Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Rafiyev v. Azerbaijan:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Azerbaijan in violation of several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the arrest and conviction of Mr. Rafiyev, a follower of Nurism, for participating in an unauthorized religious meeting at a private residence. The Court ruled that his detention was arbitrary and lacked legal justification, violating Article 5 § 1. It also found that the domestic courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for his conviction, violating Article 6 § 1. Furthermore, the Court determined that Azerbaijan unjustifiably interfered with Mr. Rafiyev’s right to freedom of religion, contravening Article 9 of the Convention. The Court awarded Mr. Rafiyev compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with an introduction outlining the case’s subject matter. It then details the facts, including Mr. Rafiyev’s religious affiliation, his arrest during a visit to a friend’s house, and his subsequent conviction for violating rules on religious meetings. The judgment references relevant Azerbaijani laws and an international document (Venice Commission opinion) concerning freedom of religious belief. The Court then addresses the Government’s request to strike out the application, which it refuses. The judgment proceeds to analyze the alleged violations of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), and Article 9 (freedom of religion). For each article, the Court considers admissibility and merits, ultimately finding violations. Finally, it addresses Article 41 regarding just satisfaction, awarding damages and costs to the applicant. There are no explicit changes compared to previous versions mentioned in the text, as it is a single judgment.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Arbitrary Detention (Article 5 § 1):** The Court emphasizes that detaining an individual without proper legal justification and without recording the detention details constitutes a severe violation of Article 5. This highlights the importance of clear legal procedures and documentation when depriving someone of their liberty.
* **Fair Hearing (Article 6 § 1):** The decision underscores the necessity for domestic courts to provide adequate reasoning for their judgments, especially when conflicting evidence exists. Courts must address specific arguments made by the accused and not merely accept the authorities’ version of events.
* **Freedom of Religion (Article 9):** The Court clarifies that while states may require religious organizations to register, they cannot sanction individual members for practicing their faith, even if the organization is unregistered. The decision reinforces the principle that freedom of religion includes the right to manifest beliefs in private settings and that restrictions must be “prescribed by law” with sufficient precision.
* **”Prescribed by Law” Requirement:** The Court emphasizes that any interference with freedom of religion must have a clear and foreseeable basis in domestic law. The law must be accessible and predictable in its application.
This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding fundamental rights, including freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial, and of ensuring that any restrictions on these rights are clearly defined and justified under the law.
: This decision is related to Azerbaijan, but the principles discussed regarding arbitrary detention, fair trial, and freedom of religion are universally applicable and relevant to Ukraine and Ukrainians, especially in the context of ensuring human rights protections.
