THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GAHRAMAN v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 14307/17 and 44088/18)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
13 January 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gahraman v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Elgiz Jamal oglu Gahraman (Elgiz Camal oğlu Qəhrəman – “the applicant”), who was born in 1986 and lives in Baku and who was represented by Mr F. Namazli and Mr N. Karimli, lawyers based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 2 December 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. At the time of the events, the applicant was a member of the Nida civic movement (“NIDA” – for more information about the movement, see Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 63571/16 and 5 others, § 7, 13 February 2020). 2. On 28 July 2016 A.A., a senior official of the ruling party, made a public statement concerning proposed constitutional amendments to be decided in the forthcoming referendum scheduled for September 2016. Among the proposed changes was the removal of the minimum age requirement of 35 years for presidential candidates. In support of this amendment, A.A. cited historical precedents, including the example of Shah Ismail Khatai, who had, in the sixteenth century, ascended to the throne at the age of 14 and died at the age of 36. 3. Certain local media outlets speculated that the proposed amendment was politically motivated, alleging that its true purpose was to enable the President’s son to enter the political arena. On the same day as A.A.’s statement, the applicant published a post on his Facebook account stating, “God willing [his] life will be as short as that of Shah Ismail”. The applicant later indicated that the authorities had interpreted this remark as a veiled reference to the President’s son. Applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment
4. According to the applicant, on 12 August 2016 he was arrested by five plain-clothed officers and taken to the Organised Crime Unit (OCU), where narcotics allegedly planted en route were “discovered” during a search. According to the Government, police officers – accompanied by attesting witnesses – had approached the applicant on the street that day, presented him with the decision of a police major dated the same day authorising an operational-search measure, and found 3.315 grams of heroin on his person. A formal search and seizure record was drawn up at the station. 5. Criminal proceedings were instituted on the same day, and the applicant was charged under Article 234.4.3 (illegal possession of a large quantity of narcotic substances with intent to sell) of the Criminal Code. 6. By a decision of 13 August 2016, the Narimanov District Court ordered the applicant to be remanded in custody for a period of four months and transferred to a pre-trial detention centre. The decision was upheld by the appellate court. 7. Although the applicant’s legal representatives were authorised to meet him on 15 and 16 August 2016, they were not permitted to do so until 18 August 2016. He did not meet lawyers of his own choosing until 21 August 2016. 8. On 19 August 2016 the applicant was transferred to the Baku pre-trial detention facility and on the same day submitted a complaint to the OCU investigator, alleging ill-treatment on 12 and 15 August, as a result of which he had made self-incriminating statements, and retracting those statements. His complaint was forwarded to the prosecuting authorities on 10 September 2016. During his further interrogation, which took place in the presence of lawyer of his own choosing, he claimed that he had been punched in the head by a police officer on 12 August and beaten with a baton for about fifty times and struck on various parts of his body on 15 August. 9. On 29 September 2016 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. A report of the examination dated 13 October 2016 concluded that his injuries were likely to have happened a year and a half earlier. 10. On 17 October 2016 the prosecuting authorities refused to open criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill-treatment, referring to statements by the police and the forensic medical report. The applicant challenged that decision before the Sabail District Court, arguing that he had been unlawfully detained for six days at the OCU, that no cross-examination with the police officers had been conducted, and that the refusal was based on insufficient reasons. On 5 December 2016 the court upheld the decision of the prosecuting authorities without addressing those points. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision on 20 December 2016. Applicant’s criminal conviction
11. The applicant, inter alia, asked the courts to exclude the search report from the evidence, citing a Plenary decision of the Supreme Court dated 4 March 2011, on judicial practice in criminal cases relating to illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. It stated that if a personal search occurred before arrest, the admissibility of evidence obtained must be assessed by the courts. 12. On 16 January 2017 the Baku Court of Serious Crimes, referring to the applicant’s self-incriminating statements made during the police interrogation, the statements of the police officers involved in the applicant’s arrest and those of the attesting witnesses who had allegedly been present during the personal search on the applicant, the search and seizure records, and expert reports, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment. 13. On 18 May 2017 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction. On 29 November 2017 the Supreme Court reclassified the charge against the applicant to Article 234.1 (illegal acquisition or possession of narcotic substances without intent to sell) of the Criminal Code and reduced the sentence to three years’ imprisonment. 14. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3, the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated in police custody as a result of which he had made self-incriminating statements, that his complaints about this had not been examined effectively by the authorities. He further alleged that he had been confined in a metal cage in a courtroom during the pre-trial detention hearing. He complained that his arrest and detention had been unlawful under Article 5 of the Convention because he had been arrested and detained in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence, and that his right to liberty had been violated. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 10 of the Convention, he further complained that the criminal proceedings had been unfair. He complained, in particular, that he had been convicted on the basis of planted evidence and that the criminal proceedings against him had been brought to punish him for his publication on Facebook, and that his arrest and conviction pursued purposes not prescribed by the Convention, contrary to Article 18.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation