , but he had refused . At TIME the applicant had left the town together with GPE and GPE After they had left , in TIME , there had been clashes between protesters and the police , which had continued until TIME

M.R. , a journalist , stated that she had contacted the applicant by phone from LOC while he was in GPE on DATE .

M.K. , a journalist , stated that he had travelled to ORG together with PERSON . They had arrived TIME Very shortly after their arrival , PERSON had been taken by plain - clothed individuals to the police station . TIME , he himself had gone to the same police station , where both of them had been told that the situation in the town was now calm and had been asked to go back to GPE . No inflammatory statements were made by PERSON while they were in GPE .

R.C. , a journalist , stated that TIME and DATE . he had seen PERSON in GPE . A little while later , sometime between CARDINAL p.m. and CARDINAL p.m. , he had seen the applicant and GPE and had spoken to them for TIME . At around that time , plain - clothed individuals had taken Tofiq Yaqublu to the police station . After the applicant and PERSON had left the town , between about TIME and TIME there had been a new round of clashes between the protesters and the police .

E.M. , a journalist , stated that he had seen Tofiq Yaqublu being taken to the police station ; he did not specify the time . He had also seen the applicant . In TIME , after the applicant and PERSON had left the town , there had been clashes between protesters and the police .

Q.M. , a journalist , stated that he had arrived in GPE at TIME , together with ORG . The latter had been taken to the police station TIME . There had been no rioting or clashes with the police at that time . He had not seen the applicant at all while he had been in GPE .

The court also examined various material evidence , including video recordings and photographs of the events ; inspection reports of damage to ORG , a house owned by the head of IDEA , several burned cars and scooters , public light fixtures , and other public and private property ; and property documents showing , inter alia , that V.A. had property rights to the hotel . It appears that one of the formal inspections of the damaged property was conducted from CARDINAL a.m. to TIME on DATE , in the presence of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as an attesting witness .

As for the injuries to police officers during the events of CARDINAL and DATE , the court took note of CARDINAL forensic reports dated DATE documenting various injuries sustained by QUANTITY police officers on either CARDINAL or DATE , and a record of CARDINAL DATE showing that CARDINAL more injured police officer had been admitted to hospital on DATE . None of these CARDINAL injured police officers were the same as the six who had allegedly been hit by stones on TIME DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The court ordered forensic examinations in respect of allegations of ill - treatment by a number of the accused , including ORG and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) . According to the forensic reports issued on DATE ( a year after the events in question ) , no injuries had been found on them . The court questioned QUANTITY police officers named by the accused in connection with the alleged ill - treatment , all of whom denied that the accused had been ill - treated . The court noted that the majority of the accused , except CARDINAL , had not complained of ill - treatment before being heard at the trial hearings . A criminal complaint by CARDINAL of the accused had been examined by ORG and dismissed . In such circumstances , the court concluded that the GPE allegations of ill - treatment were ill - founded .

DATE . In so far as directly relevant to the specific charges against the applicant , the court examined the following evidence .

According to the description given in the court ’s judgment , a video recording of DATE showed the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu “ standing in the centre of the town of GPE , opposite to the administrative building of ORG , at a place where acts of mass disorder had been committed ” . The description did not specify the time of day when that scene had been shot .

Another set of video recordings of the events of DATE showed a group of local residents in the centre of the town , in GPE NORP Street and GPE FAC , blocking the roads , shouting slogans and disobeying repeated orders by the police to disperse . The same video contained scenes showing ORG and GPE throwing stones at the police and encouraging others in the crowd to do the same and to disobey the police . There was also a scene showing a police officer ( who was not CARDINAL of the officers who claimed to have been injured on TIME DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) ) getting injured by a stone and leaving the area limping . Lastly , the video showed the police using a water cannon against the crowd and the protesters dispersing in various directions . The description of the above recordings did not specify the time of day when those scenes had been shot .

The court also examined the applicant ’s mobile phone geolocalisation records for DATE . They indicated that at CARDINAL p.m. he had been within the zone of the antenna in the town of GPE ; at TIME the antenna in the village of ORG in the GPE region ; at TIME , TIME , TIME , TIME and TIME – the antenna on FAC in the town of GPE ; at TIME the antenna in the village of PERSON in the GPE region ; at TIME the antenna in LOC ; and at TIME an antenna in GPE .

The court further examined the content of the applicant ’s blog post ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the content of the telephone interview he had given to ORG between TIME and TIME on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The court also examined information given by ORG RPD and the MNS , described in the judgment as follows :

“ According to letter no . CARDINAL of ORG dated DATE , on DATE , at places where people were densely gathered in front of ORG in GPE , [ Tofiq Yaqublu ] , together with [ the applicant ] , incited people to make assertions against the ORG and government bodies and their activities .

According to letter of CARDINAL of ORG dated DATE , on DATE [ Tofiq Yaqublu and the applicant ] were in GPE and called on residents to resist the police , to block roads ... and to commit other similar acts aimed at disturbing social and political stability . ”

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers applied to the trial court with a number of requests , in particular :

( a ) that the applicant be released from pre - trial detention , with reference to LAW and various provisions of domestic law ( this request was similar to the one lodged at the preliminary hearing ) ;

( b ) that various pieces of evidence against the applicant obtained at the pre - trial stage be declared inadmissible , including statements by a number of prosecution witnesses ( including those mentioned in DATE and CARDINAL above ) on the grounds that they had been unlawfully obtained , and the letters from the ORG RPD and the MNS ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the grounds that they contained information that had not been verified independently by the prosecution authorities ( this request was also similar to the one lodged at the preliminary hearing ) ;

( c ) that additional witnesses for the defence be heard ( including GPE , GPE , and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) ) and other additional evidence ( inter alia , contemporaneous media reports concerning the events of DATE ) be examined ; and

( d ) that the hearings be held in a larger courtroom which could accommodate media representatives .

The court examined those requests at the hearing held on CARDINAL DATE and decided : ( a ) NORP to reject the request for release on the grounds that the applicant ’s circumstances had not changed ; ( b ) to reject the request concerning the inadmissibility of the evidence produced by the prosecution , on the grounds that it was ill - founded ; ( c ) to postpone the examination of the request for admission of additional evidence , because it was not sufficiently substantiated ; and ( d ) to reject the request to change the hearing venue , because media representatives were able to attend the hearings in the current venue .

DATE . It appears from the transcript of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE that there was a verbal altercation between the applicant and PERSON on one side , and some prosecution witnesses on the other , and that the presiding judge called the accused to order on several occasions . The judge also issued a warning to one of the applicant ’s lawyers , PERSON , for loudly objecting to the court ’s decisions to reject the defence ’s requests .

On DATE , after having consulted the transcript of the preliminary hearing , the applicant ’s lawyers applied to the court to amend some of the wording used in the transcript to describe the applicant ’s statement during the preliminary hearing to the effect that he considered the trial to be a sham and did not accept the trial court as a fair tribunal . On CARDINAL DATE the court held that the transcript had been correct and that the amendments proposed had the purpose of justifying the applicant ’s and his lawyers’ disrespectful attitude towards the court during the preliminary hearing .

On DATE the applicant applied for access to the transcripts of the trial hearings , arguing that under LAW , the transcript of each hearing had to be drafted within DATE of the hearing and made available to the parties within DATE . The court rejected the request , ruling that the transcripts should be made available to the parties not after each trial hearing , but after the completion of the trial . On DATE the court reiterated its position on that matter .

On DATE one of the applicant ’s lawyers applied to the court to terminate the participation in the trial as “ victims of crime ” of CARDINAL police officers who had allegedly been hit by stones during TIME CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He claimed that the decision granting them victim status had been unsubstantiated . In support of the request , the lawyer argued that all of those police officers had first been questioned DATE after the events by the same investigator . He further argued that it had not been shown that the police officers had sustained any injuries , and that there were no forensic reports in this respect . Moreover , having been given victim status , unlike regular witnesses , those persons had been present in the courtroom throughout the entire trial , giving them an ability to coordinate their statements , not only with each other but with other prosecution witnesses .

It appears that the above - mentioned application was dismissed by the court .

At the hearing held on DATE CARDINAL of the applicant ’s lawyers , Mr F. Agayev , lodged a second objection to the composition of the court , arguing , inter alia , that the court was biased : it had rejected all of the defence ’s requests and created obstacles to the proper questioning of “ fake witnesses ” by the defence . The court dismissed the objection , finding , inter alia , that it was ill - founded , that the reasons for the objection were artificial and unsubstantiated , and that it appeared to have been lodged with the purpose of delaying the trial . The court also imposed a fine on the lawyer in the amount of CARDINAL NORP manats ( NORP ) , under LAW ORG , for disrupting the court proceedings .

In DATE the applicant ’s lawyers applied to the court to admit and examine as evidence contemporaneous reports by various news agencies , including ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and Trend , showing that no clashes had been reported to be happening in GPE at the time the applicant was there . It appears that this request was rejected .

After ORG had delivered its judgment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) , on DATE the applicant ’s lawyers and on DATE the applicant himself applied for access to the transcripts of the court hearings . On CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the applicant was given access to the transcripts for a total of TIME . It appears that CARDINAL of the applicant ’s lawyers , Mr PERSON , was not given access to the transcripts because he had refused the demand by a court clerk to hand over all of the technical devices he had been carrying ( his mobile phone , tablet , and so on ) which could have been used to photograph pages of the transcripts . He had refused that demand on the grounds that there were CARDINAL volumes of transcripts ( a total of CARDINAL pages ) and that there was not enough time to properly consult them without the use of technical devices . It appears from the documents in the case file that the applicant ’s other lawyer , PERSON , was given access to the transcripts for an unspecified period of time . However , he was not allowed to make copies of the transcripts .

On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG his remarks concerning the transcripts of the trial hearings , of which he had time to read CARDINAL pages . He alleged that in a number of instances various statements by witnesses had been distorted or misrepresented in the transcripts in a manner unfavourable to him . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court refused to accept the applicant ’s remarks , holding that the transcripts were accurate .

On DATE ORG for Serious Crimes delivered its judgment , deciding as follows .

As to the accused whose allegations of ill - treatment were considered to be ill - founded ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court decided to take into account their pre - trial statements , in which they had admitted the factual accusations against them , as more truthful than their statements at the trial hearings , in which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been illtreated at the pre - trial stage .

In respect of the other accused and witnesses who had given differing statements at the pre - trial stage and during the trial hearings , including the police officer who had retracted his pre - trial statement ( see paragraph DATE above ) and the accused ORG and GPE , the court decided to take into account the pre - trial statements as being more “ truthful and objective ” , reasoning that the statements they had made later at the trial hearings , which had been more favourable to the accused , had been inconsistent with other evidence and had been designed to help the accused “ avoid criminal liability ” .

With regard to the accusations against the applicant in particular , the court found as follows .

The statements of prosecution witnesses , video recordings and other evidence proved that there had been mass disorder in GPE DATE TIME on DATE , that the applicant had been in GPE at that time , and that , together with PERSON , he had incited local residents , including ORG and GPE , to commit those violent acts of mass disorder , threatening the lives and health of CARDINAL police officers .

The court further held that the statements made by the applicant on his blog ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and in his interview to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) also proved that , even before traveling to GPE , he had had an “ intention to organise mass disorder ” and that , when in GPE , he was guilty of inciting people to commit acts of disorder and to disobey the police .

As to the statements of witnesses GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , who had said that there had been no clashes between protesters and the police in the town at that time and that neither the applicant nor Tofiq Yaqublu had incited anyone to violence or disobedience , the court found that there were inconsistencies in their statements . In particular , the court found as follows :

“ However , [ Q.M. ] stated that , after he had greeted [ the applicant ] , he had gone to sleep in the car . In fact , he had not known the whereabouts of [ the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu ] during that period of time . [ M.K. ] stated that , after getting out of the car , Tofiq Yaqublu had gone on foot towards the building of the IDEA , whereas during the pre - trial investigation [ M.K. ] had stated that [ GPE ] had left them , that he himself had frequently changed his location in order to record the people moving around in the square , that he had separated from PERSON , that Tofiq Yaqublu had been at another place , that [ another journalist ] had been taking photos , that [ ORG , the Head of the IDEA ] had started to give an interview at that time , and that , when he had been going for the interview , PERSON ... had been arrested and taken away by plain - clothed individuals . [ ORG ] stated that Tofiq Yaqublu had been arrested before the interview given by [ the Head of the IDEA ] , while [ PERSON ] stated that the interview ... had lasted TIME at most and that , during that period of time , he had not been aware of the whereabouts of [ the applicant ] and PERSON . As it can be seen from the above , the witnesses who stated that they had been next to [ the applicant ] and PERSON at all times concealed the essence of the matter by giving contradictory statements . ”

NORP The court found that the statements by those witnesses were favourable to the applicant and PERSON because those witnesses knew the defendants personally and wanted to “ help them avoid criminal liability ” . Their statements were not accepted as “ objective , sincere and truthful ” because they were “ incompatible with the facts of the case and contradicted the irrefutable evidence ” of the applicant ’s guilt .

The court further found that , likewise , the applicant ’s and Tofiq ORG ’s statements at the trial hearings claiming that there had been no mass disorder while they had been in GPE did not reflect the actual circumstances , and had been made in order to “ avoid criminal liability ” .

ORG for Serious Crimes convicted the applicant under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

The other defendants were also found guilty as charged and given sentences ranging from DATE and QUANTITY months’ to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , with some sentences being conditional .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicant ’s lawyers , Mr F. Agayev , lodged an appeal against the judgment of ORG of DATE .

The lawyer pointed out at the outset that at the time of lodging the appeal , neither a full copy of the text of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE nor the transcripts of the trial hearings had yet been made available to him .

The lawyer argued that the applicant had been convicted following a sham trial by a court which had tried him from a position of “ presumption of guilt ” throughout the entire proceedings . The applicant ’s visit to ORG , as an opposition politician , to find out the reasons for the events of DATE had been used by the Government as an excuse to punish him for his legitimate political criticism , a decision which had been taken long before the ORG events .

The rights of the defence had been seriously restricted in that the majority of their well - founded requests and objections had been routinely dismissed ; the defence had not been given adequate access to trial transcripts and some of the evidence ( including some video material ) ; the defence lawyers had not been allowed to use various technical devices , such as laptop and tablet computers , during the trial hearings , and so on .

The formal accusations against the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) had been written in a manner which did not comply with the norms of the NORP language , making it difficult to understand exactly what the applicant was accused of . The factual allegations against him were unclear and did not fit the elements of the criminal offences proscribed under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . Given that the applicant had been in GPE for TIME and had no prior personal acquaintance with anyone implicated in the riots of the previous night , it was highly improbable DATE and even physically impossible – for him to have “ organised ” mass disorder within such a short time frame , as described in the formal accusations .

NORP The applicant had been accused and convicted of organising an outbreak of mass disorder which had never happened . All the reliable and meaningful evidence produced at the trial had clearly shown that there had been no acts of mass disorder during TIME DATE while the applicant was in the town .

Firstly , all video recordings and other relevant material evidence showed that there had been no clashes with the police in TIME CARDINAL DATE and that the applicant had not incited anyone to violence or disobedience .

NORP In particular , a video recording originally taken from the website of ORG , operated by an NGO named ORG ( “ the LOC ” ) , had been edited before its examination by the court ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . As to the parts of the video showing clashes between protesters and the police ( it appears that , here , the lawyer referred to the scenes described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it was clear from the size and direction of the shadows cast by buildings , people and other objects that the video had been shot during TIME . That fact had been additionally confirmed by the chairman of the LOC in a letter dated DATE . The full , unedited version of the video attached to the letter contained scenes shot during TIME DATE showing numerous police vehicles on FAC advancing in the direction of the IDEA building with no protesters present . Then it showed the applicant , GPE and GPE standing near ORG and calmly talking to each other , with no one else in the vicinity . Afterwards , Tofiq Yaqublu could be seen talking to GPE and CARDINAL others ( it appears that the above scenes correspond to the scenes described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Then , it showed PERSON being taken by the police to a car and driven away . Later , an interview with the head of the LAW was shown . Throughout the entire video , the situation in the town during TIME DATE was calm and under the control of the police .

ORG . A video made available by the ORG newspaper showed the absence of any clashes between protesters and the police during TIME CARDINAL DATE . According to the applicant ’s lawyer , the firstinstance court added that video to the case file but , for unexplained reasons , decided not to use it as evidence .

A third video that was examined during the trial had been recorded by a camera installed on the GPE building , directed at the area of GPE FAC near the building of ORG . From that angle , if any crowd had passed in the vicinity of ORG and headed towards the IDEA building , it would certainly have been reflected in the recording . However , the parts of the video corresponding to the period TIME on DATE did not show any crowd or even a small group of protesters in that area .

The applicant ’s mobile phone geo - localisation records showed that he had left the town of ORG by TIME Similarly , Tofiq ORG ’s mobile phone geo - localisation records showed that he had left the town by TIME

On several occasions the defence had requested the trial court to examine a number of contemporaneous news reports by various information agencies , television and radio stations , and other mass - media sources which had closely followed the ORG events . None of them had reported any unrest happening in GPE in TIME CARDINAL DATE and had only reported clashes happening in TIME , starting at TIME However , the court had rejected the defence ’s requests to examine that material .

Secondly , the applicant ’s version of the events was strongly corroborated by the statements of Tofiq GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG and others . They had all stated that there had been no clashes during TIME DATE and that the applicant had not incited anyone to commit any acts of disorder . Those statements were mutually consistent and were also corroborated by all the material evidence , as described above .

CARDINAL of the accused , ORG and GPE , had both stated that there had been unrest in GPE during TIME of DATE , but that they had both been out of town during the afternoon . Neither the investigating authorities nor the court had bothered to check their alibis . Their statements also indirectly corroborated the applicant ’s version of the events , namely that there had been no unrest during TIME CARDINAL DATE . Also , both of them had alleged before the court that they had been ill - treated by the investigating authorities with the aim of obtaining statements incriminating the applicant .

Three police officers had mentioned in their statements that there had been no unrest during TIME DATE . CARDINAL police officer had testified that he had been injured by a stone during the morning . Their statements also corroborated the applicant ’s version of the events .

As to the witnesses who had testified against the applicant , the majority of them were police officers . Their statements were contradictory , false , inconsistent in various details ( such as , for example , the time and exact locations where they had seen the applicant and PERSON ) and conflicted with all the video recordings and other material evidence .

NORP In particular , the assertion that CARDINAL police officers had been hit by stones on TIME DATE was false . None of those police officers had reported being injured or hit by stones immediately or soon after the alleged incident . All of them had been recognised as “ victims of crime ” and questioned by the prosecution for the first time CARDINAL and DATE , DATE after the events . There had been no medical evidence of their injuries . By contrast , the injuries sustained by CARDINAL police officers on DATE and during TIME of DATE had been promptly documented either on DATE or DATE . In such circumstances , it was clear that the above - mentioned QUANTITY police officers had given false testimony against the applicant . The applicant had formally applied to the court to exclude them from the trial as “ victims of crime ” , but to no avail .

When cross - examined by the defence at a trial hearing , CARDINAL of the above - mentioned QUANTITY police officers had been unable to name the personnel of the police unit to which he had been deployed and , until assisted by a prosecutor , could not pinpoint his own exact location in GPE at the time when he had allegedly seen the applicant . When the defence lawyer had tried to get him to show , on an official map of GPE , exactly where he had seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu standing and inciting the crowd , the presiding judge had forbidden the use of the map . When the defence lawyer had then asked the police officer to describe his location with reference to various landmarks next to ORG , the presiding judge had dismissed the question . The defence lawyer had then lodged a second objection to the composition of the trial court . In response , the presiding judge had decided , firstly , to leave the objection unexamined and , secondly , to fine the lawyer in the amount of AZN CARDINAL for having lodged an allegedly unsubstantiated objection designed to delay the hearing . Thereafter , the defence lawyers for all of the accused had been dissuaded from lodging any further objections , having been clearly shown that doing so would be meaningless .

Similarly , other police officers had been unable to answer the defence ’s questions seeking clarification , or had given statements that differed significantly from their pre - trial statements , only to radically revert back to their pre - trial statements immediately after a break in the hearing announced by the court . On some occasions , the court had dismissed police officers from the witness stand before the defence could complete the crossexamination .

Furthermore , at the trial one of the police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had retracted the written statement he had signed at the pre - trial stage , stating that everything in it had been a product of an investigator ’s imagination .

NORP The applicant ’s lawyer argued that , at the trial hearings , witness PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had stated that he had seen only about CARDINAL people in the town centre between about CARDINAL p.m. and TIME on DATE , and that , although he had seen the applicant and PERSON among them , he had not heard what they had been talking about with the people around them .

The lawyer further argued that ORG was a ” fake witness ” engaged by the police and claimed that both witnesses ORG and GPE had given knowingly false and contradictory statements as described in DATE above .

In conclusion , the applicant ’s lawyer argued that a proper assessment of the available evidence clearly showed that , contrary to the prosecution ’s version of the facts , there had been no acts of mass disorder at the time when the applicant had been in the town ( DATE ) and that some clashes between protesters and the police had taken place TIME before he had arrived in the town ( CARDINAL a.m. and TIME ) and TIME after he had left the town ( after TIME ) . Statements given by the prosecution witnesses , to the contrary , had been shown to be contradictory , unreliable or false , and uncorroborated by the available material evidence . Accordingly , there was no corpus delicti in respect of the criminal offences for which the applicant had been convicted .

Before the examination of the appeal , on DATE the applicant applied to ORG for access to the remaining part of the transcripts of the trial hearings for consultation . His request was granted and the date for his consultation of the transcripts was scheduled for DATE . However , on CARDINAL and DATE he lodged CARDINAL applications withdrawing his previous request and , instead , asking for a speedy examination of his appeal .

During the examination of the appeal by ORG , the applicant ’s lawyers lodged a number of applications repeating those lodged with the first - instance court . It appears that all of them were rejected .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction and sentence , essentially reiterating the reasoning of the first - instance court in respect of the charges against him . The judgment did not address any of the arguments raised in the applicant ’s appeal .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s lawyers submitted a number of remarks concerning the transcript of the appellate hearings , and requesting amendments . ORG refused to amend the transcripts .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers lodged a cassation appeal with ORG , reiterating the points raised in the previous appeal .

On DATE a judge of ORG requested all the material of the case file from ORG . At the first hearing held on DATE ORG decided , in the absence of any objections , to postpone further hearing of the case for an indefinite period because more time was needed for examination of the case file . The hearing was resumed on DATE .

By a decision of DATE , ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE , having found that the lower ORG rejection of the defence ’s requests for the examination of additional defence witnesses ( in particular , CARDINAL members of LOC and CARDINAL NGO director ) and other evidence ( in particular , contemporaneous news reports by various media agencies , additional mobile - phone records , additional video recordings , and so on ) had been insufficiently reasoned and were in breach of the domestic procedural rules and the requirements of LAW . The case was remitted for a new examination by the appellate court .

Before the repeat examination of the case by ORG , the applicant , who at that time was serving his sentence in ORG No . CARDINAL in GPE , wrote to the appellate court several times waiving his right to be personally present at the appeal hearings to be held in PERSON , expressing confidence that his lawyers would conduct his defence adequately in his absence . ORG responded each time with an explanation that , under domestic law , the defendant ’s presence at appeal hearings was mandatory and invited him to attend the hearings . Finally , on DATE the court ruled that the applicant should be brought to PERSON for the appeal hearings .

During the hearings at ORG , the applicant ’s lawyers lodged a number of applications , including requests for the applicant ’s release from detention ; for the allegedly unlawfully obtained statements of prosecution witnesses ( including those mentioned in DATE and CARDINAL above ) and other evidence produced by the prosecution ( including the letters of ORG RPD and the MNS ) to be declared inadmissible ; for additional defence witnesses to be heard ; for the admission and examination of contemporaneous news reports by various information agencies ; and for examination of the video recording taken by the camera installed on the GPE building . It appears that , apart from the first CARDINAL requests , all the others were granted .

The appellate court re - examined the case material of the firstinstance trial and , in addition , examined new evidence . In particular , it heard CARDINAL new defence witnesses ( both members of REAL ) . Their statements do not appear to have contained any significant details in respect of the accusations against the applicant . The court also examined a number of contemporaneous news reports and the “ GPE video recording ” .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction and sentence . Below is the summary of the appellate court ’s reasoning contained in its judgment .

The court ’s assessment of the evidence examined at the first - instance and appeal hearings began as follows :

“ Having viewed the recording of the video surveillance camera installed at the ORG of GPE in the town of GPE , directed at PERSON GPE street leading towards the administrative buildings of the LAW and ORG , the court determined that DATE on DATE [ the situation ] was relatively calm on that street .

Having examined [ reports ] of ORG , Trend and other mass media ... , the court noted that the media had reported that , as a continuation of the events starting on DATE , TIME on DATE there was a general situation of confrontation and tension in the centre of GPE , [ and had also reported ] about growing numbers of people on the streets in the vicinity of buildings of government bodies .

It is noted in the DATE issue of ORG newspaper ... that [ ORG ] , the newspaper ’s correspondent sent to ORG , reported at TIME on DATE that ‘ currently numerous vehicles – buses , water cannons , and other vehicles , thought to be coming from GPE – are entering the town . The crowd around the area where the government bodies are located has been growing and tension remains.’ At TIME he reported that ‘ ... despite the engagement of additional forces , the crowd is growing on the streets where the government bodies are located and around them . According to local rumours , the protest , which started in the town centre DATE , would continue TIME after ORG . ”

The court also referred to , as evidence , the letters from the ORG RPD and the MNS , as described in the first - instance judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The judgment continued as follows :

“ The court does not accept as evidence the statements of witnesses [ GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ] that there were no riots DATE on DATE and the statements of [ the applicant and PERSON ] that they did not incite the public to riot or resist the police , that there were no riots between CARDINAL p.m. and TIME on DATE , and that they spent TIME in GPE .

In particular , [ GPE ] stated that , after he had greeted [ the applicant ] , he had gone to sleep in the car and , in fact , had not known the whereabouts of [ the applicant and PERSON ] during that period of time . [ PERSON ] stated that , after getting out of the car , Tofiq Yaqublu had gone on foot towards the building of the IDEA , while during the pre - trial investigation [ M.K. ] had stated that [ GPE ] had left them , that he himself had frequently changed his location in order to record the people moving around in the square , that he had separated from PERSON , that Tofiq Yaqublu had been at another place , that [ another journalist ] had been taking photos , that [ the head of the LAW ] had started to give an interview at that time , and that , when he had been going for the interview , PERSON ... had been arrested and taken away by plain - clothed individuals . [ ORG ] stated that Tofiq Yaqublu had been arrested before the interview given by [ the head of the IDEA ] , while [ PERSON ] stated that the interview ... had lasted TIME at most and that , during that period of time , he had not been aware of the whereabouts of [ the applicant ] and PERSON . As it can be seen from the above , the witnesses who stated that they had been next to [ the applicant ] and PERSON at all times , concealed the essence of the matter by giving conflicting statements . Moreover , in his interview to ... PERSON given from CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. on DATE , Tofiq PERSON stated that ‘ [ he had been ] detained at the police station for TIME ... [ He had been ] taken to [ PERSON ’s ] office at the police station [ who alleged that Tofiq Yaqublu ] had come here to organise sabotage and to prepare people for more protests . [ The police were then reassured that Tofiq PERSON was indeed a columnist for a newspaper ] . For that reason , [ he ] was released.’ This interview proves that PERSON was not taken to the police station without a reason , but that he was detained ... because of his actions aimed at disruption and sabotage . ”

The court then noted that the statements of QUANTITY police officers , including QUANTITY of the CARDINAL alleged victims of crime ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and witnesses ORG , GPE and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) indicated that TIME on DATE there was mass disorder in front of the building of ORG and that the applicant and PERSON had incited people to riot and resist the police .

The court referred to the applicant ’s interview with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the court ’s interpretation , contrary to what the applicant had stated in the court proceedings , the content of his interview showed that the situation had not been calm in GPE during his visit .

In respect of the witness statements favouring the applicant , the court concluded as follows :

“ Having come to the same conclusion as the first - instance court , the court considers that ... the witnesses [ GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , and GPE ] wanted to help [ the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu ] , whom they knew and had relations with , avoid criminal liability . The specific circumstances mentioned in their statements can not be accepted as objective , sincere and genuine because they do not fit the fconflict with other , irrefutable evidence . ”

As to the video recording by the camera installed on the GPE building , the court assessed it as follows :

“ The court holds that the statements of [ the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu ] ... do not fit[Their ] statements ... are of a self - defence nature and designed to avoid criminal liability . As the main evidence proving their statements , they rely on the recording dated DATE of the video surveillance camera installed at the ATM of GPE , directed at PERSON FAC leading towards the administrative buildings of the IDEA and ORG . Although the recording shows that TIME the situation was relatively calm on that street , it is not the only street leading to the centre ( the IDEA [ building ] ) ; moreover , it can not be ruled out that individuals could have gone along that street towards the building of the [ IDEA ] CARDINAL - by - one and gathered there [ afterwards ] , or could have arrived in the centre from other directions . ... ”

As to the video evidence originally examined by the first - instance court , ORG mentioned the video recording showing the applicant and PERSON standing in the centre of the town of GPE , opposite to the administrative building of ORG , at a place where acts of mass disorder had been committed ” , without specifying the time of day when that scene had been shot ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . However , ORG did not mention any of the other video recordings of CARDINAL DATE relied on by the first - instance court , showing clashes between protesters and the police ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) .

The court further noted that , according to the information obtained from the first - instance court , throughout DATE on DATE fortyfour people had been arrested under LAW , including CARDINAL people arrested TIME The court concluded that this was an indication that the situation in the town had not been calm while the applicant was there .

The judgment continued as follows :

“ [ The applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu ] claimed that the evidence gathered by the prosecution against them had been false . As an example , they referred to the testimony of [ ORG ] who had participated , as an attesting witness , in the inspection of the scene of the events [ of the previous night ] from TIME on DATE , and had later testified that at TIME on DATE he had seen [ the applicant and PERSON inciting people to commit acts of disorder ] . [ They ] argue that [ R.N. ] is a person who cooperates with the police and that the police had instructed him to testify against them . However , the court holds that [ ORG ’s ] presence during the inspection of the scene of the events as an attesting witness does not make it impossible for him to have observed and witnessed an event occurring TIME . ”

The appellate court then digressed to discuss at significant length the ORG ’s judgment in ORG ( cited above ) .

The appellate court ’s judgment continued as follows :

“ Being far from an intention to give an assessment of ORG position in its above - mentioned judgment , the court holds that , first of all , [ the applicant ’s and PERSON ] unlawful actions should be evaluated through the prism of the events that took place in GPE on DATE and DATE . That is so because those events constituted the reason and grounds for instituting criminal proceedings and the criminal prosecution of [ the applicant , PERSON ] and others .

As described above , on CARDINAL and DATE in GPE , under the organisation and with the active participation of the accused persons , a crowd formed by a large number of residents spontaneously joined together and destroyed , by burning , and partly looted the building of ORG , destroying equipment and items found inside the building , as well as personal belongings of the hotel guests and staff ; [ they also destroyed , by burning , ] CARDINAL cars in the grounds of the hotel , damaged houses and cars on the streets with stones , [ and also destroyed , by burning , ] private property of people who had no connection to the events , and inflicted bodily injuries on individuals , including many police officers who were performing their official duty to restore public order .

In connection with these events , on DATE criminal proceedings were instituted under ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE and CARDINAL individuals were charged [ in the framework of those proceedings ] , over QUANTITY individuals were found administratively liable , and CARDINAL individuals were recognised as victims .

The criminal events that occurred in GPE were the most widely covered news for DATE by both local and reputable foreign mass media . In other words , they were not ordinary events that happened in GPE .

In connection with the participation of [ the applicant ] in those events and the criminal offences committed by him , as well as the evidence concerning those offences , the court finds it necessary to reiterate once more the following .

Although [ the applicant ] states that he arrived in GPE at TIME and left before TIME on DATE , examination of the detailed invoice of his incoming and outgoing mobile calls , and his blog post of CARDINAL DATE , where he shared his impressions from his trip by writing ‘ DATE I was in GPE for a little more than TIME together with another member of our movement ( REAL ) and a media PERSON , proves that on DATE [ the applicant ] was in GPE from TIME to TIME

[ The applicant ] insists that , when he was in GPE , there was no mass disorder there . However , this statement is completely refuted by the case material . ”

In this connection , the court continued :

“ Victims [ in particular , QUANTITY police officers ( of the QUANTITY mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above ) , E.A. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and PERSON . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ] and witnesses [ in particular , GPE , GPE and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , as well as PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and CARDINAL other police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ] stated during both the pre - trial investigation and the first - instance hearings that throughout DATE on DATE , including TIME , mass riots had continued , crowds of people had attacked the [ IDEA ] building and had stoned police officers . They also testified that they had seen [ the applicant and PERSON ] standing separately from each other , raising their hands , talking to people surrounding them and saying ‘ do not be afraid of anything , enter the building of the IDEA , stone the police ORG . At their instigation , a group of individuals started moving towards the building of the LAW and [ the applicant and PERSON ] were also among them . The police attempted to isolate [ the applicant and PERSON ] from the crowd by requesting them to [ step aside ] , but they disobeyed and moved to the back of the crowd .

Another circumstance worth noting is that [ CARDINAL police officers ] gave those statements on DATE and [ ORG and GPE ] gave their statements on DATE , that is before [ the applicant ’s ] arrest .

At the same time , [ ORG and GPE ] confirmed their statements during face - to - face confrontations with [ the applicant ] . ”

The court then once again referred to the information reported by ORG newspaper ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the information the applicant had published on his ORG page ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It then reiterated that CARDINAL people had been arrested DATE on DATE .

The judgment continued :

“ The above - mentioned circumstances show that on DATE , when [ the applicant and PERSON ] were in GPE , the events were unfolding there and that the crowd attacked the IDEA building and committed acts of violence against the police . ”

The court then found that it was not “ believable ” that the applicant had visited ORG simply to gather “ first - hand information ” , considering , inter alia , that his ORG posts were aimed at “ promoting disobedience ” .

The court also found that the applicant ’s ORG posts of TIME CARDINAL DATE and his blog post of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were proof of his intention to organise mass disorder . In particular , it stated :

“ The above - mentioned [ posts by the applicant ] demonstrate once again that , before traveling to GPE , the applicant had an intention to organise mass disorder with the aim of defending the REAL movement ’s demands for the creation of conditions for a revolt , and that , after he had arrived in GPE , he had carried out his intention . ”

NORP The court concluded its analysis as follows :

“ The above - mentioned circumstances of the case prove beyond doubt that on DATE [ the applicant ] travelled to ORG and organised mass disorder there together with [ Tofiq Yaqublu ] . Moreover , at TIME on DATE , as active participants , [ they ] were able to achieve that a group of individuals formed of [ ORG ] , [ GPE ] and others marched in masses in the direction of the administrative building of the [ IDEA ] , and threw stones at police officers who were preventing [ this march ] in accordance with the requirements of the law , resulting in the use of violence posing a danger to the lives and health of [ CARDINAL named police officers ] .

As for [ the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu ] arriving from GPE and , within TIME , managing to convert unorganised riots into organised acts of subversion , the court considers that in normal circumstances it would not appear convincing that [ this could have been done ] ; however , it must be taken into account that [ the rioters ] considered [ N.A. ] , the Head of the [ IDEA ] , responsible for the events , they were enraged and , as [ the applicant ] himself stated , ‘ the situation was PERSON . [ The applicant and PERSON ] took advantage of this factor and , using anti - government slogans , attracted [ the rioters’ ] attention , enraged them even more and then committed the criminal offences described above . ”

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer , Mr PERSON , lodged a cassation appeal against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , reiterating the points in his previous appeals and arguing further that the appellate court had assessed the evidence in a manifestly arbitrary manner . As an example , he pointed out that the court had failed to duly take into account that the video recording by the GPE camera clearly refuted the prosecution ’s version of the events , according to which the crowd had allegedly moved specifically along PERSON FAC in the direction of the police positioned near the LAW building . Moreover , the court had wrongly concluded that the applicant had left ORG at TIME , whereas the mobile phone geo - localisation records showed that his mobile had been last registered in the centre of the town at TIME

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , finding that the lower court had correctly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure .

After the first - instance trial at ORG , on DATE the presiding judge sent letters to ORG requesting that disciplinary measures be taken against the applicant ’s lawyers , Mr F. Agayev and Mr PERSON . The court stated that they had breached procedural rules and the rules on lawyers’ conduct on numerous occasions throughout the trial , by making unauthorised objections and offensive and disrespectful remarks about various parties and the court , and refusing to wear lawyers’ robes despite numerous demands by the presiding judge .

After the proceedings at ORG , on DATE the presiding judge of that court also sent letters to ORG requesting that it take disciplinary measures against both lawyers , stating that they had behaved similarly throughout the appellate proceedings .

NORP On DATE ORG held that Mr PERSON had breached the rules for ethical conduct of advocates . It decided to refer his case to a court with a view to his disbarment and to suspend his activity as an advocate pending a decision by the court . On DATE ORG delivered a judgment ordering PERSON disbarment . The judgment was upheld by the higher courts . PERSON has lodged an application with the ORG concerning the matter ( PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , communicated to the respondent Government on DATE ) .


Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 12 - Right to marry (Article 12 - Marry)

András Sajó;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

In DATE the applicant married NORP In DATE NORP underwent infertility treatment so she could conceive a child with him .

In DATE the applicant met PERSON In DATE he moved out of the flat he had lived in with NORP

On DATE PERSON gave birth to their daughter , PERSON

On DATE the applicant filed a petition for divorce . At first he requested a no - fault divorce . In his petition the applicant referred to various marital misunderstandings and quarrels for which he blamed the respondent . He admitted that he had moved out of the matrimonial home , but did not mention his involvement with a new partner .

At a hearing held on DATE the applicant refused to undergo the mediation process provided for by divorce law . NORP did not agree to a divorce , declared that she loved the applicant and asked the court to dismiss the divorce petition .

Subsequently , the applicant requested a divorce on faultbased grounds .

During the proceedings CARDINAL witnesses were heard . Most of them were of the opinion that the marriage seemed happy until DATE . Only the applicant ’s mother , his CARDINAL colleagues and his cousin recalled minor arguments between the spouses .

During the final hearing on CARDINAL DATE the respondent reiterated her refusal to divorce .

On DATE ORG refused to grant the divorce to the applicant . The court held that he was the only person responsible for the breakdown of his marriage because he had failed to respect the obligation of fidelity . The court did not find it credible that problems had already begun within DATE of the marriage . It observed that until DATE the applicant had not wanted children . In DATE he had changed his mind . For that reason PERSON had undergone surgery , the operation having taken place in DATE .

NORP The marital situation had subsequently changed when the applicant had met PERSON He had no longer wished to have a child with his wife . The court noted contradictions between the testimony given by the applicant , who had referred to the alleged serious problems in marital life prior to DATE on the one hand , and the decision to treat NORP ’s infertility in DATE on the other . The respondent had been shocked by the applicant ’s unfaithfulness and had been treated for depression since DATE .

The court acknowledged that there had indeed been “ a complete and irretrievable marriage breakdown ” within the meaning of LAW . Reconciliation was unlikely as the applicant had consistently rejected all attempts made by NORP to reconcile their differences . Moreover , he had been in a relationship with PERSON for DATE and had a child with her .

The court emphasised that under LAW of LAW , a divorce could not be granted if it had been requested by the party whose fault it was that the marriage had broken down , if the other party refused to consent and the refusal of the innocent party was not “ contrary to the reasonable principles of social coexistence ” ( zasady współżycia społecznego ) within the meaning of LAW .

The court considered that NORP ’s refusal to divorce should be presumed to be compatible with those universally accepted principles . It referred to the case - law of ORG to the effect that a refusal of consent to a divorce was to be presumed to be compliant with those principles unless there were case - specific indications to the contrary . There was no indication that when refusing to give her consent NORP had acted out of hatred , was motivated by vengeance , or simply wanted to vex the applicant . The court emphasised that she had repeatedly stated during the proceedings that she was ready to reconcile with him despite the fact that he had a child with another woman .

The court stressed that the duration of the applicant ’s new relationship could not by itself be considered to be a sufficient reason for granting the divorce .

The applicant appealed against the judgment . He argued , inter alia , that the court had erred in holding that a spouse ’s refusal to consent to a divorce could be disregarded only when it was of an abusive nature or was dictated by hostility towards the spouse seeking the divorce . The court should have examined the negative social consequences caused by continuing the formal existence of failed marriages . In his case , it had failed to do so .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The applicant did not request to be served with the written grounds for the appellate judgment . The grounds were therefore not prepared .

The judgment was final , a cassation appeal against a divorce judgment not being available in law .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .