GAHRAMANOV v. AZERBAIJAN DECISION 5 29. On 29 May 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows: “The panel of the court considers that the appellate court correctly applied the substantive and procedural law when examining the case and that the grounds stated in the cassation appeal do not constitute reasons for quashing the court judgment.” B. Relevant domestic law 30. In accordance with Article 2 § 2 of the Regulations on Application of the Law on Departure from and Entrance into the Country and on Passports, approved by Decision of the Parliament on 29 November 1994 (“the Regulations”), if a citizen was suspected of committing a crime or charged with a criminal offence, was convicted of a crime or sentenced to compulsory measures of a medical nature, was asked to perform his fixedterm military service or there was a court decision in force restricting his departure from the country, his rights to leave and enter the country would be temporarily restricted by refusal to issue him with a passport by a decision of an authorised representative of a passport-issuing authority. Article 2 § 4 of the Regulations provided that if the reason for restricting a citizen’s right to leave the country materialised after he had been provided with a passport, his departure from the country could be temporarily restricted by a decision of an authorised representative of the State Border Service at a checkpoint. COMPLAINTS 31. In respect of the third set of proceedings (see paragraphs 15-29 above) the applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully detained at Baku Heydar Aliyev Airport on 18 July 2006. Relying on Articles 6, 7 and 13 of the Convention, he also complained that the domestic proceedings concerning his detention on 18 July 2006 at Baku Heydar Aliyev Airport had been unfair and that the domestic courts had been ineffective. 32. The applicant complained further, relying on Article 5 of the Convention, that his pre-trial detention in the first set of proceedings (see paragraphs 5-10 above) had been unlawful. He further complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the criminal case against him had been fabricated and that the domestic courts had erred in assessing the evidence. The applicant also complained, under Articles 7 and 13 of the Convention, that he had been unlawfully convicted and that the domestic courts had been ineffective.