1. The case originated in an application (no. 59620/14) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Azerbaijani nationals, Ms Leyla Islam gizi Yunusova (Leyla İslam qızı Yunusova – “the first applicant”) and Mr Arif Seyfulla oglu Yunusov (Arif Seyfulla oğlu Yunusov - “the second applicant”), on 29 August 2014.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr K. Bagirov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The first applicant was also represented by Mr J. Javadov and Ms D. Bychawska-Siniarska, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan and Poland, respectively. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov.
3. The applicants alleged that they had not received adequate medical assistance while in detention and that their state of health had been incompatible with their conditions of detention. The first applicant also complained that she had been subjected to verbal and physical violence by a prison guard and one of her cellmates.
1. The case originated in an application (no. 69981/14) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Rasul Agahasan oglu Jafarov (Rəsul Ağahəsən oğlu Cəfərov – “the applicant”), on 10 October 2014.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr K. Bagirov, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan, and Mrs R. Remezaite, a lawyer based in London. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that his arrest and pre-trial detention had not been justified and had been carried out in bad faith, that his right to freedom of assembly had been breached, and that his rights had been restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention.
4. On 3 December 2014 the complaints concerning the alleged breaches of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, and Articles 11 and 18 of the Convention were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. On 25 June 2015 a new complaint concerning an alleged failure to comply with the obligations under Article 34 of the Convention was communicated to the Government. The applicant and the Government each submitted written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights made use of his right under Article 36 § 3 of the Convention to intervene as a third party, and submitted observations in accordance with Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court. Observations were also received from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Human Rights House Foundation and Freedom Now, to whom the President had given leave to intervene as third parties in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court).