Published on 26 February 2024
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 17246/17
Artur Abubakarovich DARAYEV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 23 February 2017
communicated on 9 February 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present application concerns alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant and alleged discrimination in sentencing.
The applicant is a refugee of Chechen origin who lives in Baku.
In 2014, the applicant was involved in a road accident with another car. Following the accident, a criminal case was instituted, and the applicant was charged and, subsequently, convicted of a criminal offence under Article 263.1 of the Criminal Code for allegedly breaching traffic rules. He was sentenced to two years of “rehabilitation work”, in accordance with which he had to pay twenty percent of his income to the State budget. He was also deprived of the right to drive a vehicle for one year.
Upon appeal by both the applicant and the prosecutor, the appellate court upheld the conviction but increased the sentence. Referring to the fact that the applicant was a foreigner with no work permit in Azerbaijan, the court stated that a sentence in the form of rehabilitation work was associated with a convicted person’s employment activity and therefore it was not acceptable that such form of sentence was applied to the applicant. The court also considered that for several reasons a fine was not sufficiently severe. The court therefore concluded that the rehabilitation work “should be replaced by a harsher [form of] punishment withing the limits of Article [263.1 of the Criminal Code]”. Consequently, the court sentenced the applicant to one year of imprisonment.
On 31 August 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the sentence applied by the appellate court.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction was based on unreliable evidence and that the criminal proceedings against him were in breach of various fair-trial guarantees, such as the right to a reasoned decision, the right to an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against him and to adduce evidence, and the right to have free assistance of an interpreter.
The applicant also complains that replacing the rehabilitation work with one year of imprisonment was based on unlawful and discriminatory ground.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of being an unemployed foreigner and refugee, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention? Has the applicant suffered discrimination read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment in sentencing? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?
2. 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? In particular:
(i) was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?
(ii) was the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected?
(iii) 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?
3. Did the applicant require and was he afforded the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention?
The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including, transcripts of the court hearings.