Communicated on 7 November 2017
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 11297/09
Said DADASHBEYLI
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 15 February 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Said Dadashbeyli, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving a prison sentence. He is represented before the Court by Ms K. Tharra, a lawyer practising in Cologne, Germany.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
According to the documents in the case file, the applicant was arrested on 15 January 2007, and on 17 January 2007 the Sabail District Court ordered his pre-trial detention.
On 16 August 2007 the applicant was charged with offences under Articles 218.1 (Establishing a criminal organisation), 278 (Forceful acquisition or forceful possession of State power), 274 (Treason), 28.2, 180.3.1 (Intended robbery), 204.3.1, 204.3.2 (Preparation, acquisition or sale of counterfeit money or securities), 228.1, 228.4 (Illegal acquisition and possession of gas weapons and firearms), and 234.1 (Illegal acquisition and possession of narcotics) of the Criminal Code. It was alleged that he had organised and then declared himself Amir of a group that planned to spread ideas of Islamic fundamentalism and religious extremism, to forcefully gain power over the State and to change the Constitution, state and social systems, and to create a State governed by religious leadership under Islamic ideology and law. According to the indictment, members of the group had entered into negotiations with officers of the Guardians of the Iranian Islamic Revolution Corps on the territory of Iran, had accepted several payments in cash from Iranian secret service officers, and had planned attacks in Baku against citizens of the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel, as well as on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. With that purpose in mind, members of the group had undergone sports and military training. Furthermore, in order to finance their operations, members of the group had planned robberies of persons and organisations and had smuggled one hundred thousand counterfeit United States dollars into the territory of Azerbaijan. The applicant also allegedly illegally carried weapons and narcotics.
On 10 December 2007 the Assize Court found the applicant guilty of all the alleged crimes and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.
On 30 December 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the first-instance court, claiming that he was innocent. The applicant complained that during his pre-trial detention he had been tortured and deprived of the right to be defended by a lawyer of his own choosing. He also complained that, despite his repeated objections, the proceedings had been held in camera and that the first-instance court had not called two additional witnesses, as requested by the defence. Additionally, the applicant complained about the general assessment of the facts by the first‑instance court.
On 25 February 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court. The court noted that on 22 September 2007 the first-instance court had ordered an expert medical examination of several accused in the case to evaluate their complaints about torture. The expert had been ordered to establish whether the defendants’ bodies showed any signs of torture and, if the answer was affirmative, to inquire what had been the cause thereof and the dates on which it had occurred. The expert opinion dated 27 October 2007 stated that neither of the accused had had any sign of torture or its aftermath on their bodies. The appeal court further held that the accused themselves did not provide any evidence of being tortured or in any way mistreated either to the investigators who had questioned them in the presence of their respective lawyers, or to the first-instance court. The appeal court further observed that the applicant had been provided with a lawyer from the moment of his arrest and this publicly appointed lawyer had been replaced with a lawyer of the applicant’s own choosing as soon as he had made the request. The appeal court also found that the first-instance court had correctly held the proceedings in camera, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention concerning issues of national security, in order to preserve information that constituted a state secret.
On 27 May 2008 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal, reiterating his previous complaints.
On 16 January 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, reiterating the Court of Appeal’s reasoning.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (c) of the Convention that by holding the trial in camera the domestic authorities had infringed his right to a fair and public hearing, and that he had been deprived of the right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair trial in the criminal proceedings against him, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was the applicant afforded an opportunity to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to be defended by a lawyer of his own choosing restricted during the initial stage of investigation? Did the applicant waive his right to defend himself through legal assistance? If so, in what manner was this done?
The Government are requested to submit copies of all the documents in the case file relating to the domestic proceedings.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy