Published on 28 August 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 76162/16
Murad ADILOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 26 November 2016
communicated on 10 July 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of drug possession.
The applicant is a member and activist of the opposition party, Azerbaijan Popular Front. His brother is also a political activist and journalist who has obtained asylum in France.
On 11 August 2014 the police stopped the car that the applicant was in, arrested (apprehended) him and took him away in a different car. Later, the police carried out a body search of the applicant. On the same day, his house was also searched by several police officers. During both searches some drugs (marijuana and hashish resin) were allegedly found in his possession.
The applicant was charged with a criminal offence under Article 234.4.3 of the Criminal Code (illegal holding drugs with an intent to sell).
The applicant was convicted as charged by the Lankaran Assize Court on 14 May 2015 and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The appeal and cassation courts upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains in particular that his conviction was based on fabricated and otherwise unlawful evidence, that the criminal proceedings against him were in breach of various fair-trial guarantees and that those proceedings were brought in order to punish him for his and his brother’s political activity.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, 12 November 2015, and Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, 10 April 2014)?
In particular:
(a) was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?
(b) were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected?
(c) was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against him, and to adduce evidence in support of his line of defence and to have such evidence assessed by the court?
2. Were the searches, in the course of which the drugs were found, conducted in accordance with the relevant domestic procedural rules (Sakit Zahidov, and Layijov, both cited above)?
3. In the circumstances of the present case, does Article 18 apply in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 261, 16 November 2017)? If yes, were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the judgments and decisions of the domestic courts, transcripts of the court hearings, expert reports (if any), and the applicant’s appeals and requests.