CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

ARMEN HARUTYUNYAN CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ purposes in the conduct of Russian authorities against Navalnyy became increasingly more dominant. The Court thus found that some of the arrests had actually aimed at suppressing political pluralism in a democratic order and for this reason the freedom of assembly of Navalnyy had become ‘a particular object for targeted suppression’. 66 The reasoning of the Court here built on Merabishvili , which focused on the purpose’s ‘nature and degree of reprehensibility’ and not on bad faith to determine whether an illegitimate purpose was an issue for Article 18. 67 Thus, “the Court considered the ulterior purpose of the two episodes in question to be beyond reasonable doubt, and found a violation of Article 18 in conjunction with both Articles 5 and 11”. 68 The Court concluded: “156. (…)he had been harassed precisely because of his active engagement in political life and the influence that he had on the political views of the Russian people. 173. (…)Russian authorities’ attempts at the material time to bring the opposition’s political activity under control. (…) 174. As such, the restriction in question would have affected not merely the applicant alone, (…), but the very essence of democracy as a means of organising society. 175. (…) the Court finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that the restrictions imposed on the applicant (…) pursued an ulterior purpose (…) namely to suppress that political pluralism which forms part of “effective political democracy” governed by “the rule of law””. 69 An important number of cases where the Court considered the accusations and prosecution of the applicants as politically motivated were brought before the Court by frontline activists connected to civil society organisations. 70 The Azerbaijani cases, in which the Court found a violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5, characteristical in regards of this Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (GC) 71 ; Rashad Hasanov 72 , Rasul Jafarov v Azerbaijan 73 ; Aliyev v. Azerbaijan 74 ; Mammadli v. Azerbaijan 75 – the events examined in all these cases revealed a troubling pattern of arbitrary arrest and detention of government 66 Ibid., § 173. 67 HERI, C. Loyalty, Subsidiarity, and Article 18 ECHR: How the ECtHR Deals with Mala Fide Limitations of Rights, (2020) 1 European Convention on Human Rights Law Review 25, p. 33. 68 Ibid., p. 34. 69 Navalnyy v. Russia , ECtHR (GC), Application Nos. 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13 and 43746/14, Merits and Just Satisfaction, Judgment of 15 November 2018, paras 156, 173–175. 70 Rasul Jafarov v Azerbaijan (Application No. 69981/14), Judgment of 17 March 2016; Mammadli v Azerbaijan (Application No. 47145/14), Judgment of 19 April 2018; Rashad Hasanov and others v Azerbaijan (Applications nos. 48653/13 and 3 others ), Judgment of 7 June 2018; Aliyev v Azerbaijan (Applications nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14), Judgment of 7 20 September 2018. 71 Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , ECtHR (GC) Application No. 15172/13, Judgment of 22 May 2014. 72 Rashad Hasanov and others v. Azerbaijan, ECtHR, Application Nos 48653/13 52464/13 65597/13 70019/1, Judgment of 7 June 2018. 73 Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , ECtHR Application No. 69981/14, Judgment, of 17 March 2016. 74 Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, ECtHR Application No. 68762/14, 71200/14, Judgment, 20 September 2018. 75 Mammadli v. Azerbaijan , ECtHR Application No. 47145/14, Judgment, 19 April 2018.

138