Background
The applicants were arrested during the November 2015 “Nardaran events,” an armed police operation against supporters of an unregistered Shia Muslim movement in a Baku suburb. The first applicant sustained three gunshot wounds, including a serious abdominal wound; the second sustained head injuries consistent with rubber-bullet shots. Both were later convicted of serious offences connected with the events and were pardoned and released in 2021.
They alleged that police used excessive force during arrest, that they were ill-treated in custody, and that they did not receive adequate medical care. They also complained that Azerbaijani authorities failed to investigate their allegations effectively. The domestic prosecuting authorities refused to open criminal cases, relying principally on police officers’ accounts.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously found violations of Article 3 on its substantive limb because the use of firearms against the first applicant and rubber bullets against the second was not shown to have been strictly necessary. The official accounts contained material gaps and contradictions about each arrest, including how the applicants had allegedly resisted, been disarmed, and shot. The Government therefore did not discharge its burden of justifying the force used.
The Court also found that both applicants had received inadequate medical care. In particular, the authorities had not properly examined the first applicant’s allegations concerning retained bullet fragments and the absence of a treatment strategy, while the evidence did not show timely adequate care for the second applicant after his rubber-bullet injuries.
There was a further procedural violation of Article 3 because the investigations into alleged ill-treatment during arrest and detention were ineffective. The authorities relied heavily on implicated officers and failed to pursue relevant witnesses and evidence. The Court could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged further ill-treatment in detention occurred, and therefore found no substantive Article 3 violation on that allegation. It found no need to examine Article 13 separately.
Key Takeaways
- Police must prove that force causing injuries was strictly necessary in the circumstances.
- Investigators cannot accept officers’ accounts at face value where those accounts are incomplete or contradictory.
- Detained injured persons require timely, reasoned, and adequately monitored medical treatment.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that even during a dangerous police operation, Article 3 requires close scrutiny of firearms and less-lethal weapons use. Serious injuries and inconsistent official explanations can shift the practical burden to the Government to justify each use of force.
It also underscores that an Article 3 investigation must be capable of establishing what happened, rather than resting on statements from officers implicated in the allegations. The Court awarded each applicant EUR 10,000 in non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 in costs and expenses.