5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently serving a prison sentence.
6.  The applicant was a journalist and an active member of the Popular Front Party, which is one of the opposition parties. At the time of the events he wrote for the newspaper Azadliq and participated in various media projects. In particular, he was the presenter of a satellite TV show “Azerbaijani Hour” which was critical of the government. In 2016 the applicant was awarded that year’s “Free Media Awards” by the Fritt Ord Foundation and ZEIT-Stiftung for independent journalism in Eastern Europe.
7.  At around noon on 29 August 2014, when the applicant was on his way to work, a certain M.H. approached him near a bus stop, asking him why he had not replied to his messages sent via Facebook. The applicant, who did not know M.H., answered that he had not replied to him because he had probably not seen his messages. According to the applicant, immediately after that answer, M.H. physically assaulted him by punching him in the face. At that moment the applicant began defending himself and hit M.H. with a glass water bottle that he had just bought from the market. The applicant then left the scene of the incident and asked for help. At that moment he saw a police car and immediately asked the police officers for help.
8.  At around 12.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant and M.H. were taken to the Absheron District Police Office.
9.  At 2.40 p.m. on the same day an investigator issued a record of the applicant’s detention as a suspect. The applicant was suspected of having committed the criminal offence of hooliganism under Article 221.3 of the Criminal Code.
10.  On 30 August 2014 the applicant was charged under Article 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. In particular, he was accused of having caused minor bodily harm to M.H. by hitting the latter on the head with a glass water bottle and also punching and kicking him in the face.
11.  On the same day the Absheron District Court, relying on the official charge brought against the applicant and a request by the prosecutor to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial for a period of two months, calculating the period of detention from 29 August 2014. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by referring to the risk of the applicant reoffending and obstructing the investigation’s functioning by influencing other participants in the criminal proceedings. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“... having examined the preliminary material of the case file (witness statements and forensic expert reports), the court considers that there are sufficient grounds to believe that there is a likelihood that the accused Haziyev Seymur Mashgul oglu will obstruct the investigation’s functioning by influencing other participants in the criminal proceedings and reoffend.”
12.  On 1 September 2014 the applicant appealed against that decision, claiming that there had been no justification for the application of the preventive measure of detention pending trial, and that his pre-trial detention amounted to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention. In this respect, he submitted that there was no evidence in the case file proving the existence of any risk of his reoffending or obstructing the investigation’s functioning. He also argued that he could not in any way obstruct the investigation’s functioning, as all the protagonists involved in the incident had already been identified and examined by the forensic expert. He further pointed out that he was a journalist and had always collaborated with the law-enforcement authorities. The applicant also challenged the charge against him, claiming that he had only defended himself against the physical assault by M.H., whom he had not known before the incident.
13.  On 12 September 2014 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision was justified. In particular, the appellate court dismissed the applicant’s complaint relating to the legal classification of his action as hooliganism, but remained silent as to his above-mentioned specific complaints concerning the lack of justification for his pre-trial detention.
14.  On 30 September 2014 the applicant lodged an application with the Absheron District Court, asking to be released on bail or put under house arrest rather than being held in pre-trial detention. He claimed, in particular, that his pre-trial detention was not justified and that there was no reason for it to continue. In support of his application, he pointed out that he had a permanent place of residence, that he had no criminal record, and that there was no proof that he could obstruct the investigation and reoffend.
15.  On 2 October 2014 the Absheron District Court dismissed the application, finding it unfounded.
16.  On 13 October 2014 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.
17.  On 27 October 2014 the prosecutor in charge of the case filed the bill of indictment with the Absheron District Court for trial.
18.  On 11 November 2014 the applicant lodged an application with the Absheron District Court, asking to be placed under house arrest instead of in pre-trial detention. He also complained that despite the fact that his pre-trial detention period had expired on 29 October 2014, he had not been released from detention.
19.  On 11 November 2014 the Absheron District Court dismissed the applicant’s application, finding that his detention was lawful. The first-instance court’s decision was not amenable to appeal.
20.  On 20 November 2014 the Absheron District Court held a preliminary hearing in which it decided, inter alia, that the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged, without citing any grounds. The first-instance court’s decision was not amenable to appeal.
21.  On 29 January 2015 the Absheron District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 221.3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.
22.  On 29 September 2015 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. It was further upheld on 15 April 2016 by the Supreme Court.