Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IGBAL HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Igbal Hasanov v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions, and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2, even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V, and Assenov and Others, cited above, § 93).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  In particular, where an individual was in good health when taken into police custody but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni, cited above, § 87).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many other authorities, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 134, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  Moreover, a wide variety of other evidence, such as witness statement, video recording, tape recording or photograph, may also be submitted in support of the allegation of ill-treatment (see, among many other authorities, Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 108, 2 April 2009; Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, § 48, 17 April 2012; and Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, § 37, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 31805/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  Moreover, a wide variety of other evidence, such as witness statement, video recording, tape recording or photograph, may also be submitted in support of the allegation of ill-treatment (see, among many other authorities, Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 108, 2 April 2009; Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, § 48, 17 April 2012; and Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, § 37, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01

  LOPATA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  The Court, however, underlines that its inability to reach any conclusions as to whether there has been, in substance, 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 Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 125, 13 July 2010, and Gharibashvili v. Georgia, no. 11830/03, § 57, 29 July 2008).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 2594/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  Moreover, a wide variety of other evidence, such as witness statement, video recording, tape recording or photograph, may also be submitted in support of the allegation of ill-treatment (see, among many other authorities, Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 108, 2 April 2009; Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, § 48, 17 April 2012; and Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, § 37, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04

  MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 47137/07

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.09.2026 - 64510/17
  In some cases, the domestic courts admit for examination on the merits complaints of inaction on the part of those authorities (see Igbal Hasanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 46505/08, §§ 20-21, 15 January 2015, and Mammadov and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 1172/12, §§ 13-14, 8 July 2021).

  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, 21.02.2019 - 35432/07

  MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  In particular, the domestic courts failed to hear evidence from the first applicant, the alleged perpetrators of the ill-treatment, or any other possible witness (see Igbal Hasanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 46505/08, § 39, 15 January 2015).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 21049/06

  [FRE]

  La Cour souligne, néanmoins, que son incapacité de parvenir à un constat de l'existence d'un traitement prohibé par l'article 3 de la Convention dérive, largement, du défaut des autorités nationales de conduire une enquête effective à l'époque des faits (Igbal Hasanov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 46505/08, § 49, 15 janvier 2015, et Uzeyir Jafarov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 54204/08, § 61, 29 janvier 2015).