issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 356 (2012)

02.10.2012

Beating of journalist by police while covering a demonstration

was in breach of his freedom of expression

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Najafli v. Azerbaijan (application

no. 2594/07), which is not final¹, the European Court of Human Rights held,

unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the

European Convention on Human Rights concerning Mr Najafli’s ill-treatment;

a violation of Article 3 concerning the investigation into his claim of ill-treatment; and,

a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).

The case concerned a journalist who had been beaten by the police while covering an

unauthorised demonstration in Baku.

The Court found in particular that the physical ill-treatment by State agents of journalists

carrying out their professional duties had seriously hampered the exercise of their right

to receive and impart information. Irrespective of whether there had been any actual

intention to interfere with Mr Najafli’s journalistic activity, he had been subjected to

unnecessary and excessive use of force, despite having made clear efforts to identify

himself as a journalist at work.

Principal facts

The applicant, Ramiz Huseyn oglu Najafli, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in

1967 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan). He was a journalist and the editor-in-chief of a

newspaper named Boz Qurd. On 9 October 2005, he was sent to cover an unauthorised

demonstration in Baku, organised by opposition parties. During the dispersal of the

demonstration by the police, Mr Najafli and his colleagues were beaten up and received

various injuries. According to the applicant, he told the police officers that he was a

journalist and asked them to stop. He was then hit on the head and lost consciousness.

On 26 October 2005 Mr Najafli received a medical certificate with a diagnosis of closed

cranio-cerebral trauma, concussion and soft-tissue damage to the crown of the head.

Criminal proceedings were brought against the police officers concerned on 9 November

2005 by the Sabail District Police Department which were then transferred to the Sabail

District Prosecutor’s Office – the case had been re-qualified from beating to obstruction

of the lawful professional activity of journalists. When he was questioned on 12 January

2006, Mr Najafli stated that he had been beaten with truncheons by a group of police

officers while observing the demonstration. He also submitted a photo of Baku’s Head of

Riot Police (A.V.), present at the scene. Two other journalists who had witnessed the

1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month

period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the

Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further

examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral

request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for

supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:

www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

incident confirmed Mr Najafli’s version of events. According to the Government, a

forensic examination was ordered by the investigator. However, the Court did not

receive any supporting evidence in this regard and the applicant alleged that he had not

been informed of such a decision.

On 9 March 2006, after A.V. had denied his involvement in Mr Najafli’s beating, the

Sabail District Prosecutor’s Office investigator issued a decision suspending the criminal

proceedings until the perpetrators of the beating had been identified. The applicant

complained about the suspension of the investigation, without success. His appeal was

dismissed on 13 June 2006.

The civil action lodged by Mr Najafli to seek damages was also rejected on the grounds

that he had failed to identify actual individuals as defendants.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Najafli

complained that he had been beaten up by police and that the authorities had failed to

carry out an effective investigation, letting those police officers responsible go

unpunished. Under Article 10 (freedom of expression), he further alleged that the police

officers’ intention had been to prevent him from covering the demonstration. Relying on

Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he finally complained that the refusal to admit his civil

action had been wrongly substantiated.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 December

2006.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Nina Vajić (Croatia), President,

Anatoly Kovler (Russia),

Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),

Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”),

Julia Laffranque (Estonia),

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos (Greece),

Erik Møse (Norway),

and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 3

Treatment

Mr Najafli had produced sufficiently strong and consistent evidence to establish at least a

presumption that he had been beaten with truncheons by police officers during the

dispersal of the demonstration, including the medical certificate of 26 October 2005,

statements from two witnesses supporting his version of the events and a photo

confirming A.V.’s presence at the scene of the incident.

As to whether the use of force against Mr Najafli had been excessive, the Court noted

that the applicant had not used violence against the police or posed a threat to them.

Nor had the authorities given any other reasons justifying the use of force, which had

therefore been unnecessary, excessive and unacceptable.

The Court found that Mr Najafli’s injuries had proven that he had experienced serious

physical pain and suffering. Indeed, the cranio-cerebral trauma and concussion had

required long-term medical treatment and the ill-treatment, as well as its consequences,

had to have also caused him considerable mental suffering, diminishing his human

dignity. Consequently, the minimum level of severity required under the European

Convention for the ill-treatment to come within the scope of Article 3 had been attained.

There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 as concerned Mr Najafli’s ill-treatment.

Investigation

The Court first observed that no relevant procedural steps had been taken until

Mr Najafli had been questioned, more than three months after the incident, and that no

documentary evidence had been produced as to the allegedly ordered forensic

examination.

Turning to what the Court considered the most problematic aspect of the investigation, it

observed that the identification of those responsible for the applicant’s beating had been

delegated to the same authority whose agents had allegedly committed the offence.

Even if another police department had been in charge of this major part of the

investigation, the agents had been colleagues, employed by the same public authority.

As regards the suspension of proceedings, the Court noted that the Sabail District

Prosecutor’s Office investigator, relying on the “no result” report of the police

department, had merely suspended the investigation without taking any further action.

Finally, the applicant had been deprived of the opportunity to effectively seek damages

in civil proceedings, as he had been required to name specific police officers as

defendants. That requirement had constituted an insurmountable obstacle given that the

criminal investigation had not identified those police officers.

In those circumstances, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3

concerning the investigation into Mr Najafli’s claim of ill-treatment.

Article 10

The Court reiterated that it was the role of the press to impart information and ideas on

matters of public interest and that the public had a right to receive them, including

concerning opposition gatherings and demonstrations. This was essential for the

development of any democratic society and for the press to play its vital “public

watchdog” role.

The Court could not accept the Government’s argument that police officers had been

unable to determine that Mr Najafli had been a journalist. Indeed, he had been wearing

a journalist’s badge and had even specifically told the police officers that he had been a

journalist.

Moreover, the Court considered that the physical ill-treatment by State agents of

journalists performing their professional duties had seriously hampered the exercise of

their right to receive and impart information. Irrespective of whether there had been any

actual intention to interfere with Mr Najafli’s journalistic activity, he had been subjected

to unnecessary and excessive use of force, in breach of Article 3, despite having made

clear efforts to identify himself as a journalist at work. Accordingly, there had been an

interference with Mr Najafli’s rights under Article 10, which had not been “necessary in a

democratic society”, as the Government had not shown convincingly that this

interference had been lawful or pursued a legitimate end. Consequently, there had been

a violation of Article 10.

Article 6

Having regard to the finding of a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3

(investigation), the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine whether this

case raised an issue under Article 6 and therefore rejected this part of the application.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)

The court held that Azerbaijan was to pay the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of

non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.

The judgment is available only in English.

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.

Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on

www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:

www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.

Press contacts

[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of

Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European

Convention on Human Rights.