Published on 12 September 2022
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 43237/15
Abdul Abdulmanaf oglu ABILOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 30 July 2015
communicated on 23 August 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the criminal proceedings against the applicant, a blogger who was active on social media and published various articles criticising the Government. On 27 May 2014 the Baku Court of Grave Crimes convicted the applicant under Article 234.4.3 of the Criminal Code (the preparation, possession, purchase and transportation of illegal drugs with intent to sell, or the sale of illegal drugs in significant quantity) and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment. On 26 February 2015 the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. It appears that neither the applicant nor his representative was present at the court hearing before the Supreme Court.
Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c), 10 and 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains, in particular, that his conviction was based on planted evidence and that the criminal proceedings were brought against him in order to punish him for his activity as a blogger.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, were the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was taken and used in the proceedings, fair? Do the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy? Was the applicant given an opportunity of challenging the authenticity of the evidence and of opposing its use?
2. Was the applicant afforded, by the Supreme Court, adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?
3. Was the applicant and/or his lawyer given an opportunity to be present at the hearing before the Supreme Court? If not, were the proceedings before the Supreme Court in the applicant’s case compatible with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?
5. Were the restrictions allegedly imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?
6. The parties are requested to submit copies of the transcripts of all court hearings, the applicant’s motions and requests presented to the Supreme Court and any other relevant document.