Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JANNATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Jannatov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  Nevertheless the Court reiterates that particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99-104, ECHR 2006-IX; and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  They do not testify under oath, that is, without any affirmation of the truth of their statements which could have rendered them punishable for perjury for wilfully making untrue statements (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 102, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67972/01

  SOMOGYI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).

• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  Although it is not the Court's task to verify whether the domestic courts made any substantive errors in that assessment, it is nevertheless required to review whether the courts gave reasons for their decisions in respect of any objections concerning the evidence produced (see Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05, 45553/05, 35680/05 and 36085/05, § 211, 26 July 2011, and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 75, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  Although it is not the Court's task to verify whether the domestic courts made any substantive errors in that assessment, it is nevertheless required to review whether the courts gave reasons for their decisions in respect of any objections concerning the evidence produced (see Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05, 45553/05, 35680/05 and 36085/05, § 211, 26 July 2011, and Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198/08, § 75, 25 April 2013).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 72000/01

  GÖÇMEN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  Nevertheless the Court reiterates that particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99-104, ECHR 2006-IX; and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006).
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15435/03

  SHULEPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  In these circumstances, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of the proceedings in order to guarantee the conduct of the trial in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, § 86, ECHR 2004-IV; Shulepov v. Russia, no. 15435/03, § 46, 26 June 2008; Maksimov v. Azerbaijan, no. 38228/05, § 46, 8 October 2009; and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, §§ 41-42, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 54919/00

  ICOZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  Nevertheless the Court reiterates that particular considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained in breach of Article 3. The use of such evidence, secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention, always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99-104, ECHR 2006-IX; and Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 73-74, 17 October 2006).
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30663/04

  LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  The Court notes in this regard that where doubts arise as to the reliability of a certain source of evidence, the need to corroborate it by evidence from other sources is correspondingly greater (see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 30663/04, § 49, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 31805/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 2594/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01

  LOPATA v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.09.2026 - 64510/17
  Rn. 93 However, in light of the material in its possession and having regard to the parties' submissions, the Court considers that the evidence before it does not enable it to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants were subjected to the treatment contrary to Article 3, as alleged by them (see also Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, §§ 59-60, 31 July 2014, and Igbal Hasanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 46505/08, §§ 46-48, 15 January 2015).
• EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 6232/20

  Micheil Saakaschwili

  In this connection, the Court does not find any arbitrariness in the reasons given by the domestic courts for dismissing the applicant's challenge to the witnesses, because the fact that both witnesses were questioned under oath - and thus on pain of committing perjury in the event that they gave untrue statements - constituted a sufficient guarantee for the domestic courts to treat those witnesses' statements as reliable evidence (for examples of how the questioning of a witness under oath and on pain of criminal liability positively affects the evidentiary strength of that witness's statements see Pichugin, cited above, §§ 199 and 200; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 102, 24 July 2008; Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, § 76, 31 July 2014; and J.M. and Others v. Austria, nos. 61503/14 and 2 others, § 120, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 21.02.2019 - 35432/07

  MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  No explanation was given by the Government as to the domestic authorities' failure to conduct an investigation in this connection (see Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, § 53, 31 July 2014).

• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 2991/06

  BELUGIN v. RUSSIA

  In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 164, and Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, § 74, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  UZEYIR JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court would nonetheless like to emphasise that its inability to reach any conclusions as to whether there has, in substance, been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention derives to a large extent from the failure of the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation at the relevant time (see Gharibashvili v. Georgia, no. 11830/03, § 57, 29 July 2008; Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 125, 13 July 2010; and Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, § 61, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 15741/15

  SLÁDKOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  However, whereas the Court has found (see paragraph 68 above) that the applicant's allegations were such as to oblige the authorities to launch an official investigation, it considers, having regard to the parties' submissions and all the material in its possession, that the evidence before it does not enable it to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3, as alleged (see, mutatis mutandis, Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, § 60, 31 July 2014, and Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 59075/09, § 74, 18 June 2015).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 51164/07

  [ENG]

  In these circumstances, the Court will examine firstly the quality of the physical evidence, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained casts doubt on its reliability or accuracy and secondly, whether the applicant was given the opportunity to challenge its authenticity and oppose its use in the domestic proceedings (see Bykov, cited above, § 90; Lisica v. Croatia, no. 20100/06, §§ 51-54, 25 February 2010; and Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, § 74, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 36416/06

  [FRE]

  Furthermore, the Court considers, in line with its reasoning above (see paragraphs 62-64 above), that in view of the importance of the testimony of the attesting witnesses for the case at hand, the conflicting evidence of U.K. and the allegation of police pressure voiced by him in that respect, and the alleged lack of credibility of L.Ts. on account of his former affiliation with the police, were not assessed by the domestic courts to a sufficient degree (see, mutatis mutandis, Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, §§ 76-77, 31 July 2014; see also Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, §§ 276-280, 21 April 2011).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Il faut également prendre en compte la qualité des preuves et notamment vérifier si les circonstances dans lesquelles elles ont été obtenues jettent le doute sur leur crédibilité ou leur exactitude (Gäfgen, précité, § 164, et Jannatov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 32132/07, § 74, 31 juillet 2014).
• EGMR, 13.01.2026 - 14307/17

  GAHRAMAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Rn. 28 The Court would, however, like to underline that its inability to reach any conclusions as to whether there has been, in substance, treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention derives, at least in part, from the failure of the domestic authorities to react effectively to the applicant's complaints at the relevant time (see Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, § 61, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 3650/12

  HAZIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09

  MEHDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.06.2024 - 36852/11

  VUGAR ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 20605/13

  GURBANOV AND MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 34528/13

  MAHADDINOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  HAJI v. AZERBAIJAN and 7 other applications
• EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 22004/11

  SATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 61239/17

  JABBAROV v. AZERBAIJAN and 8 other applications
• EGMR, 14.10.2025 - 19815/19

  IMRAK ET YILDIZ c. TÜRKIYE