Published on 19 May 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 6948/24
Ilham TAHMAZOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 4 March 2024
communicated on 30 April 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns criminal defamation proceedings against the applicant, a lawyer, which were instituted in private prosecution proceedings by M.O., the father of a late military officer, B.S.
The applicant regularly hosted live-streaming discussions about the so‑called “Terter events” (related to the alleged torture of Azerbaijani military personnel accused of high treason in 2017 in the aftermath of the “four-day war” of April 2016) on a YouTube channel.
M.O. noted in his complaint to the domestic courts that the applicant, in different live streams, had called his late son a “criminal” and a “murderer” and accused him of having committed various serious crimes, such as organising and executing the torture of the military servicemen.
By a judgment of 2 December 2022, the Mingachevir City Court convicted the applicant under Article 147.2 (slander by accusation of having committed a serious or especially serious criminal offence) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year and six months’ imprisonment. The court merged the sentence with the remaining portion of the sentence imposed on him in a different, earlier set of defamation proceedings resulting in a cumulative sentence of one year and seven months’ imprisonment.
Following the applicant’s appeals, by a final decision of 15 November 2023 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.
Relying on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the alleged unfairness of the domestic proceedings and a violation of his right to freedom of expression.
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? In particular, were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, §§ 205-10, 16 November 2017, and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 3), no. 60824/08, §§ 87-94, 19 January 2023)?
2. 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 the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim? Were the sanctions imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 124-27, ECHR 2015, and Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan, no. 35877/04, 18 December 2008)?
The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings which are not already in the case file, and a translation into English or French of the impugned statements made by the applicant.