THE ARREST OF FATIMA MOVLAMOVA IS A VIVID TESTIMONY OF ONGOING REPRESSIONS IN AZERBAIJAN
Fatima Movlamova
Analysis of violation of law during Fatima Movlamova’s judicial proceeding
Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Baku City of Appeal
Case № 4(103)-244/2025
6 March 2025
Presiding Judge: Zaur Huseynov
Judges: Ali Mammadov, Emin Aliyev
Defendant: Fatima Movlamova
Defender: Azar Rasulov
With the participation of Yaqub Mammadov, a representative of the Department for Supervision over the Law Implementation in Investigative, Inquiry and Operative Search Activities of the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office; and Nijat Osmanov, a police captain, an investigator of the Investigative Unit on Serious Crimes within the Baku City Police Headquarters’ Investigation and Inquiry Department
Fatima Movlamova (born in 2000), a journalist, was detained on 1 March 2025, as part of a criminal case opened on 6 December 2024.
The journalists, Ramin Jabrayilzade (Deko), Aynur Qambarova (Elgunesh), Aytaj Ahmadova (Taptiq), Ulvi Tahirov, Khayala Agayeva, Aysel Umudova, Natiq Javadli, Shamshad Agayev (Aga) and Nurlan Qahramanli (Libre), were also prosecuted in connection with this case. Fatima Movlamova, as well as the above-mentioned journalists, were charged under the Article 206.3.2 (Smuggling committed on preliminary arrangement by group of persons) of the Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic.
The investigator and Prosecutor applied to the Baku City Khatai District Court with a motion and a submission respectively, requesting the Court to issue an order to apply a preventive measure to F. Movlamova in the form of remand in custody for a period of 1 month and 9 days.
On 1 March 2025, the Baku City Khatai District Court, presided over by the Judge Sahiba Hajiyeva, ruled to satisfy the investigator’s motion and the Prosecutor’s submission and imposed a measure of restraint in the form of arrest for a period of 1 month and 9 days against the journalist.
Upon disagreeing with this ruling, the defence objected to the Court of Appeal asking to set aside the ruling ussied on 1 March 2025.
In the course of the trial, the investigator stated that the appeal was unfounded and asked the Court to uphold the ruling of the first instance judgement unchanged.
On 6 March 2025, the Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Baku City of Appeal issued a ruling: to decline the defence’s appeal and leave the Baku City Khatai District Court ruling from 1 March 2025, unchanged.
Commentary by expert lawyer:
The court verdict is unlawful and unjustified.
As the grounds for imposing a measure of restraint in the form of arrest, the Court stated the following reasons:
- the nature of the offence;
- its danger to society;
- the likelihood of concealment from the investigative body;
- obstruction to the investigation and Court normal proceedings;
- the probability of committing a new act stipulated by the criminal law;
- endangering society.
In setting out the above grounds, the Court must have noted the arguments and supporting evidence indicating that F. Movlamova would commit illegal offences if she remained at large.
According to the Article 155.2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Azerbaijan Republic, in resolving the question of the necessity for a restrictive measure and which of them to apply to the specific suspect or accused, the preliminary investigator, investigator, prosecutor in charge of the procedural aspects of the investigation or court shall bear in mind:
- the seriousness and nature of the offence with which the suspect or accused is charged and the conditions in which it was committed;
- his personality, age, health and occupation and his family, financial and social positions, including whether he has dependents and a permanent residence;
- whether he has committed a previous offence, the previous choice of restrictive measure and other significant facts.
Despite the fact that the Court indicated in its ruling that the nature of the committed offence had been considered in imposing the preventive measure, however, the Court did not take into account either the accused’s occupation, or the fact that she had not committed any unlawful deeds in the past, but had just carried out her professional activities in good faith and within the law.
We should focus on one of the grounds upon which the Court imposed the strictest preventive measure on the accused such as the likelihood of concealment from the investigative body and Court.
In regard to the implementation of alternative preventive measures other than arrest, the Article 155.6 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Azerbaijan Republic specifies the following,
“In case of imposing a preventive measure in the form of arrest or alternative preventive measures against an accused person, his/her passport or other document certifying his/her identity shall be confiscated from him/her and attached to the materials of the criminal case file”.
It means that in any case, whether it is arrest or other preventive measure, an ID of the accused person is seized. As we know, a passport is required to cross the border of Azerbaijan. Without the required document, travelling outside the country is impossible, and thus it is practically unfeasible to hide from the investigating authority.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgment, paragraph 60, in the case of Smirnova v. Russia dated 24 July 2003, it stated:
- The danger of absconding cannot be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of the possible sentence; it must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify pre-trial detention. In this context regard must be had in particular to the character of the person involved, his morals, his assets, his links with the State in which he is being prosecuted and his international contacts. – https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-61262
F.Movlamova was in the country at the time of the mass arrests that began between 2023 and 2025, when dozens of public and political figures, activists and journalists were detained. There were no attempts on her part to leave the country. She continued her professional activities while openly saying that she was awaiting her arrest like many other journalists.
Unfortunately, the Court having ordered her isolation from the society did not take into account the above mentioned facts and arrested F. Movlamova, while continuing the repressive politics in the country, hardened over the last couple of years. Furthermore, as noted above, the criminal case against the journalists was initiated on 6 December 2024. However, F.Movlamova did not even made any attempt to hide from the investigative body and Court, had been continuing to reside at the designated address and actively engaged in social networking and journalistic activities.
The Article 156.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Azerbaijan Republic states,
Restrictive measures shall be decided by the preliminary investigator, the investigator, the prosecutor in charge of the procedural aspects of the investigation or the court. The offence committed by the suspect or accused and the grounds for the need to apply a restrictive measure based on the preliminary evidence shall be indicated in the decision on the choice of restrictive measure.
What does it mean to have ‘reasonableness of the suspicion’?
The reasonableness of the suspicion is an important criterion and ground for taking measures to enforce criminal proceedings. The term ‘reasonableness of the suspicion’ is defined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 5, paragraph 1, subparagraph (c).
The ECHR judgment in the case of C.F. v. Germany dated 27 November, 1997, states:
“…the reasonableness of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention which is laid down in Article 5 § 1 (c). Having a “reasonable suspicion” presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned might have committed the offence. However, facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction or even the bringing of a charge, which comes at a later stage of the process of criminal investigation.” – https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58119
At the trial, the journalist testified that her detention had violated the norms of the criminal procedure regulations. Thus, she indicated that the police officers were in civilian clothes and detained her near the metro station, and then forced her in a car with two officers, including a woman. As soon as they put her in the car, they immediately handcuffed her hands, none of the policemen introduced himself, failed to show any relevant identification and did not explain her rights or responsibilities. Two men were involved as witnesses at the time of her house search. One of them was brought in a white car, and the other was taken on the street. Only at her place the investigator showed her his ID card and informed about the reasons for her detention.
According to the Article 91.4 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Azerbaijan Republic, the investigator, prosecutor or court shall guarantee the rights of the accused, shall not prevent him from exercising his right of defence by all lawful means and methods and, if he so requests, shall allow him sufficient time for the preparation of his defence.
The rights of the accused are listed in the Article 91.5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Azerbaijan Republic. Here are some of them:
- to know what he is accused of (content, factual description and legal classification of the charge) and to receive a copy of the corresponding decision immediately after the charge is brought, the accused is remanded in custody or the decision on the choice of restrictive measure is announced;
- to receive written notification of his rights from the person who detained or arrested him or from the preliminary investigator, investigator or prosecutor;
- to acquaint himself with the record of detention and arrest immediately after it is drawn up and to make observations for inclusion in the record;
- to have defence counsel from the time of the arrest or the announcement of the charge;
- to inform his family, relatives, home, workplace or place of study immediately after detention, by telephone or other means;
- to give statements, not to incriminate himself or his relatives and in general to refuse to testify as well as to give or refuse to give statements concerning the charge against him;
- object to the acts of the prosecuting authority and to have such objections noted in the records of investigative and other procedures.
Despite the violation of procedural norms, both the Court of the first instance and Court of Appeal issued rulings to apply a preventive measure of arrest against the journalist.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgment, paragraph 58, in the case of Smirnova v. Russia dated 24 July 2003, it stated:
- A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the continued detention.
In this case, the Courts did not consider the option of applying alternative measures of restraint other than arrest against the journalist, did not indicate in their rulings any specific arguments justifying the isolation of the accused from society, and did not provide any evidence proving that F. Movlamova’s remaining at large would cause a negative reaction in the society. On the contrary, the arrests of F. Movlamova and her colleagues had provoked a negative reaction among the public.
The arrest did not have a legitimate and lawful objective, but instead it was a continuation of the authorities’ repressive policy, permanently violating the fundamental right of an individual e.g. the Right to Liberty and Personal Inviolability guaranteed by the Article 28 of the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic, as well as the European Convention, Article 5(1).
Older Posts »