5.  The applicant was born in 1967. He was a member of the National Assembly (Milli Majlis), elected in 2005. 6.  The applicant provided the following account of the impugned events. 7.  On 16 March 2007 the National Assembly was hearing a 2006 Cabinet of Ministers report presented by the Prime Minister. The presentation of the report was to be followed by questions and subsequently by a debate. 8.  According to the applicant, when he was given an opportunity to ask a question, he began to deliver a speech criticising the Cabinet of Ministers. After a few sentences his microphone was cut and he was not allowed to finish his speech. This prompted the applicant to engage in a verbal argument with the Speaker. 9.  The applicant claimed that while he and the Speaker were arguing, F.A., a member of parliament who was seated behind him, shouted an insult directed at the latter. In reply, the applicant, also using insulting language, demanded that F.A. mind his own business. F.A. allegedly responded by continuing to shout curses directed at the applicant and his close family members, and a heated argument between the applicant and F.A. ensued. 10.  The applicant, using gestures, invited F.A. to follow him so that they could settle their differences outside the assembly room and began heading towards the exit. However, according to the applicant, at that point F.A. approached him from behind and punched him in the face. The applicant pushed F.A. away, as a result of which F.A. fell onto a desk. However, he allegedly continued to throw punches at the applicant. The applicant also attempted to punch F.A., but was stopped by several other members who had quickly intervened to stop the fight. He was led out of the assembly room and left the parliament building. 11.  The Government neither disputed the applicant’s above account of the events nor provided a separate description thereof (see paragraph 56 below). 12.  The above incident in the National Assembly was video recorded and broadcast later by various public television channels. 13.  On the same day F.A. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant with the Prosecutor General’s Office and the latter instituted criminal proceedings under Articles 132 (battery) and 221.2.2 (hooliganism accompanied by resistance to a State official or other person carrying out duties in protection of public order or prevention of breaches of public order) of the Criminal Code. 14.  According to the applicant, at around 10.30 a.m. on 19 March 2007 he was arrested by masked police officers in the street. The police allegedly applied force during his arrest. 15.  Several hours after the arrest the National Assembly lifted the applicant’s parliamentary immunity, following a request by the Prosecutor General. 16.  By a decision of the Prosecutor General’s Office of 19 March 2007, the applicant was formally charged with criminal offences under Articles 132 and 221.2.2 of the Criminal Code. The decision stated that the applicant’s actions had caused F.A. to experience symptoms of a closed craniocerebral trauma. 17.  On the same day, based on a request by the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody for a period of two months. 18.  On 16 March 2007 the investigator in charge ordered F.A.’s medical expert examination. The forensic report, finalised on 17 April 2007, found that F.A. had a closed craniocerebral trauma, concussion, a haematoma on his forehead and other less serious injuries. According to the expert, the injuries had been caused by several punches to the head and the time of the infliction of injuries corresponded to 16 March 2007 as claimed by F.A. 19.  On 27 March 2007 the investigator carried out the inspection of the videotapes (videokasetə baxış keşirilməsi barədə protokol), which were submitted by various television channels and contained footage of the incident. 20.  On 3 May 2007 the charges against the applicant were reclassified under Articles 127.2.1 ((deliberate infliction of less serious harm (az ağır zərər) to health, in connection with the victim’s performance of his professional or public duties)), 127.2.3 (deliberate infliction of less serious harm to health, in a publicly dangerous way and with hooligan intent) and 221.2.2 (hooliganism accompanied by resistance to a State official or other person carrying out duties in protection of public order or prevention of breaches of public order) of the Criminal Code. 21.  After the completion of the pre-trial investigation, on 8 May 2007 the Prosecutor General’s Office issued an indictment in respect of the applicant under Articles 127.2.1, 127.2.3 and 221.2.2 of the Criminal Code and the case went to trial. 22.  During the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed that he had not been the instigator of the fight and it had been F.A. who had punched him first. 23.  On 18 May 2007 the Sabail District Court convicted the applicant on all counts, revoked his mandate as a member of parliament and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years. The applicant was released, but was forbidden to change his place of residence during the period that the suspended sentence was in force, without notifying in advance the relevant authority for the execution of court judgments. The description of the acts for which the applicant was found guilty read as follows:
 “At 12.30 p.m. on 16 March 2007 at [the National Assembly’s address] [the applicant], while making a speech during a plenary session [of the National Assembly], in breach of parliamentary ethics used rude and insulting expressions violating human dignity and honour despite a warning and a call to order [by the Speaker of the National Assembly] in accordance with Articles 45 and 46 [of the National Assembly’s internal regulations. [The applicant], by committing deliberate actions aimed at manifestly displaying, without any reason, disrespect towards the members of parliament, parliamentary officials and members of the public watching the parliamentary session, insulted and offended [the latter] with indecent expressions. [The applicant] used violence to offer resistance to [F.A.] who, by carrying out his civic obligation, called [the applicant] to order and prevented a breach of order in a parliamentary session as defined by law. [The applicant], by punching [F.A.] in the head and various other parts of his body with hooligan intent, inflicted less serious harm (az ağır zərər) to [F.A.]’s health and disrupted the conduct of the plenary session [of the National Assembly] for twenty minutes.” 24.  It is evident from the judgment that, in finding the applicant guilty, the court relied on the following evidence: the testimony of F.A.; the testimonies of a number of members of parliament and parliamentary officials who had witnessed the incident; and the medical forensic report of 17 April 2007. The court’s judgment was silent as regards the video evidence. According to the applicant, his request to play the videotape during the trial hearing was refused by the first-instance court. 25.  On 22 June 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal, in which he complained, inter alia, of an erroneous assessment of the factual circumstances, procedural irregularities in obtaining forensic and other evidence, and misapplication of the substantive criminal law. In particular, he argued that the classification under Article 221.2.2 presupposed the existence of other victims against whom the act of hooliganism had been directed, apart from a person to whom the resistance was offered, whereas in his case F.A. had been the only victim involved. The applicant also complained that, having regard to the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court on the judicial practice concerning cases related to hooliganism, F.A. could not be considered as a person carrying out a duty in protection of public order. In addition, the applicant argued that the trial court had relied on the prosecution’s distorted version of the events rather than examining the video footage of the incident which showed that he had not been the instigator of the fight. 26.  On 24 July 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal held a preliminary hearing. It appears from the transcript of the hearing that the applicant applied to have the court ensure F.A.’s presence at the appeal hearing and examine the videotape of the incident. The court dismissed the applicant’s application with regard to the latter as follows:
“The Court’s Panel, after having briefly deliberated on the bench,
Decides
To ensure the participation of [F.A.] at the court hearing and to reject the remaining part of the application as being unfounded ...” 27.  On 6 August 2007 the appellate court upheld the Sabail District Court’s judgment. The court found that the applicant’s guilt was confirmed by the witness testimonies and the medical forensic report. The court’s judgment was silent in relation to the applicant’s complaints concerning incorrect classification of the crime and the failure to examine the video evidence. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal reiterating his complaints. 28.  On 4 December 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. In its decision the court did not address the applicant’s above complaints. 29.  The applicant suffered from spinal disc herniation before his arrest. According to the applicant, the conditions of his pre-trial detention were harsh and unsuitable for his health condition as he experienced chronic pain. His state of health significantly deteriorated during the two months’ pre-trial detention owing to the delays in providing him with the requisite medical assistance. Although he continuously complained about this to various domestic authorities, no measures were taken to adequately address his medical problems. His request to be transferred to a specialised medical institution was granted only after he had gone on hunger strike. 30.  On 19 March 2007 following his arrest the applicant underwent a medical examination, which concluded that he was “practically healthy”. 31.  On 27 March 2007 the applicant was examined by a neurologist, who found that he was “neurologically healthy” and did not need inpatient treatment. 32.  On 28 March 2007 the applicant underwent an X-ray examination, which did not reveal any pathology in his thorax. 33.  After this, the applicant refused to undergo medical examinations on several occasions. 34.  On 13 April 2007 the applicant was transferred to the Ministry of Justice’s Medical Facility and diagnosed with “lumbosacral radiculitis”. He received inpatient medical treatment in the neurology department of the facility for thirty-five days until his release from custody on 18 May 2007. During his treatment in the facility, he underwent various medical examinations, which did not reveal any need for surgery, and a “conservative treatment” was recommended. 35.  On 13 August 2007 the applicant applied to the Department of Execution of Court Judgments of the Ministry of Justice for permission to travel to Germany for medical treatment. 36.  On 16 August 2007 the Department refused the applicant’s request. The applicant appealed to the courts. 37.  On 17 September 2007 the Sabail District Court issued a decision permitting the applicant to travel abroad for medical reasons. 38.  The ban on the applicant’s departure from the country was de facto lifted on 22 September 2007.