Support Adnan and Emin

From Dr.Leyla Yunus
Director of Institute of Peace and Democracy (Azerbaijan)


WORLDWIDE FOLLOWED-UP LEGAL TRIAL

Experts with the Institute of Peace and Democracy on the Trial of Bloggers Adnan Hajizade and Emin Abdullayev

The trial on a charge of Adnan Hajizade and Emin Abdullayev under Article 221 the Criminal Code of AR (hooliganism) began on September 04, 2009 in Sabail District Court chaired by Araz Huseynov.
During past 36 working days beginning from September 04 Araz Huseynov held only eight (!) court hearings ( on September 04, 16, 18, 29 and October 01, 07, 09 and 13). The hearings were mostly held in the second half of the day lasting for 3-4 hours at most. Deliberately dragging out the court trials Araz Huseynov repeatedly violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – “the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.

The following facts strictly points to the violation of the right to a fair hearing by Araz Huseynov:

1. ALL of the petitions filed by trial lawyers of the accused on September 04 demanding: 1) a hearing in a large room taken a considerable public interest in the case; 2) a discontinuance of the criminal prosecution of the arrested and remit the case to the Prosecutor’s Office for further inquiry in view of gross violations in the course of the prejudicial inquiry by Ziya Aliyev, an investigator with Police Department of Sabail District of Baku, and Shirkhan Adigezalov, a district Prosecutor; 3) arrested Adnan Hajizade also filed a petition for discontinuance of the action and testified that his rights during the arrest and the investigation were violated. For example, he was not allowed to get in touch with his trial lawyer; 4) change of the measure of restraint for the arrested and release on bail

were rejected by Judge Araz Huseynov.

2. The court accepted the list of witnesses for the prosecution, but did not accept the whole list of defense witnesses, thus putting the prosecution and defense in the unequal position.

Out of the list of witnesses for the defense, the court agreed to interrogate only one – Rashadat Akhundov. The rest of them were never heard by the court. So, Araz Huseynov once more demonstrated the violation of the right to a fair hearing.

Meantime the materials of the trial showed the lack of professionalism (or falsification) in the materials of the preliminary inquiry.

So, according to the version of Ziya Aliyev, a senior investigator with Police Department of Sabail District, the police had detained Emin Abdullayev and Adnan Hajizade in the restaurant “Lebanez” and took them as suspected in hooliganism in a police car to Police Station No. 9 of Sabail District. Later on Emin Abdullayev and Adnan Hajizade were arrested. However, testimonies of both the injured and witnesses did not match this version of the investigation:

1. On September 16 the testimony of injured Vusal Mammedov and Babek Huseynov revealed evident contradictions. Vusal Mammedov asserted that during the incident in the ‘Lebanez” restaurant on July 08 he had been beaten by some people, but Babek Huseynov clearly stated that he had been beaten by Adnan, and Mammedov had been beaten by Emin. But the injured party confused the scene of the fight. The first one said that the fight had taken place near their table, but Huseynov assured that it had taken place near the table of the accused.

2. On September 18 and 29, 2009 the witnesses for prosecution also muddled up in their testimony:

- One of the witnesses being an officer with Police Station No. 9 of Sabail District asserted that they had arrested Adnan and Emin in the restaurant where the fight took place. After this the defense adduced evidence that the police had not arrested them, but they themselves had applied to the police for help not in the restaurant but they themselves had come to the police. They, at first, went to Police Station No. 39 where they were told that the territory of the restaurant was attached to Police Station No 9. Instead of providing help there they were arrested. The defense produced photos showing Adnan and Emin standing near the Police Station.

- Sahid Dashdamirov, a witness-officer with the patrol police, stated that he had been on duty in the vicinity of the “Lebanez” restaurant when their squad was passing by. They were called up by a parking lot guard who told them about the fight. The police car took the accused and one young man to the police station. According to the police officer, Adnan’s nose was bleeding, and Emin’s leg was cut. Dashdamirov said that there had been no other injured.

- Witness-police officer Bashir Bashirov stated that there had been no other injured in the restaurant except for the accused.

-Witness-police officer Eldar Gasimov stated that he confirmed his testimony given at the preliminary inquiry. At that he failed to provide a meaningful answer to the question – why the police did not give medical help to Adnan and Emin.

- Witness Parviz Atayev, who had been in the restaurant with Abdullayev and Hajizade, said, “We were discussing the problems of youth education. Suddenly Vusal came up to Emin rudely saying, “What are you saying?”, and Babek Huseynov used bad language. Then Vusal hit Emin with his head and Adnan with his fist. Babek also turned over the table with his leg”. Atayev went out into the street to call up the police but found none. Then Adnan and Emin set off for the nearest Police Station No. 39 . There they were advised to apply to Police Station No. 9. “When I came to Police Station No. 9, Babek was already there”, the witness said. Another withness Orkhan Gafarly, who had also been together with Emin and Adnan that day, almost reiterated Atayev’s words. Both of the young men gave a negative reply to the question of lawyer Elton Guliyev whether the accused had resisted the assailants.

During the hearing on October 01 the lawyers of the accused produced the photos testifying that the version of the investigation, testimony of the injured party and witnesses of the prosecution did not correspond to the facts.

This legal trial chaired by Araz Huseynov strikingly indicates the dependence of the judicial system on the executive power and the use of trials for political pressure on dissidents and repressions, particularly against freedom of speech, thought and self-expression.


Dr.Leyla Yunus
Director of Institute of Peace and Democracy
Website: www.tt-ipd.org