The case concerned Ms Muradova’s complaint that she became blind in one eye after being hit by a police officer during a demonstration and that no effective investigation was carried out into the incident.

On 16 October 2003 supporters of the opposition presidential candidate, who had just lost the election, gathered in the centre of Baku in Azerbaijan to protest. Violent clashes broke out between the demonstrators and the large numbers of anti-riot police and military personnel deployed.

Ms Muradova, who was present when the demonstration was being dispersed by the law-enforcement forces, was seriously injured. According to Ms Muradova, a police officer hit her right eye with a truncheon when she asked him for help in getting up from the ground. However, the authorities submitted that her injury was not caused by the police, but was the result of her having fallen down on a blunt object. Despite emergency treatment and surgery, Ms Muradova became permanently blind in her right eye.

In February 2004, Ms Muradova filed a criminal complaint concerning the incident. By that time, the prosecution had already brought criminal proceedings into the public disorder generated by the demonstrators during the incident. No separate criminal proceedings were brought as a result of Ms Muradova’s complaint. In March and September 2004, two forensic reports were issued concerning her injuries. Although both reports confirmed the seriousness of her condition, neither of them concluded with certainty the causes of her injury. Of the eight eye witnesses questioned in addition to Ms Muradova, all eight denied having seen her at all in the demonstration. In November 2004, the criminal investigation was discontinued due to lack of evidence in support of Ms Muradova’s version of events.

At the same time, in March 2004, Ms Muradova brought civil proceedings claiming compensation for her injury. The court heard three witnesses, called by her. Two of these witnesses submitted that they had seen her having fallen to the ground among the demonstrators and that a police officer had hit her with a truncheon in the right eye. The domestic courts ultimately rejected her claim due to lack of proof.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms Muradova alleged that on 16 October 2003 she was hit in the eye with a truncheon by a police officer during a demonstration, and that the incident was not investigated adequately.

Article 3 (injury)

The Court first noted that, on 16 October 2003, a particularly large-scale confrontation, involving a high degree of violence on both sides, had taken place between protesters and law-enforcement officers. It also observed that, on that day, Ms Muradova had been present when the confrontation had occurred, that her right eye had been seriously injured and that the police had used force, including the use of truncheons, in order to disperse the protesters and quell the disorder.

The Court considered that Ms Muradova had produced sufficiently strong evidence in support of her version of the incident, namely her medical records and witness statements. The Court was particularly astonished with the lack of reasoning in how the domestic court had dismissed Ms Muradova’s civil claim for compensation, merely dismissing the witness statements as groundless. Further, the authorities had not justified the degree of force used against Ms Muradova, given that she had not been arrested or prosecuted for any violence during the demonstration and had tried to leave it to avoid danger. The Court therefore held that the force used by the police in respect of Ms Muradova had been excessive, in violation of Article 3.

Article 3 (investigation)

The Court also found that although a criminal investigation had been launched, it had been unclear whether it had actually examined the actions of the police during the demonstration. In addition, the forensic reports were issued several months after the events. Indeed, the conclusion in one of the reports had not excluded the possibility that Ms Muradova’s injury had been caused by a hard blunt object; the Court considered that that could well have been a truncheon. Lastly, the investigating authorities had not attempted to seek or hear testimony from the witnesses presented by Ms Muradova during the civil proceedings. That omission in particular had contributed to the general ineffectiveness of the investigation. Accordingly, the Court held that the authorities had not conducted an effective investigation into Ms Muradova’s complaint, in violation of Article 3.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the excessive force used in respect of Ms Muradova during a demonstration in protest of the 2003 presidential election results, and of there not having been an effective investigation into her complaint.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site.