Cases in which the Court has found a violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE AND INTERNATIONAL REPORTS 78. For a summary of the relevant domestic law, including most of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, and practice and for international reports see Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan ( no. 59620/14, §§ 92-103, 2 June 2016 ) and Rasul Jafarov (cited above §§ 50 ‑ 84). Furthermore, according to Article 213.2.2 of the Criminal Code, as in force at the material time, an offence of tax evasion on a very large scale (defined as an amount above AZN 100,000 but not exceeding AZN 500,000) was punishable by imprisonment for a period between three to seven years, with or without deprivation of the right to hold a certain position or to engage in a certain activity for a period of up to three years. 79. The relevant parts of the Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Azerbaijan (CCPR/C/AZE/4) adopted by the UN Human Rights Committee on 16 November 2016, read as follows: “Freedom of expression 36. The Committee remains concerned about extensive restrictions on freedom of expression in practice, including: (a) Consistent reports of intimidation and harassment, including arbitrary arrest and detention, ill-treatment and conviction of human rights defenders, youth activists, political opponents, independent journalists and bloggers on allegedly politically motivated trumped-up administrative or criminal charges of hooliganism, drug possession, economic crimes, tax evasion, abuse of office, incitement to violence or hatred etc.; ... 37. The State party should take all measures necessary to guarantee the full enjoyment of freedom of expression by everyone in practice. It should take immediate steps to end any repression against the above-mentioned categories of persons, provide effective protection against persecution or retaliation and ensure that any restrictions on the exercise of their freedom of expression comply with the strict requirements of article 19 (3) of the Covenant. ... ... Freedom of association 40. The Committee is concerned about restrictive legislation negatively affecting the exercise of freedom of association, including stringent registration requirements for public associations and NGOs, broad grounds for denial of registration and temporary suspension or permanent closure of NGOs, restrictive regulations on grants and donations received by public associations and NGOs, including the ban on foreign funding, and heavy penalties for violations of the relevant legislation. The Committee is further concerned about threats against NGO leaders, the high number of criminal investigations against NGOs, the freezing of their assets and those of their members and the significant number of NGOs that have been closed. ... 41. The State party should revise relevant laws, regulations and practices with a view to bringing them into full compliance with the provisions of articles 19 and 22 of the Covenant, including by: (a) Simplifying registration rules and clarifying the broad grounds for denying the registration of and temporarily suspending or permanently closing NGOs; (b) Ensuring that legal provisions regulating NGO grants allow access to foreign funding and do not put at risk the effective operation of public associations as a result of overly limited or overly regulated fundraising options; (c) Ending the crackdown on public associations and ensuring that they can operate freely and without fear of retribution for their legitimate activities; ...” 80. In addition, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders conducted an official visit to Azerbaijan from 14 to 22 September 2016. In the course of his visit, the Special Rapporteur met high-level representatives of the national authorities and members of civil society, including human-rights defenders in detention. The most relevant parts of the report on this visit (“Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders on his mission to Azerbaijan”), which was presented to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-fourth session (27 February-24 March 2017), read as follows: “ B. Situation of human rights defenders 1. Stigmatization 28. The situation of civil society in Azerbaijan has seen serious setbacks since 2009, as the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association have increasingly been curtailed when exercised in opposition to the Government or its policies. Moreover, high-level government officials have used a strident rhetoric to stigmatize human rights defenders and declare them tools of Western influence bound to undermine the State. 29. In December 2014, the head of the Presidential Administration published an essay, stating that Western-funded NGOs played the role of a “fifth column” in Azerbaijan and made several public statements repeating the accusation. Other key officials made similar statements. Most defenders have been accused of being political opponents, promoting values that run counter to those of their society or culture. They have been denounced as politically or financially motivated actors. During the visit, it became evident that such inflammatory language by senior government officials has had a stigmatizing impact on civil society. 30. The continued stigmatization of defenders, which exposes them to heightened risks and produces a chilling effect on the public perception of them, remains of concern. Describing reputable organizations as paid political activists serves no legitimate purpose. The Special Rapporteur urges the Government to refrain from stigmatizing human rights defenders and to respect the legitimate role of civil society in the promotion of human rights and the rule of law in Azerbaijan. 31. The Government is encouraged to support the work of independent civil society organizations, despite disagreements or criticisms, bearing in mind their invaluable role in advancing Azerbaijani society. The Special Rapporteur urges the Government to undertake activities to raise awareness of human rights among the public and foster a spirit of dialogue and cooperation in society. 2. Criminalization 32. During the visit, the Special Rapporteur received many reports and testimonies pointing to the intensified crackdown on and criminalization of civil society in Azerbaijan. In that context, the authorities have targeted defenders, journalists, lawyers and grassroots activists through the use of politically motivated criminal prosecutions, arrests, imprisonment and travel bans. They have also used detention to intimidate political and social media activists on what often seem to be spurious misdemeanour charges of resisting police orders or petty hooliganism. 33. In 2015, the Committee against Torture expressed deep concern that human rights defenders had been arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, subjected to ill ‑ treatment and, in some cases, denied adequate medical treatment in retaliation for their professional activities (see CAT/C/AZE/CO/4, para. 10). At the conclusion of its visit in May 2016, the Working Group on arbitrary detention stated that defenders continued to be detained under criminal or administrative charges as a way to impair the exercise of their basic human rights and fundamental freedoms and to silence them. Those practices constituted an abuse of authority and violated the rule of law that Azerbaijan had agreed to comply with. The Working Group also referred to the large number of cases of detainees who were exposed to violence, torture and ill ‑ treatment. When he visited detained defenders during his visit, the Special Rapporteur could attest to the vulnerability of their physical integrity owing to the continued reports of violence in the context of detention in the country. 34. The Special Rapporteur, jointly with other mandate holders, has issued a number of public statements, urging the authorities to put an end immediately to all forms of persecution of human rights activists in the country. At the session of the Human Rights Council, held in June 2015, a group of 25 States endorsed an oral statement on the situation of human rights in Azerbaijan, raising concerns about the shrinking space for civil society and the imprisonment of independent voices, in particular defenders, and calling for their immediate and unconditional release. 35. The punitive approach to criminalize defenders is said to include a number of the following elements: applying politically motivated charges (inciting hatred, mass disorder and treason); resorting to fabricated charges (possession of drugs and weapons, hooliganism and embezzlement); and using special charges (illegal business activity, tax evasion, and abuse of office) to target primarily the heads of prominent NGOs in Azerbaijan and curtail the ability of NGOs to operate. 36. It is alarming that the maximum term of imprisonment under the code of administrative offences for misdemeanours, with which defenders are often charged (for example, hooliganism, resisting police and traffic violations), has been increased from 15 to 90 days. It is now equal to the minimum term of detention under the criminal code. The Human Rights Committee has held that such severity of punishment may amount to de facto criminal sanction (see CCPR/C/AZE/CO/4, para. 20). Furthermore, in practice, administrative trials that result in such sentences are reportedly perfunctory, with defendants having limited access to independent counsel. Judges tend to decide on periods of detention based almost exclusively on police testimonies. The widespread nature of this type of criminalization could be seen in the documenting of at least 30 cases by civil society, in which the authorities used administrative law offences to jail human rights activists in 2016. 37. The gravity of the arbitrary detention of defenders in Azerbaijan is illustrated through the continuous efforts by civil society to monitor and document how many political prisoners are in detention at a given time. Various lists of political prisoners are updated regularly to inform the debate about the exact number of political prisoners in the country. In fact, during their visits, both the Special Rapporteur and the Working Group on arbitrary detention received various lists of a large number of defenders, journalists and political and religious leaders who were detained on a broad range of politically motivated charges (drugs- and arms-related offences, hooliganism, resisting police, tax evasion, etc.) during their visits. 38. In late 2015 and early 2016, the Government conditionally released or pardoned a number of human rights defenders. However, none of those released had their convictions vacated and several still face travel restrictions. The Special Rapporteur shares the view of the Working Group on arbitrary detention that the pardon did not lead to any significant change in the country regarding other persons deprived of their liberty. Furthermore, even as some activists and journalists were released, the authorities regrettably arrested many others on spurious criminal and administrative charges to prevent them from carrying out their legitimate work. 39. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned about the intimidation facing the families and relatives of defenders who carry out their activism from abroad, which in some cases has involved criminal charges being brought against those relatives. The Special Rapporteur calls on the Government to refrain from criminalizing the important work of human rights defenders and immediately review the cases of defenders and their relatives deprived of their liberty, with a view to releasing them unconditionally.” THE LAW I. SCOPE OF THE APPLICATIONS A. Application no. 68762/14 93. The respondent Government were given notice of the application on 19 November 2014 under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 and Articles 8 § 2, 11 and 18 of the Convention. After this notice the applicant made new submissions concerning the factual developments in the case (summarised in paragraphs 29-35 above) and provided further details concerning his original complaints, taking into account those factual developments. 94. The Court reiterates that, as a general rule, it does not examine any new matters raised after the Government have been given notice of the application, unless the new matters are an elaboration on the applicant ’ s original complaints to the Court ( see Ilgar Mammadov, cited above, § 78 ). Because the applicant may subsequently elucidate or elaborate upon his or her initial submissions, the Court must take into account not only the application form but the entirety of his or her submissions in the course of the proceedings before it which may eliminate any initial omissions or obscurities (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 122 and 129, 20 March 2018). The Court notes that the applicant ’ s original application included a number of complaints related to his arrest and continuing detention, under the above-mentioned Convention provisions. His subsequent submissions did not constitute a new matter which had not been covered in the original application sent to the Government. These subsequent submissions elaborated on his initial submissions and concerned the factual developments in the proceedings relating to the applicant ’ s continued detention in the framework of the same proceedings. 95. Accordingly, given that the applicant ’ s new submissions constitute an elaboration of his original complaints to the Court on which the parties have commented, they fall within the scope of the present case. The Court will therefore proceed with the examination of the applicant ’ s complaints related to his pre-trial detention, taking into account all the relevant factual information made available to it, covering the events up to the latest extension of the applicant ’ s detention by the Nasimi District Court ’ s order of 24 October 201 4, as upheld on 29 October 201 4. B. Application no. 71200/14 96. The respondent Government were given notice of the application on 2 February 2015 which concerned the applicant ’ s complaints under Article 3 about the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment, the conditions of detention in the Baku pre-trial detention facility, the conditions of transport to and detention in the court-house on 24 October 2014. In his observations after the communication of the application to the respondent Government the applicant raised an additional issue under the same Article, namely the conditions of his transportation from and to the detention facility on 23 January 2015 and 3 February 2015. 97. In the Court ’ s view this new complaint does not concern factual developments with respect to a continuing situation and is not an elaboration of the applicant ’ s original complaint under Article 3 with respect to conditions of transportation, on which the parties have commented (see paragraphs 65-68 above). The Court does not therefore find it appropriate to examine the matter in the present context (see Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, § 56, 26 June 2008). The applicant had the opportunity to lodge new applications in respect of any other complaints relating to the subsequent events in accordance with the requirements set out in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. II. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 98. Given that both applications have been lodged by the same applicant and have the same factual background, the Court decides that the two applications should be joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court. III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE MEDICAL TREATMENT 99. Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he was not provided with adequate medical treatment in detention and that his state of health was incompatible with detention. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, § 55, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Radomilja and Others, cited above, § 126 ), considers that the applicant ’ s complaint should be examined under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows : “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A. Admissibility 1. The parties ’ submissions 100. The Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies. They argued that the applicant had failed to lodge his complaints before any national authority, including a prosecutor ’ s office and the courts. Notably, the applicant had not appealed against the prosecutor ’ s refusal to order his medical forensic examination. 101. The Government further relied on the decision of the Administrative Economic Court no. 1 dated 24 July 2012 in the case of A.I. v. the Prison Service of the Ministry of Justice, in which the court decided to grant A.I. ’ s request and to place him in hospital for treatment. In the Government ’ s opinion, the decision in question represented an example of the effectiveness of one of several available domestic remedies. 102. The applicant disagreed with the Government ’ s submissions and reiterated his complaints. He submitted that the Government had not demonstrated that there had been an effective remedy available both in theory and in practice capable of providing redress in respect of his complaints and offering reasonable prospects of success. In particular, relying on the case of Varga and Others v. Hungary ( nos. 14097/12 and 5 others, § 49, 10 March 2015 ) the applicant argued that with respect to inadequate medical treatment and conditions of detention the existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3. However, his complaints before the domestic courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure were left without examination. As regards the judicial remedy under the Code of Administrative Procedure ( “ the CAP ” ), the applicant noted that contrary to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure setting a one - month time -limit, which had been subsequently repealed following the CAP ’ s adoption, the latter did not provide for specific time ‑ limits and therefore the remedy available in this context could not be considered as effective in theory and practice. 2. The Court assessment 103. The general principles concerning the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention have been recently summarised in the case of Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan (no. 59620/14, § § 125-26, 2 June 2016). 104. The Court notes that it has already rejected a similar objection raised by the Government in the Yunusova and Yunusov case ( cited above ) and sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In particular, as regards the remedy provided under the CAP, the Court observed that, although Article 40 of the CAP allows a judge to grant an injunction as a temporary defence measure requiring the respondent party to take or refrain from taking some action, no specific time-limit was provided for the examination of a request for application of a temporary defence measure. As to the domestic court ’ s decision of 24 July 2012 (see paragraph 101 above), the Court has held that a single case cited by the Government was insufficient to show the existence of settled domestic practice that would prove the effectiveness of a remedy. The Court thus concluded on the basis of the information before it that a complaint under the CAP before the domestic courts could not be considered as an effective remedy ( ibid. , § § 127-29). 105. The Court also takes cognisance of the fact that the applicant ’ s attempts to obtain redress for the alleged violations of his rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure were to no avail as the domestic courts refused to entertain his complaints for lack of jurisdiction (see paragraphs 69-71 above ). 106. The Court therefore dismisses the Government ’ s objection of non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. It further notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties ’ submissions 107. The Government submitted that the applicant had been provided with adequate medical assistance and that his detention was compatible with his state of health. They referred to the applicant ’ s various medical examinations and the medical treatment provided in this connection. 108. The applicant disagreed with the Government ’ s submissions and argued that he had not been provided with the requisite medical assistance, which had led to a deterioration of his health. He further pointed out that he had not been duly informed by the authorities of the results of his medical examinations and the outpatient treatment prescribed had consisted only of painkillers which in fact had worsened his condition owing to their side effects. 2. The Court assessment 109. The Court reiterates that, although Article 3 of the Convention cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty, for example by providing them with the requisite medical assistance. The relevant case-law principles concerning the adequacy of medical assistance provided to the detainees have been recently summarised in Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 136-138, 23 March 2016). 110. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that following the applicant ’ s complaints lodged on 24 October 2014, he was promptly subject to in-depth medical examinations which revealed the existence of spinal disc herniation, disc protrusions and a number of other, less serious ailments (see paragraphs 53-54 above). The applicant ’ s overall condition was considered satisfactory and did not require surgery (contrast Kutepov v. Russia, no. 13182/04, §§ 52 and 60, 5 December 2013, as regards the failure to conduct a timely diagnosis). Contrary to the applicant ’ s submissions, the Court does not discern from the circumstances of the case that his detention was marked by a significant worsening of his condition (compare, for instance, Yunusova and Yunusov, cited above, § 149, and Kutepov, cited above § 5 5 ). The applicant was examined by doctors at fairly regular intervals and his medical examinations did not reveal any serious health issues which would have required a particular form of treatment and which the authorities had ultimately failed to provide. In the Court ’ s view, the applicant did not put forward sufficient and convincing arguments disclosing any serious failings on the part of the national authorities to provide him with the requisite medical care or that the assistance provided failed to meet the standard of adequate care. 111. On the basis of the evidence before it and assessing the relevant facts as a whole, the Court cannot therefore conclude that the medical care available to the applicant was inadequate to such a degree as to cause him suffering reaching the minimum level of severity required by Article 3 of the Convention ( compare Insanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16133/08, § 134, 14 March 2013). 112. Finally, even if the Court were to accept the applicant ’ s submission that he had not been duly informed about the results of his medical examinations (see paragraph 108 above), this alleged shortcoming alone is insufficient to conclude that the medical care was inadequate to such a degree as to amount to “ill-treatment” (compare Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, § 131, 9 November 2010). 113. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s medical treatment in detention. IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION IN THE BAKU PRE-TRIAL DETENTION FACILITY 114. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in the Baku pre-trial detention facility. A. Admissibility 115. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The applicant disagreed with the Government ’ s submissions (see paragraph 102 above ). 116. The Court reiterates that the existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3. The special importance attached by the Convention to that provision requires, in the Court ’ s view, that the Contracting Parties establish, over and above a compensatory remedy, an effective mechanism in order to put an end to any such treatment rapidly (see, for instance, Varga and Others, cited above, § 49, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 98, 10 January 2012 ). 117. The Court notes that in the present case when the applicant lodged his application with the Court complaining, inter alia, about his conditions of detention, the applicant was still in detention in allegedly poor conditions and thus required a preventive remedy capable of putting an end to the ongoing violation of his right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in particular, leading to his removal from inadequate prison conditions or improvement of material conditions of detention ( see Moxamed Ismaaciil and Abdirahman Warsame v. Malta, nos. 52160/13 and 52165/13, §§ 45-46, 12 January 2016 ). In the context of medical treatment, in order to be effective, a preventive remedy must, in particular, ensure a prompt and diligent handling of prisoners ’ complaints (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 214 ). The Court has previously expressed its concern as regards delays in the context of complaints about conditions of detention and, particularly, in respect of those concerning inadequate medical treatment, where irreparable damage may be caused over time (see Mikalauskas v. Malta, no. 4458/10, § 51, 23 July 2013). In the present case, as the Court has already noted (see paragraph 10 4 above ), the remedy under the CAP referred to by the Government did not provide for specific time-limits and the Government did not submit sufficient information showing there was a settled domestic practice of examination of such complaints in a speedy and diligent manner in order to put an end to the treatment complained of rapidly. In the Court ’ s view it would be contrary to the letter and spirit of Article 3 of the Convention to allow a person to languish in harsh conditions of detention awaiting the outcome of proceedings which are not bound by any time-limits in law or in practice and which may last for prolonged periods of time. 118. The Government did not forward any other remedy capable of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation in a timely and effective manner. 119. The Court therefore dismisses the Government ’ s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It further notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties ’ submissions 120. The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention had been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. 121. The applicant reiterated his complaints and maintained that his conditions of detention in the Baku pre- trial detention facility amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 2. The Court assessment (a) General principles 122. The Court reiterates that it adopts conclusions after evaluating all the evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties ’ submissions. As regards the assessment of such evidence, the Court refers to its well-established standard of proof in conditions-of-detention cases which has recently been summarised in Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 127-28, 20 October 2016. In particular, the Court is mindful of the objective difficulties experienced by applicants in collecting evidence to substantiate their claims about the conditions of their detention. Still, in such cases applicants must provide a detailed and consistent account of the facts complained of. Once a credible and reasonably detailed description of the allegedly degrading conditions of detention, constituting a prima facie case of ill-treatment, has been made, the burden of proof is shifted to the respondent Government, who alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting these allegations. They are required, in particular, to collect and produce relevant documents and provide a detailed account of an applicant ’ s conditions of detention. Furthermore, the Court also refers to the general principles and standards concerning the assessment of prison overcrowding, set out in the Muršić judgment (cited above, §§ 136-141). (b ) Conditions of detention from 9 to 12 August 2014 123. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant complained about most aspects of the conditions of his detention in the Baku pre-trial detention facility from 9 to 12 August 2014. However, there is no need for the Court to establish the veracity of each and every allegation as the starting point for its assessment will be the personal space afforded to the applicant. The Court notes that the applicant provided a detailed account of the conditions of his detention (see paragraph 45 above). Among other things, he alleged that he had been placed in an admission cell, measuring about 10 sq. m, where he had been held with eight other inmates, affording 1. 1 sq. m of personal space per inmate. The Government did not make any specific submissions concerning the applicant ’ s detention in this cell during the above period. 124. In this connection, the Court reiterates that when the personal space available to a detainee falls below 3 sq. m of floor surface, the lack of personal space is considered so severe that a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 arises. The burden of proof is on the respondent Government which could, however, rebut that presumption by demonstrating that there were factors capable of adequately compensating for the scarce allocation of personal space (ibid., § 137). However, in the present case the Government did not present any arguments that would refute the applicant ’ s allegations or rebut the above presumption of a violation of Article 3. 125. Paragraph 138 of the Muršić judgment lists the factors which must be cumulatively met in order to rebut the presumption of a violation. The first of those factors requires that “the reductions in the required minimum personal space of 3 sq. m are short, occasional and minor” ( ibid., § 138 (1)). In the present case, the applicant was afforded only 1.1 sq. m of personal space during this period, which was so far below the required standard of 3 sq. m that it could not be considered a “minor” reduction in personal space. Furthermore, as argued by the applicant and not specifically disputed by the Government, the applicant ’ s situation was aggravated by the fact that he had to share beds with other detainees and had no access to outdoor exercise. Moreover, the cell lacked adequate ventilation and sanitary facilities ( ibid., § 139). 126. Thus, in the light of the material submitted to it by the parties and having regard to its case-law on the subject cited above, the Court accepts the applicant ’ s account and finds that, despite the relatively short period of time involved, the conditions of his detention from 9 to 12 August 2014 subjected him to hardship going beyond the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and amounted to degrading treatment. 127. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s conditions of detention from 9 to 12 August 2014. (c ) Conditions of detention as from 12 August 2014 128. The Court observes that it is common ground between the parties that the applicant was detained with three other detainees in a cell which was designed to accommodate four persons. At the same time, the applicant disagreed with the Government as regards the measurements of the cell, which according to the applicant was “ around 12-14 sq. m ” and not 17. 82 sq. m as indicated by the Government (see paragraphs 46-49 above). However, the Court does not deem it necessary to resolve this disagreement between the parties for the following reasons. 129. Even assuming that the cell measured “12-14 sq. m ” as argued by the applicant, he disposed of at least 3 sq. m of personal space. 130. The Court reiterates that in cases where a prison cell – measuring in the range of 3 to 4 sq. m of personal space per inmate – is at issue the space factor remains a weighty factor in the Court ’ s assessment of the adequacy of conditions of detention. The Court has to determine whether the space factor is coupled with other aspects of inappropriate physical conditions of detention related to, in particular, access to outdoor exercise, natural light or air, availability of ventilation, adequacy of room temperature, the possibility of using the toilet in private, and compliance with basic sanitary and hygienic requirements ( ibid., § 139 ). 131. As regards the sanitary and hygiene conditions, the Court finds it established, based on the parties ’ submissions, that the toilet in the cell was separated by a door, and that cold water was available in the cells and inmates had access to a hot shower twice a week (see paragraphs 46-49 above). 132. Furthermore, it was not in dispute that there was a small window in the cell and a yard adjacent to the cell, available until 4 p.m. every day, where the applicant had unobstructed access to natural light, fresh air and outdoor exercise (see paragraphs 46 and 49 above). 133. The applicant also complained about the temperatures inside the cell. However, he did not substantiate his complaint to a sufficient degree. The Court therefore finds it difficult to determine precisely the severity of the situation. Moreover, the applicant admitted himself that the detention facility had been equipped with a heating system which had been turned on 15 November (compare Insanov v. Azerbaijan, cited above, § 125). 134. In sum, having examined the facts as presented by the parties, the Court does not exclude that the applicant may have endured some distress and hardship, as a result of his detention in the conditions described above. Nevertheless, taking into account the cumulative effect of those conditions, the Court does not consider that they reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. 135. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant ’ s conditions of detention as from 12 August 2014. V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORT AND DETENTION IN THE COURT-HOUSE 136. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of transport to and detention in the court-house on 24 October 2014. 137. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaints. The applicant disagreed with the Government ’ s submissions and maintained his complaints. 138. The Court observes that unlike the conditions of detention in the Baku pre- trial detention facility, the applicant ’ s conditions of transport and detention in the court-house on 24 October 2014 did not concern a continuing situation, but rather a situation where an alleged violation of Article 3 had already occurred, and thus was susceptible of being redressed by a compensatory remedy (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 221 ). The availability of such a remedy is particularly important in view of the subsidiarity principle, so that individuals are not systematically forced to refer to the Court in Strasbourg complaints that require the finding of basic facts or the calculation of monetary compensation ( ibid., § 221 ). 139. In this connection, the Court reiterates that the Law on Complaints against Acts and Omissions Infringing Individual Rights and Freedoms provides for a judicial avenue for challenging any act or omission by a public authority infringing an individual ’ s rights or freedoms (see Mammadov ( Jalaloglu ) v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 52, 11 January 2007). Both Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and Article 3 of the Convention, which is directly applicable in the domestic legal system, prohibit inhuman and degrading treatment (ibid. ). Furthermore, under the CAP, which replaced the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, an action may be brought before the courts to challenge actions of administrative organs (see Yunusova and Yunusov, cited above, §§ 96 ‑ 97). In particular, Articles 2 § 2 ( 7 ) and 3 4 § 1 of the CAP provide for the possibility to claim compensation for damage sustained as a result of unlawful actions of administrative organs. Therefore, relying on these provisions, the applicant could have lodged a lawsuit directly with the domestic courts, complaining of the alleged poor conditions of his transport to and detention in the court-house and claiming compensation for the alleged violations. However, the applicant has not attempted to do so. Moreover, he has not shown convincingly that such steps would be bound to be ineffective. Mere doubts about the effectiveness of a remedy are not sufficient to dispense with the requirement to make normal use of the available avenues for redress (see Kunqurova v. Azerbaijan ( dec. ), no. 5117/03, 3 June 2005). 140. The Court therefore accepts the Government ’ s objection and concludes that these complaints must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. VI. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 §§ 1 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION 141. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been arrested and detained in the absence of a “reasonable suspicion” that he had committed a criminal offence. He further complained that the domestic courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the necessity of his continued detention. Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention reads: “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ... 3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” A. Admissibility 142. The Court notes that this part of application is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties ’ submissions (a) The applicant 143. The applicant submitted that the prosecuting authorities and the domestic courts had failed to provide reasonable and well-documented evidence that he had committed any of the criminal offences with which he had been charged. Relying, in particular, on the cases of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan ( cited above, § 88 ) and Stepuleac v. Moldova (no. 8207/06, § 73, 6 November 2007) the applicant argued that in their applications for remand in custody the prosecuting authorities, by referring only to unspecified material of the criminal case file, had failed to show “basic ” or “relevant facts” pertaining to each alleged crime which would justify the reasonableness of his detention. Furthermore, in their decisions the domestic courts had merely reiterated the prosecuting authorities ’ arguments without specifying which information in the criminal case file had demonstrated that he might have committed the crimes of which he had been accused. 144. Notably, as regards the charges of abuse of power and illegal entrepreneurship, the applicant claimed that he had been elected and had acted as the chairman of the Association since 1999 when it had been founded. Since then, he had sent numerous letters on behalf of the Association to various state authorities, including the Ministry of Justice, concerning the registration of grant agreements signed by the applicant on behalf of the Association. The Ministry had registered these grants and informed the applicant accordingly. It had never informed the applicant that he had lacked the legal authority to act on behalf of the Association. In support of his submissions, the applicant submitted copies of the decision of the Association ’ s general assembly of 18 June 1999 to elect the applicant as its chairman as well as the letters signed by the applicant on behalf of the Association to the Ministry of Justice in relations to various grant agreements signed with different donors. 145. According to the applicant, it was only in April 2014, following the introduction of amendments to the Law on State Registration of Legal Entities and the State Register in February the same year, that the Ministry refused to register the grant agreement submitted by the applicant on the grounds that the latter could not act on behalf of the Association as he had failed to inform the Ministry of his election as chairman of the Association. The applicant ’ s further requests to register himself as its chairman were also refused by the Ministry because the letters had not been signed by the authorised person. 146. As to the applicant ’ s failure to register various grant agreements with the Ministry, the applicant argued that in fact he had applied to have them registered. Moreover, one of those agreements had been duly registered by the Ministry and published on its online database, before being removed in 2014. In this context, the applicant submitted a copy of the cached version of the database containing information on the grant agreement concluded by the Association in 2012. 147. He also argued that as the Government disputed the fact that he held any managing position in the Association and that he was its founder, he could not be suspected of having committed the crime of abuse of power. 148. Furthermore, the applicant reiterated his complaint under Article 5 § 3 and maintained that the domestic courts had failed to assess the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, including whether there had been a reasonable suspicion, to provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons justifying his pre-trial detention and to properly consider whether alternative preventive measures could have been applied. ( b) The Government 149. The Government submitted that the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of having committed offences considered as serious crimes under national law and that his detention had been based on a reasonable suspicion. 150. The Government further argued that the applicant ’ s detention had been justified and that the domestic courts had given sufficient and relevant reasons for his detention. As regards the applicant ’ s requests for release on bail or replacement of his pre-trial detention by house arrest, they had not been granted by the domestic courts as there had been a risk that, if not detained, the applicant would abscond and influence the criminal proceedings. (c) Third parties 151. Third-party comments submitted by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, the Human Rights House Foundation and Freedom Now concerned the situation of human rights defenders in Azerbaijan and the difficulties faced by NGOs as a result of the recent legislative amendments. A detailed description of the above-mentioned comments can be found in the Court ’ s judgment in Rasul Jafarov (cited above, §§ 99-113). 2. The Court ’ s assessment (a) General principles 152. The applicable general principles were recently summarised by the Court in the case of Rasul Jafarov (cited above, §§ 114-18 ). Notably, the words “reasonable suspicion” mean the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence. In addition, the existence of such a suspicion requires that the facts relied on can reasonably be considered criminal behaviour under domestic law. Thus, clearly there could not be a “reasonable suspicion” if the acts held against a detained person did not constitute an offence at the time they were committed. (b) Application to the present case 153. The Court observes that the charges brought against the applicant in this case (see paragraphs 23 and 36 above) are similar to those pressed against the applicant in the case of Rasul Jafarov (cited above, §§ 16 and 30). Like the latter case, the applicant was charged with various crimes on two occasions : on 8 August 2014 – with crimes of illegal entrepreneurship, tax evasion and abuse of power – and on 12 December 2014 – with crimes of embezzlement and forgery by an official. The only difference in the present case lies in the fact that unlike the NGO co ‑ founded by Mr Jafarov, the applicant ’ s Association was formally registered with the Ministry of Justice and the applicant was accused of failing to inform that Ministry of his being appointed chairman of the Association. The Court will proceed to examine the facts giving rise to the above charges in turn. It will do so in the light of the harsh and restrictive legislative framework governing the registration and operation of non ‑ governmental organisations ( ibid. , § 120). ( i ) Charges of abuse of power, illegal entrepreneurship and tax evasion 154. The Court considers that, as in the case of Rasul Jafarov, the description of the three original charges brought against the applicant on 8 August 2014 lacked a certain level of coherence, order and clarity that could be expected of a document of this nature. In particular, the description consisted of a single sentence spanning about one page of printed text ( ibid., § 121). Notably, it can be discerned from that description that the applicant was accused of failing to inform the relevant executive authority of his appointment as chairman of the Association in accordance with the Law on State Registration and signing various grant agreements on behalf of the Association without having the legal authority to do so. 155. As regards the charges of abuse of power, the Court notes that the applicant submitted a copy of the decision of the Association ’ s annual general meeting of 18 June 1999 to elect him chairman of the Association. The authenticity of this document was not disputed by the Government. Furthermore, the applicant argued that following the introduction of amendments to the Law on State Registration which required, inter alia, reporting of changes to founding charters of legal entities, he attempted to inform the Ministry of Justice of this fact but to no avail. The Government also did not refute this claim or submit any information to the contrary. 156. Furthermore, it is not clear from the domestic decisions and the Government ’ submissions why the applicant had to inform the executive authority of his appointment as chairman of the Association given that this fact had taken place long before the introduction of relevant legislative amendments providing for such reporting obligations. 157. However, even leaving aside these discrepancies and assuming that the applicant had failed to duly inform the authorities of his election as chairman, the Court does not see how such a failure of a purely administrative nature could have given rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. 158. Turning to the facts which constituted the basis for the charges of tax evasion and illegal entrepreneurship, specifically the applicant ’ s failure to register the grant agreements in accordance with domestic law, the applicant argued that he had duly informed the authorities and submitted copies of the Association ’ s letters to the Ministry of Justice asking the latter to register certain grant agreements, and extracts from the Ministry ’ s database concerning the registration of one of the grants. The Government did not submit any comments with respect to these documents. 159. However, even assuming that the applicant failed to comply with the relevant procedure, the Court restates that in the case of Rasul Jafarov ( cited above ) it held as follows: “ 128. ... Having regard to the relevant legislation (see paragraphs 69 and 71 above), the Court notes that the requirement to submit grants for registration to the Ministry of Justice was merely a reporting requirement, and not a prerequisite for legal characterisation of the received financial assistance as a “grant”. Failure to meet this reporting requirement was an administrative offence specifically proscribed by Article 223-1.1 of the CAO and punishable by a fine (only after February 2014 in the case of individual recipients). Non-compliance with this reporting requirement had no effect on the nature of a grant agreement defined and regulated by Articles 1.1 and 4.1 of the Law on Grants (see paragraphs 68-69 above), or on the characterisation of the activities for which the grant was used as non-commercial. 129. However, from the documents in the case file it appears that, apart from relying on the applicant ’ s alleged failure to comply with the reporting requirement to register the grants, which in itself was not criminalised under the domestic law, the prosecuting authorities never demonstrated the existence of any information or evidence showing that the applicant might have used the money for generating profit or for purposes other than those indicated in the grant agreements, or that the purposes indicated in the grant agreements were both commercial and illegal. Likewise, the Government failed to demonstrate that any other witness statements, documents or other evidence or information existed which could serve as the basis for the suspicion that the applicant had engaged in criminal activities. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that any such evidence was ever presented by the prosecuting authorities to the domestic courts which ruled on the applicant ’ s continued detention. 130. In such circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant could not have been reasonably suspected of having committed the criminal offence of “illegal entrepreneurship” under Article 192.2.2 of the Criminal Code, because there were no facts, information or evidence showing that he had engaged in commercial activity or the offence of “tax evasion” under Article 213 of the Criminal Code, as in the absence of such commercial activity there could be no taxable profit under the simplified regime. Furthermore, the above-mentioned facts were not sufficient to give rise to a suspicion that the applicant had sought to “obtain unlawful advantage for himself or for third parties”, which was one of the constituent elements of the criminal offence of “abuse of power” under Article 308 of the Criminal Code ... ” 160. The Court has no reason to hold otherwise in the present case as the facts relied on by the domestic authorities to press charges at issue were identical in nature and there is nothing in the Government ’ s submissions which would enable the Court to reach a different conclusion. (ii) Charges of embezzlement and forgery 161. As for the additional charges of embezzlement and forgery brought against the applicant on 12 December 2014, the Court notes that they were brought after the latest domestic court order of 24 October 2014 extending the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention. As such, all previous decisions ordering and extending the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention had been based solely on the original charges, and therefore the new charges were of no significance to the assessment of the reasonableness of the suspicion underpinning the applicant ’ s detention during the period falling within the scope of the present case. 162. In any event the Court observes that as regards the charges of embezzlement, the prosecuting authorities relied on the fact that the applicant transferred various amounts from the Association ’ s bank accounts to the account of one of the Association ’ s employees with a view to their subsequent withdrawing it. In this regard, the Court notes that the money was given to the applicant voluntarily by donors under the grant agreements. There was no information in the domestic decisions that the donors had ever complained about misappropriation of the sums by the applicant and that they had joined the criminal proceedings against the applicant as the victims of the crime. 163. As to the charge of forgery, the Court observes that the applicant was accused of inserting false information in the Association ’ s cashbook concerning payments to various employees. However, the Court notes that there is nothing in the domestic decisions or the Government ’ s submissions which would support this accusation and satisfy an objective observer that this information might have been false. (iii) Conclusion 164. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court finds that the material put before it does not meet the minimum standard set by Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention for the reasonableness of a suspicion required for an individual ’ s arrest and continued detention. Accordingly, the Court concludes that during the period in question the applicant was deprived of his liberty in the absence of a “reasonable suspicion” of his having committed a criminal offence. 165. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 166. The above finding makes it redundant to assess whether the reasons given by the domestic courts for the applicant ’ s continued detention were based on “relevant and sufficient” grounds, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Therefore, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately any issues under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see similarly Rasul Jafarov, cited above, § 135). VII. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION 167. The applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to address his specific arguments in support of his release in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” A. Admissibility 168. The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties ’ submissions 169. The applicant reiterated his complaint and maintained that he had not been afforded an effective judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. 170. The Government, referring to the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contested that argument and argued that the applicant had had at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could have challenged the lawfulness of his detention. 2. The Court ’ s assessment (a) General principles 171. The relevant general principles were recently reiterated in Rasul Jafarov, cited above, §§ 140-42. In particular, Article 5 § 4 of the Convention entitles arrested or detained persons to a review of the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness” – in Convention terms – of the deprivation of their liberty. This means that the competent court has to consider not only compliance with the procedural requirements of domestic law, but also the reasonableness of the suspicion underpinning the arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by the arrest and the ensuing detention. (b) Application to the present case 172. The Court observes that, as in the case of Rasul Jafarov, cited above, the domestic courts in the present case consistently failed, in the exact same manner, to verify the existence of reasonable suspicion underpinning the applicant ’ s arrest and detention and the legitimacy of its purpose. In essence, the role of the domestic courts was limited to automatic endorsement of the prosecution ’ s applications without any genuine and independent review of the “lawfulness” of the applicant ’ s detention. 173. Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the applicant was not afforded proper judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention ( ibid., §§ 143-44). VIII. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 174. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention of the search of his home and of the Association ’ s office and the seizure of all the documents and electronic items. Article 8 reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A. Admissibility 175. The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties ’ submissions 176. The applicant argued that the interference with his right to respect for his private and family life, home and correspondence had not been prescribed by law and had not been necessary in a democratic society. 177. The Government maintained that the search at the applicant ’ s home and the Association ’ s office had been conducted in accordance with domestic law and had been necessary in the interest of the criminal investigation of the applicant ’ s case in order collect evidence. The Government also claimed that on 25 October 2014 the prosecuting authorities had returned to the applicant ’ s lawyer a large part of the seized documents, including those related to his work before the Court. 2. The Court ’ s assessment (a) Whether there has been an interference 178. In the present case, the search and seizure were conducted in the applicant ’ s home (see paragraph 38 above), as well as the premises of the Association (see paragraphs 37 and 39 above). The Court notes that the applicant was the chairman of the Association (see paragraph 8 above) and that it is undisputed that he used the premises of the Association for conducting his professional activities as a lawyer. The documents seized from the Association ’ s premises included case files concerning over a hundred applications pending before the Court and documents related to the proceedings before the domestic courts, in which the applicant acted as a legal representative (see paragraph 39 above). According to the Court ’ s case-law, the search of a lawyer ’ s office, including documents and electronic data, amounts to an interference with his “private life”, “home” and “correspondence” (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, §§ 29 ‑ 33, Series A no. 251 ‑ B; Sallinen and Others v. Finland, no. 50882/99, §§ 70-72, 27 September 2005; and Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 212, 22 December 2008 ). Accordingly, the search and seizure both in the home and office of the applicant constituted an interference with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. (b) Whether the interference was justified 179. The Court reiterates that the essential object and purpose of Article 8 of the Convention is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities (see, for example, Niemietz, cited above, § 31). Such interference is in breach of Article 8 of the Convention unless it was “in accordance with the law”, pursued a legitimate aim as defined in the second paragraph of that Article, and was “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve that aim. ( i ) Lawfulness 180. As regards the question of whether the interference was “in accordance with the law”, the Court does not find it necessary to determine this issue since in any event the impugned interference breaches Article 8 for other reasons outlined below. (ii) Legitimate aim 181. The Court has repeatedly held that persecution and harassment of members of the legal profession strikes at the very heart of the Convention system. Therefore the searching of lawyers ’ premises should be subject to especially strict scrutiny (see Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2204/11, § 68, 22 October 2015, and Elci and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, § 669, 13 November 2003). 182. With that in mind the Court reiterates that the exceptions to the individual ’ s right to respect for his or her private and family life, his or her home and his or her correspondence listed in Article 8 § 2 must be narrowly interpreted. The enumeration of the exceptions as listed in Article 8 § 2 is exhaustive and their definition is restrictive. For it to be compatible with the Convention, a limitation of this right must, in particular, pursue an aim that can be linked to one of those listed in this provision (see Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 163, ECHR 2015 ). 183. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the Government argued that the search had been aimed at investigating the applicant ’ s case and collecting evidence, which can be linked to the aim of prevention of crime within the meaning of Article 8 § 2. 184. In this context, the Court notes that the search at the applicant ’ s home and office had been authorised by the Nasimi District Court a day before the applicant was formally charged with the criminal offences. The search and seizure order of 7 August 2014 was issued by the court following a request by the prosecution (see paragraphs 36-39 above). The court justified the search by merely referring in vague terms to the criminal investigation into “breaches of legislation discovered in the activities of a number of non-governmental organisations” without asserting any specific facts related to the suspected crimes of abuse of power and forgery (see paragraph 39 above ). It does not therefore appear from the court ’ s succinct decision that it satisfied itself that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the commission of these crimes had occurred and that the relevant evidence might be found in this regard at the premises to be searched ( compare Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 41, ECHR 2005 ‑ IV ). 185. Furthermore, the Court has found that the administrative irregularities allegedly committed by the applicant with respect to the receipt and use of the grants by the Association, for which the applicant was prosecuted and detained during the period at issue, could not give rise to liability under criminal law (see paragraphs 159-60 and 1 64 above ). 186. Thus, having regard to the restrictive definition of the exceptions provided by Article 8 § 2 and the rigorous supervision by the Court, it cannot accept that the interference complained of pursued the legitimate aim of prevention of crime within the meaning of this Article. The Government has not put forward and the Court does not see any other justification for the interference at issue. 187. Accordingly, the Court finds that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the search and seizure at the applicant ’ s home and office did not pursue any of the legitimate aims enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 8. 188. Where it has been shown that an interference did not pursue a “legitimate aim” it is not necessary to investigate whether it was “necessary in a democratic society” (see, mutatis mutandis, Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § § 117-18, 23 October 2008 ). 189. There has therefore been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. IX. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES 5 AND 8 190. Relying on Article 18 of the Convention, the applicant complained that his Convention rights had been restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. In particular, his deprivation of liberty and the seizure of the files relating to the pending cases before the Court had the purpose of punishing and silencing him as a critic of the Government and a human-rights defender and to prevent him from representing numerous applicants before the Court in high-profile cases relating to election irregularities and deprivations of property. Article 18 provides: “The restrictions permitted under [the] Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.” A. Admissibility 191. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties ’ submissions (a) The applicant 192. The applicant maintained that the restrictions applied in his case were aimed at punishing and silencing him as a critic of the Government, a human-rights defender and a practicing lawyer before the Court, thereby neutralising him and preventing him from continuing human rights activities. He argued that the totality of the evidence in the present case was sufficient to rebut the general presumption that public authorities had acted in good faith. The facts of the case demonstrated convincingly that the real aim of the authorities had not been the same as that proclaimed. 193. The applicant submitted that the situation in his case was similar to that of Ilgar Mammadov in that the authorities had acted in the same manner. 194. Moreover, his detention as well as the search and seizure of his home and office should be viewed as part of persecution of human-rights defenders and NGO activists in the country which had begun in December 2013 and included their arrests, travel bans, freezing of their bank accounts and disparaging public statements by various high-ranking officials labelling them as “traitors”. The very public support from a number of State officials for his prosecution and the prosecution of others indicated that the measures taken by the authorities had had political motives. (b) The Government 195. Relying on the cases of Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011) and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos. 11082 /06 and 13772/05, 25 July 2013) the Government argued that the applicant ’ s allegations were too wide and far-reaching. He did not complain of an isolated incident, but tried to demonstrate that the whole legal machinery of the respondent State had been misused ab initio, and that from beginning to end the authorities had been acting in bad faith and with blatant disregard for the Convention. In essence, the applicant was trying to persuade the Court that everything in his case had been contrary to the Convention, and that the criminal proceedings against him had therefore been invalid. That allegation was a serious one, because it assailed the general presumption of good faith on the part of the public authorities and required particularly weighty evidence in support. None of the accusations against the applicant had been political. He had not been an opposition leader or a public official. The acts which had been imputed to him had not been related to his participation in political life, real or imaginary – he had been prosecuted for common criminal offences, such as tax evasion and fraud. The Government submitted that the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case pursuant to Article 5 and 8 of the Convention had not been applied for any purpose other than one envisaged by those provisions, and strictly for the proper investigation of serious criminal offences allegedly committed by the applicant. (c) Third parties 196. Submissions by the third parties, which also pertain to the complaint under Article 18 of the Convention, are referred to in paragraph 151 above. 2. The Court ’ s assessment (a) General principles 197. The general principles concerning the interpretation and application of Article 18 of the Convention have recently been set out by the Grand Chamber in its judgment in Merabishvili v. Georgia ([GC], no. 72508/13, 28 November 2017, §§ 287-317 ) and may be summarised as follows. 198. In a similar way to Article 14, Article 18 of the Convention has no independent existence. It can only be applied in conjunction with an Article of the Convention or the Protocols thereto which sets out or qualifies the rights and freedoms that the High Contracting Parties have undertaken to secure to those under their jurisdiction. Article 18 prohibits the High Contracting Parties from restricting the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention for purposes not prescribed by the Convention itself, and to this extent it is autonomous. Therefore, as is also the position in regard to Article 14, there can be a breach of Article 18 even if there is no breach of the Article in conjunction with which it applies (ibid., §§ 287-88). 199. The mere fact that a restriction of a Convention right or freedom does not meet all the requirements of the clause that permits it does not necessarily raise an issue under Article 18. Separate examination of a complaint under that Article is only warranted if the claim that a restriction has been applied for a purpose not prescribed by the Convention appears to be a fundamental aspect of the case ( ibid., § 291). 200. A right or freedom is sometimes restricted solely for a purpose which is not prescribed by the Convention. But it is equally possible that a restriction is applied both for an ulterior purpose and a purpose prescribed by the Convention; in other words, that it pursues a plurality of purposes. In these circumstances, a restriction can be compatible with the substantive Convention provision which authorises it because it pursues an aim permissible under that provision, but still infringe Article 18 because it was chiefly meant for another purpose that is not prescribed by the Convention; in other words, if that other purpose was predominant. Conversely, if the prescribed purpose was the main one, the restriction does not run counter to Article 18 even if it also pursues another purpose. Which purpose is predominant in a given case depends on all the circumstances. In assessing that point, the Court will have regard to the nature and degree of reprehensibility of the alleged ulterior purpose, and bear in mind that the Convention was designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society governed by the rule of law (ibid., §§ 292-307). 201. As regards the questions of proof, the Court can and should adhere to its usual approach to proof rather than special rules ( ibid., § 310). 202. The first aspect of that approach is that, as a general rule, the burden of proof is not borne by one or the other party because the Court examines all material before it irrespective of its origin, and because it can, if necessary, obtain material of its own motion (ibid., § 311). 203. The second aspect of the Court ’ s approach is that the standard of proof before it is “beyond reasonable doubt”. That standard, however, is not co-extensive with that of the national legal systems which employ it. First, such proof can follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. Secondly, the level of persuasion required to reach a conclusion is intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made, and the Convention right at stake (ibid., § 314). 204. The third aspect of the Court ’ s approach is that the Court is free to assess not only the admissibility and relevance but also the probative value of each item of evidence before it. When assessing evidence it is not bound by formulae and adopts the conclusions supported by the free evaluation of all evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties ’ submissions. The Court is also sensitive to any potential evidentiary difficulties encountered by a party. There is therefore no reason for the Court to restrict itself to direct proof in relation to complaints under Article 18 of the Convention or to apply a special standard of proof to such allegations (ibid., §§ 315-16). 205. Circumstantial evidence in this context means information about the primary facts, or contextual facts or sequences of events which can form the basis for inferences about the primary facts. Reports or statements by international observers, non-governmental organisations or the media, or the decisions of other national or international courts are often taken into account, in particular, to shed light on the facts, or to corroborate findings made by the Court (ibid., § 317). (b) Application to the present case 206. At the outset, the Court notes that it has already found that the applicant ’ s arrest and pre-trial detention were not carried out for a purpose prescribed under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention as the charges against him were not based on a “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see paragraph 164 above). Therefore, no issue arises in the present case with respect to the plurality of purposes where a restriction is applied both for an ulterior purpose and a purpose prescribed by the Convention (compare Merabishvili, cited above, §§ 318 ‑ 54). 207. Indeed, the Court observes that the combination of the relevant case-specific facts in the applicant ’ s case is similar to that of Rasul Jafarov (cited above) where proof of ulterior purpose derived from a juxtaposition of the lack of suspicion with contextual factors. 208. Firstly, as regards the applicant ’ s status, the Court notes that it is not disputed between the parties that the applicant is a human-rights defender and, more specifically, a human-rights lawyer (see also § 1 of the Parliamentary Assembly ’ s Resolution 2225 (2018) cited in paragraph 91 above). In line with the international materials cited above (see paragraphs 88-92 above ) the Court attaches particular importance to the special role of human-rights defenders in promoting and defending human rights, including in close cooperation with the Council of Europe, and their contribution to the protection of human rights in the member States. The Court also takes note of the fact that the applicant is the legal representative before the Court in a large number of cases and has submitted on behalf of the Association communications to the Committee of Ministers concerning the execution of the Court ’ s judgments. 209. Secondly, as far as the charges against the applicant are concerned, the Court has found above that they were not based on a “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see paragraphs 164-165 above). The applicant was charged with serious criminal offences whose core constituent elements could not reasonably be found in the existing facts. 210. Thirdly, the Court notes that the applicant ’ s arrest was accompanied by stigmatising statements made by public officials against the local NGOs and their leaders, including the applicant, who were labeled as “traitors” and a “fifth column” (see paragraphs 12-17 above). These statements did not simply concern an alleged breach of domestic legislation on NGOs and grants, but rather had the purpose of delegitimising their work. 211. Fourthly, as regards the search of the applicant ’ s home and office, the Court has found above that it did not pursue any of the legitimate aims enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraph 187 above). Furthermore, the Court is struck by the arbitrary manner in which the search and seizure took place at the applicant ’ s home and office. Notably, during the search at his office not only did the authorities seize documents related to the Association ’ s activities, but they also took case files covered by lawyer-client confidentiality, in particular, those related to the applications pending before the Court, in disregard of legal professional privilege. In this connection, the Court reiterates that it has already concluded in the case of Annagi Hajibeyli ( cited above, §§ 64-79) that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention on account of the seizure from the office of the applicant in the present case of the entire case file relating to Mr Hajibeyli ’ s pending case before the Court. 212. Fifthly, the general context of the increasingly harsh and restrictive legislative regulation of NGO activity and funding cannot simply be ignored in a case like the present one, where such a situation has led to an NGO activist being prosecuted for an alleged failure to comply with legal formalities of an administrative nature while carrying out his work (see Rasul Jafarov, cited above, § 159). The Court reiterates that the way in which national legislation enshrines the freedom of association and its practical application by the authorities reveal the state of democracy in the country concerned ( see Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 37083/03, § 52, ECHR 2009 ). It goes without saying that, while the States may have legitimate reasons to monitor financial operations in accordance with international law with a view to preventing money laundering and terrorism financing, the ability of an association to receive and use funding in order to be able to promote and defend its cause constitutes an integral part of the right to freedom of association. 213. The Court also notes the repercussions the applicant ’ s detention and the seizure of the documents related to the Association activities had on the exercise of his right to freedom of association. As a result of the de facto criminalisation of his activities and the measures taken against him in this context, which, as the Court has found above, did not have any legitimate purpose, the applicant was prevented from conducting his NGO activity in any meaningful way. Moreover, the Court cannot lose sight of the chilling effect of those measures on the civil society at large, whose members often act collectively within NGOs and who, for fear of prosecution, may be discouraged from continuing their work of promoting and defending human rights. 214. In this connection, the applicant ’ s situation cannot be viewed in isolation. Several notable human-rights activists who have cooperated with international organisations for the protection of human rights, including, most notably, the Council of Europe, have been similarly arrested and charged with serious criminal offences entailing heavy prison sentences. These facts support the applicant ’ s and the third parties ’ argument that the measures taken against him were part of a larger campaign to “crack down on human-rights defenders in Azerbaijan, which had intensified over the summer of 2014” (compare Rasul Jafarov, cited above, § 161). 215. The totality of the above circumstances – specifically, the applicant ’ s status as a lawyer representing applicants before the Convention institutions, the nature and substance of the charges brought against him, the statements made by public officials, the arbitrary manner in which the search and seizure took place, the general context of the legislative regulation of NGO activity, the repercussions on the applicant ’ s right to freedom of association and the general situation concerning human-rights activists in the country – indicates that the authorities ’ actions were driven by improper reasons and the actual purpose of the impugned measures was to silence and to punish the applicant for his activities in the area of human rights as well as to prevent him from continuing those activities (see Rasul Jafarov, cited above, §§ 157- 62). In the light of these considerations, the Court finds that the restrictions of the applicant ’ s rights were imposed for purposes other than those prescribed by Articles 5 § 1 (c) and 8 § 2 of the Convention. 216. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 5 and 8. X. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 217. The applicant further complained under Article 11 that his right to freedom of association had been violated because his arrest and detention had been intended to silence him as an NGO activist. Article 11 of the Convention provides: “ 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.” 218. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 219. However, having regard to its conclusions under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention and Article 18 of the Convention with regard to the same set of facts, the Court considers that it is unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 11 of the Convention ( compare Rasul Jafarov, cited above, § 170). XI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 46 OF THE CONVENTION 220. Having regard to the nature of the violations found by the present judgment and the recurrence of similar violations, the Court finds it appropriate to examine the present case under Article 46 of the Convention which reads as follows : “1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution. ...” 221. The Court reiterates that, by virtue of Article 46 of the Convention, the Contracting Parties have undertaken to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they are parties, with execution being supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation, whether or not the applicant has requested just satisfaction, to select, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects. Subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, the respondent State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions and the spirit of the Court ’ s judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 192, ECHR 2004-V; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, §§ 89-98, ECHR 2005 ‑ X; Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 70-71, ECHR 2006 ‑ XIV; Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, § § 235-43, 2 December 2010; Emre v. Switzerland (no. 2), no. 5056/10, § § 67-68, 11 October 2011; and McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 43098/09, § 142, ECHR 2013). 222. However, with a view to assisting the respondent State fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court may seek to indicate the type of individual and/or general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see, for example, Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, cited above, § 237, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 159, ECHR 2014 ). The Court ’ s concern is to facilitate the rapid and effective correction of a defect identified in the national system of human-rights protection. Once such a defect has been identified, the national authorities have the task, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, of taking – retrospectively if necessary – the necessary measures of redress in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity under the Convention, so that the Court does not have to reiterate its finding of a violation in a series of comparable cases (see Baybaşin v. the Netherlands, no. 13600/02, § 79, 7 June 2007). 223. In the present case the Court has found that the measures taken against the applicant, in particular his arrest and pre-trial detention were aimed at silencing and punishing him for his activities in the area of human rights as well as at preventing him from continuing his work as a human ‑ rights defender in breach of Article 18 of the Convention. The Court notes that it has already found similar violations in the cases of Ilgar Mammadov, Rasul Jafarov (both cited above ), Mammadli v. Azerbaijan ( no. 47145/14, 19 April 2018 ) and Rashad Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan ( nos. 48653/13 and 3 others, 7 June 2018 ). In the latter cases the Court concluded that the actual purpose of the arrest and pre-trial detention was either to silence and punish the applicants for criticising the Government or for their active social and political engagement ( see Ilgar Mammadov, cited above, § 143, and Rashad Hasanov and Others, cited above, § 125, respectively ) or to silence and punish the applicants for their activities in the area of human rights or in the area of electoral monitoring ( see Rasul Jafarov, cited above, § 162, and Mammadli, cited above, § 162, respectively ). The Court notes with concern that the events under examination in all five of these cases cannot be considered as isolated incidents. The reasons for the above violations found are similar and inter ‑ connected. In fact, these judgments reflect a troubling pattern of arbitrary arrest and detention of government critics, civil society activists and human-rights defenders through retaliatory prosecutions and misuse of criminal law in defiance of the rule of law. This pattern of the use of arbitrary detention in retaliation for the exercise of the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and association has also been the subject of comment by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights ( see paragraph 1 51 above ) and other international human-rights organisations (see paragraphs 78-80 above ). The Court accordingly finds that the actions of the State stemming from this pattern may give rise to further repetitive applications. Indeed, the Court cannot overlook in this regard the fact that a number of applications raising issues similar to those outlined above have either been communicated to the Azerbaijani Government or are currently pending before the Court. 224. The Court further considers it important to stress, as a matter of concern, that the domestic courts, being the ultimate guardians of the rule of law, systematically failed to protect the applicants against arbitrary arrest and continued pre-trial detention in the cases which resulted in the judgments adopted by the Court, limiting their role to one of mere automatic endorsement of the prosecution ’ s applications to detain the applicants without any genuine judicial oversight (see paragraph 1 72 above; Ilgar Mammadov, cited above, § 118; and Rasul Jafarov, cited above, § 143). 225. Against this background, the Court also finds it necessary to restate that as the Convention is a constitutional instrument of European public order, the States Parties are required, in that context, to ensure a level of scrutiny of Convention compliance which, at the very least, preserves the foundations of that public order. One of the fundamental components of European public order is the principle of the rule of law, and arbitrariness constitutes the negation of that principle ( see Al- Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 5809/08, § 145, ECHR 2016 ). This is all the more so since the Statute of the Council of Europe, an organisation of which each of the States Parties to the Convention is a Member, refers in two places to the rule of law: first in the Preamble, where the signatory Governments affirm their devotion to this principle, and secondly in Article 3 which provides that “ every Member of the Council of Europe must accept the principle of the rule of law ... ” (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 34, Series A no. 18). 226. In view of the above, it falls to the Committee of Ministers, acting under Article 46 of the Convention, to continue to address the issue of what may be required of the respondent Government by way of compliance, through both individual and general measures (see McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 145 ). However, the Court considers that, having regard to the specific group of individuals affected by the above-mentioned pattern in breach of Article 18, the necessary general measures to be taken by the respondent State must focus, as a matter of priority, on the protection of critics of the government, civil society activists and human-rights defenders against arbitrary arrest and detention. The measures to be taken must ensure the eradication of retaliatory prosecutions and misuse of criminal law against this group of individuals and the non ‑ repetition of similar practices in the future. 227. As regards the individual measures to be taken in response to the Court ’ s judgment, their primary aim is to achieve restitutio in integrum, that is, to put an end to the breach of the Convention and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see, among other authorities, Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 248, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). The individual measures to be taken by the respondent State in order to discharge its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention must be determined in the light of the terms of the Court ’ s judgment and, in particular, with due regard to its conclusions in respect of the retaliatory nature of the measures taken against the applicant with a view to punishing him for his activities in the area of human rights as well as to prevent him from continuing his work as a human-rights defender (see paragraph 215 above). 228. Given the variety of means available to achieve restitutio in integrum and the nature of the issues involved, the Committee of Ministers is better placed than the Court to assess the specific measures to be taken in the present case. It should thus be left to the Committee of Ministers to supervise, on the basis of the information provided by the respondent State and with due regard to the applicant ’ s evolving situation, the adoption of measures aimed, among others, at restoring his professional activities. Those measures should be feasible, timely, adequate and sufficient to ensure the maximum possible reparation for the violations found by the Court, and they should put the applicant, as far as possible, in the position in which he had been before his arrest (see, mutatis mutandis, Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, § 74, 17 July 2014). XII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 229. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 230. The applicant claimed 4 0,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. 231. The Government submitted that the amount claimed by the applicant was unsubstantiated and excessive. 232. The Court observes that it has found violations of Articles 3, 5, 8 and 18 of the Convention. The Court considers that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of violations, and that compensation has thus to be awarded. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant the sum of EUR 20,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount. B. Costs and expenses 233. The applicant claimed EUR 4, 0 00 for legal fees (namely EUR 2, 0 00 for Mr J. Javadov ’ s legal services and EUR 2,000 for Ms R. Remezaite ’ s legal services), EUR 150 for postal costs and EUR 601.25 for translation expenses incurred before the Court in relation to the proceedings in application no. 68762/14. In support of his claim, he submitted copies of the contract for legal services concluded with Mr Javadov, a breakdown of the services provided by Mr Javadov, an invoice for the hours spent by Ms Remezaite on the case, an invoice for the translation of documents related to the domestic proceedings, and receipts for postal services. 234. The applicant claimed EUR 4,200 for legal fees (specifically EUR 2,200 for Mr J. Javadov ’ s legal services and EUR 2,000 for Ms R. Remezaite ’ s legal services) and 1,059.90 pounds sterling (GBP) for translation expenses in relation to the proceedings in application no. 71200/14. In support of his claim, he submitted copies of an invoice for the hours spent by Ms Remezaite on the case and invoices for translation services. In his submission concerning claims for just satisfaction the applicant also referred to the contract for legal services concluded with Mr Javadov and an invoice for the legal services provided by Mr Javadov. However, these documents were not enclosed by the applicant with his submissions. 235. The Government argued that the claims for costs and expenses had not been properly substantiated by relevant supporting documents. In particular, they noted that the applicant had failed to submit documents concerning the costs sustained in relation to the legal services provided by Mr Javadov in application no. 71200/14. They also submitted that the amounts claimed for translation costs had not been necessarily incurred and asked the Court to apply a strict approach in respect of the applicant ’ s claims. 236. According to the Court ’ s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects the claim in respect of the legal fees for the services provided by Mr Javadov for lack of proper substantiation, the claims in respect of translation fees for lack of proper itemisation, and considers it reasonable to award the remaining part of the amounts claimed in respect of legal fees incurred before the Court and postal costs. Accordingly, the Court awards the total sum of EUR 6,150 to cover for the proceedings before the Court. C. Default interest 237. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
The Court held in particular that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention owing to the lack of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence as grounds for his detention. It also held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the lack of a proper judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. Lastly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5, finding that the measures taken against the applicant had been aimed at silencing and punishing him for his human rights activities rather than for one of the legitimate purposes under the Convention. The Court noted in particular that this case was part of “a troubling pattern of arbitrary arrest and detention of critics of the Government, civil society activists and human rights defenders”. It called on the Government to take steps to protect such people, ensuring that there were no more retaliatory prosecutions and misuse of the criminal law against them.