{"id":939,"date":"2019-01-10T20:16:47","date_gmt":"2019-01-10T20:16:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rcstaging.co.uk\/ehrac\/?post_type=case-studies&p=939"},"modified":"2023-10-31T19:26:11","modified_gmt":"2023-10-31T19:26:11","slug":"khadija-ismayilova-v-azerbaijan","status":"publish","type":"case-studies","link":"http:\/\/ehrac.org.uk\/en_gb\/key-ehrac-cases\/khadija-ismayilova-v-azerbaijan\/","title":{"rendered":"Khadija Ismayilova v Azerbaijan"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\r\n
\r\n\t
\r\n\t\t

Forum:\u00a0<\/strong>ECtHR<\/p>\n

Case Nos.\u00a0<\/strong>65286\/13 and 57270\/14<\/p>\n

Judgment Date:\u00a0<\/strong>10 January 2019<\/p>\n

Facts<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The applicant, Khadija Ismayilova, is an award-winning and renowned Azerbaijani journalist, whose investigations have exposed corruption and bias within the government and presidential administrations. In August 2010 and June 2011 she published and contributed to articles concerning the alleged involvement of the President\u2019s daughters in various commercial ventures, and in 2012 claimed the government had awarded a lucrative extraction license to a mining consortium controlled by the president\u2019s family. In March 2012 she received a threatening letter from an address in Moscow, demanding that she cease her activities, enclosed with stills from a video taken in her bedroom with a hidden camera, showing her engaged in sexual intercourse with her then boyfriend. These images were also sent to two opposition newspapers, which did not publish them. Two further videos of a sexual nature were published in online newspapers, as well as a video featuring someone resembling the applicant, and several articles attacking her. After investigating with her friends, she discovered hidden cameras had been installed in her flat by unknown persons without her knowledge and consent, from which the intimate videos were filmed and disseminated. They also found a second telephone wire leading out of the flat, and connecting to a telephone box outside her building.<\/p>\n

A criminal investigation was initiated; however, the applicant claimed that prosecuting authorities refused to conduct even the most simple and obvious measures to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators. After the applicant published a press release outlining her complaints regarding the investigation, the Prosecutor\u2019s office issued a report on the status of investigation, disclosing to the public additional personal private information concerning the applicant.<\/p>\n

Judgment<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Firstly, the Court unanimously held that the threatening letter, secret filming and dissemination of intimate videos concerned an intimate aspect of the applicant\u2019s private life, which required the state, under its positive obligation, to ensure that an efficient criminal law was in place and an effective criminal investigation conducted.\u00a0 It held that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation in breach of Art. 8 ECHR: the criminal investigation was handled with significant flaws and delays; obvious leads were not followed; key witnesses were not properly questioned; the authorities failed to rule out whether the acts were motivated by the applicant\u2019s professional activities; the person who sent the threat letter was not identified and the source of the videos and identities of the uploaders was not determined.\u00a0 The Court concluded therefore, that the authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to ensure adequate protection of the applicant\u2019s private life by carrying out an effective criminal investigation.<\/p>\n

Secondly, with regard to the Prosecutor\u2019s publication of the investigation status report, the Court found another violation of Art. 8, noting that disclosure of sensitive personal information and \u201cexcessive and superfluous disclosure of sensitive private details<\/em>\u201d in the status report constituted an interference with the applicant\u2019s privacy, which was not justified and did not serve a legitimate aim, specifically when the question of the applicant\u2019s privacy was paramount in the overall context of the case.\u00a0 As the Court stated \u201cThe situation itself called for the authorities to exercise care in order not to compound further the already existing breach of the applicant\u2019s privacy<\/em>\u201d, which it failed to do.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, given the professional background of the applicant and her journalist activities, the Court held that there was a violation of the state\u2019s positive obligation under Art. 10 to protect her freedom of expression.\u00a0 The Court drew attention to the flaws and delays in the criminal investigation, the newspaper articles published, the public disclosure of additional sensitive information by the authorities, which compounded the situation and was \u201ccontrary to the spirit of an environment protective of journalism<\/em>\u201d (para. 165).<\/p>\n

The Court awarded \u20ac15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages.<\/p>\n

Comment<\/strong><\/h3>\n\t<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\t\t\t<\/div> \n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div> \n<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
\n\t
\n\t\t
<\/div><\/div>\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t