In Azerbaijan there is no law observance in respect of citizens

IN AZERBAIJAN THERE IS NO LAW OBSERVANCE IN RESPECT OF CITIZENS

Tofiq Yaqublu

Analysis of violation of law during Tofiq Yaqublu’s judicial proceedings

Baku City Grave Crimes Court

Case № 1(101)-330/2025

10 March 2025

Presiding judge: Elnur Nuriyev

Judges: Судьи: Azer Taqiyev, Kamran Mukhtarov

Defendant: Tofiq Yaqublu

Defenders: Aqil  Layij, Nemat Karimli

The State Prosecutor: Tural Yaqubov, a Prosecutor from the Division for Support of the State Prosecution in Courts on Grave Crimes within the Support of State Prosecution Department at the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Azerbaijan Republic

Tofiq Yaqublu, a well-known political figure in the country, joined the “Musavat” party in 1992. He was the first Deputy Head of the Executive Power of the Baku Binagadi district. He is also a veteran of the first Karabakh war.

Tofiq Yaqublu was arrested for the first time in 1998 and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

On 4 February 2013, he and Ilqar Mammadov, the Chairman of “REAL” party, were arrested in the course of local social disturbances in Ismayilli district of Azerbaijan. I. Mammadov was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment but on 17 March 2016, he was released according to an act of pardon.

In October 2019, T. Yaqublu was detained on an administrative case for malicious disobedience to the official request of the police officer, and sentenced to 30 days of administrative arrest.

Another criminal case against Yaqublu was initiated in 2020 under the Article “Hooliganism”, and on 3 September 2020, the Baku City Nizami District Court found T. Yaqublu guilty in committing the incriminated crime and sentenced him to 4 years of imprisonment. In his final speech, Tofig Yagublu called his case politically motivated. As a sign of protest against the verdict, he went on hunger strike. On 12 September 2020, T. Yaqublu was transferred from the detention center to the hospital due to his poor health condition. On 17th day of his hunger strike, the Baku City Court of Appeal changed Yagublu’s preventive measure to a house arrest. T. Yaqublu ceased his hunger strike, left the hospital and left to home following the Court’s ruling.

On 14 December 2023, T. Yaqublu was charged as a suspect in a criminal case initiated under the Articles 178.3.2 (Swindle, that is maintaining another persons property or buying another persons property by a deceit or breach of confidence, committed by organized group), 320.1 (Fake of certificate or other official document giving the rights or releasing from duties, with a view of its use or selling of such document, as well as manufacturing in same purposes or selling of counterfeit state awards of the Azerbaijan Republic, stamps, seals, forms) and 320.2 (Use of obviously counterfeit documents) of the Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic.

On 15 December 2023, the Baku City Narimanov District Court issued an order: to satisfy the investigator’s petition on arrest and issue a preventive measure against Tofiq Yaqublu in the form of detention for a period of 4 months.

Elnur Mammadov (born in 1979), who worked as the Head of the website ‘’Civil Rights Defence‘’, was brought as a second defendant in the case. He was charged under the same Article as Tofiq Yaqublu.

On 13 December 2023, the Baku City Narimanov District Court issued an order: to satisfy the investigator’s petition on arrest and issue a preventive measure against Elnur Mammadov in the form of detention for a period of 4 months.

According to the investigation, in December 2023, Tofiq Yaqublu was involved in a criminal conspiracy with Elnur Mammadov. The purpose of the conspiracy was to transfer Elshan Huseynov to Germany for work and residency as well as to obtain the German citizenship. Huseynov paid them 25,000 euros and 10,000 manats, while using false documents.

In the course of the investigation, Elshan Huseynov was referred as a victim and civil plaintiff in the criminal case, whereas Tofiq Yaqublu and Elnur Mammadov were accused and charged as civil defendants.

1. Mammadov, interrogated at the trial, pleaded as partially guilty to the charges and testified that he had been working in the media sphere since 2000, and since the summer of 2023 he had been the Head of the website ‘Defence of Civil Rights’. In 2011 and 2018, he was prosecuted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment by the Baku City Grave Crimes Court

E.Mammadov got acquainted with Elshan Huseynov on Facebook. E.Huseynov told him that he had health problems, could not find a job and wanted to relocate to Germany. E.Mammadov promised him to help moving to Germany. They subsequently became acquainted. E. Mammadov recalled that Tofiq Yaqublu had once told him about such an opportunity. T. Yagublu had also mentioned that with the help of the journalist, Qanimat Zahid, living in France, it would be easy to solve the matter if he paid a certain amount of money. E. Mammadov testified that on 5 December 2023, he invited E. Huseynov to meet next to the building of the Baku City Narimanov District Court, where, at that moment, it was a trial on the case of Professor Gubad Ibadoglu; their meeting was arranged in order to introduce E.Mammadov to Tofiq Yaqublu.

At the meeting, T.Yaqublu told him that he had already asked Qanimat Zahid to help and he would do if payed. E.Huseynov replied that he had no such an amount; Tofig Yagublu explained that he should hand over 25,000 euros to Qanimat Zahid and keep 10,000 manats for him (for Tofig Yagublu? or for himself). E. Huseynov gave E. Mammadov his documents, including his passport, and the latter in his turn passed them to T. Yaqublu. On 8 December, 2023, E. Mammadov was to meet E. Huseynov near the ‘Golden Youth’ department store to collect the money that E. Mammadov was to give to Tofiq Yaqublu. E. Mammadov contacted T. Yaqublu by phone and asked him to come to Zabrat settlement in Baku city. There, he handed the money to T. Yaqublu, who took it without counting. Further, the defendant testified that T. Yaqublu sent him two documents via WhatsApp, one of which was a certificate that Elshan Huseynov was allegedly pursued by the Azerbaijani law enforcement agencies, and the other one was a letter signed by Qanimat Zahid. Those documents were supposed to be the grounds for obtaining a residency in Germany. E. Mammadov also testified that he had partially accepted Elshan Huseynov’s civil claim.

Tofiq Yaqublu, interrogated as a defendant at the trial, did not plead guilty to the charges and testified that it was the fourth criminal case on political grounds initiated against him. Moreover, he was repeatedly brought to the administrative liability, and he could hardly remember the number of those detentions.

In fact, Tofiq Yaqublu testified that before Elnur, some unknown person called him saying that he had been following his activities, supporting him and wanted to provide some financial assistance. T. Yaqublu declined his help, and then the man called him again asking to send him the number of his bank account to which he would send the money.  However, Tofiq Yaqublu once again turned down such a help. Then, the man called him again and requested to forward him someone else’s bank account to which he would allegedly forward AZN 60,000. T. Yaqublu had refused to do it. He believed that the figure of 60,000 manats mentioned in the indictment originated precisely out of the above.

1. Yaqublu testified that Elnur Mammadov approached him near the Baku City Narimanov District Court building and said that he would like to support the imprisoned former Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and also asked him to accept his friend request on Facebook. He later spoke to Elnur on 3 November 2023 outside the Narimanov District Court, on 16 November and 5 December 2023, they spoke outside the Baku Court of Appeal. On 3 November 2023, while talking Elnur told him that he had an acquaintance who would like to go abroad. On 29 November he called again saying that he was going to Georgia to hold a press conference and asked if he had any acquaintances there. Tofiq Yaqublu answered negatively to everything.

Then, Mammadov kept calling him a few times, but he did not answer his calls. On social networks, Elnur sent Yagublu some links, but Yagublu did not open any. T. Yaqublu testified that on 8 December 2023, Elnur did not call him at all, as it was stated in the indictment. Elnur appeared in front of the court looking one way, and at other times he was completely different, he had a wig on his head. At first he used the name ‘Elnur Vagifoglu’ and then ‘Elnur Azersoy’. At confrontation, Tofiq Yaqublu asked Elnur about his hair and why at first his hair was bushy while later they were not. To that Elnur replied that he had lost his hair. Yet, T. Yaqublu argued that the hair could not have transformed so much in such a short period of time. He also testified that the Get Contact programme showed among others Elnur’s phone number as “Protez sac shop” (A Wig Shop).

1. Yaqublu noted that Elnur filed a complaint a day later after a visa refusal. To get a visa within a day is an absurdity.
2. Yaqublu revealed that according to the localisation records, the day and time specified in the indictment, Elnur was not in Zabrat settlement but in Mehdiabad village. That fact completely was totally opposite to the version of the investigation. He claimed that he had gone out of the house at 13.50 that day, joined Kenan Zeynalov to attend the meeting of the ‘National Council of Democratic Forces’, that started at 15.00, and returned home at 18.00. At the time when Elnur was in Zabrat settlement, he was in Pirshaghi settlement.

During the interrogation of Mammadov, Tofiq Yaqublu asked him where he had written the complaint, but he was unable to recall.

1. Yaqublu explained to the Court many more nuances and discrepancies in the criminal case initiated against him.

Elshan Huseynov, questioned as a victim and civil plaintiff before the Court, testified that he got acquainted with Elnur Mammadov accidentally on Facebook. He introduced himself as a journalist and offered his help if needed. Elshan Huseynov told him about his health issues, and that he would like to go abroad, though he had never been anywhere. Elnur Mammadov said that he could help him with that, as well as with obtaining a residency permit and later on citizenship in Germany. He did not believe to Elnur Mammadov, but the latter mentioned that he knew Tofiq Yaqublu who had connections and would be able to provide his support in that matter. On 5 December 2023, they met near the Baku City Narimanov District Court. Elnur told him that Tofiq Yaqublu had already discussed the matter with Qanimat Zahid. They asked 60,000 manat (25,000 euros and 10,000 manat roughly equals to 60,000 manat).

Elnur Mammadov wanted to meet Tofiq Yaqublu near the courthouse, but the latter said that there were a lot of people around, that there was no need to worry, the case would be done. On 8 December 2023, Elshan Huseynov met Elnur Mammadov near the ‘Golden Youth’ department store and handed him money. Afterwards, Elnur Mammadov switched off his phone and did not answer his calls. Elshan Huseynov addressed to the 102 service of the Azerbaijani Ministry of Internal Affairs, claiming that he had been defrauded. He was summoned to the 16th station of the Baku City Narimanov District Police Department, where he filed a complaint and provided testimony. At the trial, E.Huseynov testified that there was no amicable agreement between the two men, so he had completed financial claims in amount of 25 000 euro and 10 000 manats that he asked to be reimbursed.

Amil Dadashev, questioned as a witnes at the trial, testified that he was Elshan Huseynov’s friend. At the beginning of December 2023, he asked to lend him 10 000 manats and said that he had acquainted with a certain Elnur on Facebook; who promised to help him to travel to Germany and obtain a residency permit there with the assistance of Tofig Yagublu. A. Dadashev advised him to be careful as there were many fraudsters who took money and then fled. He lent money to Elshan Huseynov, and the latter, in his turn, promised to reimburse his debt in a couple of months as soon as he would settle in Germany. Two months later, when Amil Dadashev called Elshan Huseynov to pay back the debt, the latter said that he had had some problems. He also said that Elnur Mammadov had entered into a criminal conspiracy with T. Yaqublu and they had cheated on him. An investigation is underway on this matter.

Elshan Huseynov promised to return the money in a matter of month, which he did in February 2024.

Saadat Huseynova, Elshan Huseynov’s, questioned as a witness before the Court, confirmed Elshan Huseynov’s testimony and also mentioned that her husband has gone as far as Israel to get medical treatment.

Maya Yaqublu, Tofiq Yaqublu’s wife, also questioned as a witness testified that the police officers came into their home in the evening. She asked them to wait a bit in order to to give her time contacting her daughter before they entered the house. However, the policemen disregarded her request and entered the house along with the men in black masks. At the beginning, they inspected first the upstairs and then the downstairs of the house where they placed the money. She testified that they did not inspect any other places until they found that money.  Maya Yaqublu also explained that she had a chance not to open the door at all, but when she found out that there were the police officers, she did it. They did not ask her about the money. When the policemen searched the top floor, they only checked the place under the pillow. Then, they confiscated a computer, 4-5 notebooks, a phone notebook and a few other things belonging to their son.

Kenan Zeynalov, questioned as a witness at the trial, testified that on 8 December 2023, he went together with T. Yaqublu to the meeting of the ‘National Council of Democratic Forces’ (NCDF). He noted that at 13.45 he was at Tofiq Yaqublu’s house, where there was a black car, which attracted his attention. Moving along the road in Bakikhanov settlement, he observed that the car had been following them. K. Zeynalov told it to T. Yaqublu. The car followed them as far as Zabrat settlement. Then they drove ahead of the lorry, after which the black car disappeared from sight. The witness also testified that they had arrived at the place 20 minutes earlier than the other participants. The meeting started at 2.40 p.m. and ended at 7.10 p.m. The participants switched off their phones during the meeting leaving them in another room. When the meeting was over, Tofiq Yaqublu’s phone was switched on. When they were returning home, they did not stop anywhere on the way. For safety reasons, he was alongside T. Yaqublu. He dropped T. Yaqublu off near the mosque.

Mr Vidadi Mirkamal, a witness, testified that the NCDF meetings were held at his house as they were not provided any other place. He noted that on 8 December 2023, it was the NCDF emergency meeting; T. Yaqublu arrived as usual earlier than the others. The meeting ended at 7.00 pm, Tofiq Yaqublu did not leave the place until the end of the meeting. T. Yaqublu sent to the WhatsApp group a message about the surveillance. He came together with Kenan Zeynalov, with whom he had been recently seen together.

Witness Huseyn Malikov testified that on the day of the trial in the case against Gubad Ibadoglu, while talking to T. Yagublu, Elnur Mammadov approached them. He was holding some documents. T. Yaqublu warned H.Malikov to be careful because Elnur Mammadov was an authority type. The witness indicated that he had seen him outside the courthouse on several occasions during the Gubad Ibadoglu trial.

It can be found in the record of confrontation between T. Yaqublu and E. Mammadov that E. Mammadov confirmed that Tofiq Yaqublu had promised to help him to move to Germany through his connections for 25,000 euros and 10,000 manats, and that on 8 December 2023, he handed over the money to T. Yaqublu outside the ‘Golden Youth’ department store.

As confirmed by the protocol of Elnur Mammadov’s mobile phone inspection, he sent voice messages to Elshan Huseynov.

A certificate of the organisation ‘Democracy for the sake of Azerbaijan’ (AND) dated 19 October 2023, and signed by Qanimat Zahid was found in E. Mammadov’s mobile phone.

Based on the case materials, it is evident that the data seized from Elshan Huseynov’s mobile phone is identical to the data of Elnur Mammadov’s phone.

The conclusions of forensic psychiatric examinations dated 30 December 2023, and 26 February 2024, revealed that Elnur Mammadov and Tofiq Yaqublu did not suffer from any mental disorders and did not require any compulsory medical treatment.

From the mobile phone extracts and location data submitted by T. Yaqublu to the Court, it can be seen that the name of Elnur Mammadov was registered ‘Protez sac shop’, i.e. ‘Prosthetic hair shop’, on the list of Get Contact.

From the mobile phone extracts and location data submitted by T. Yaqublu to the Court, E.Mammadov ‘s callmade on 30 November 2023. was stored as ‘Elnur Azersoy FB’.

From the same data taken from T. Yaqublu’s mobile phone on 8 December 2023, there were phonecalls made by his daughter Nigar and others by means of WhatsApp. However, there were no calls made by either E. Mammadov or E. Huseynov among coming callers.

1. Yaqublu’s WhatsApp phone application, there was a written message to the NCDF group saying that he had seen something suspicious near his house mentioning the car licenseplate parked next to his house.

The extract from the indictment provided to T. Yaqublu and submitted to the Court as evidence could be proved that neither T. Yaqublu nor E. Mammadov in Zabrat settlement on 8 December 2023, should be excluded, since the satellite data revealed their presence in totally other locations.

The detailed satellite data submitted by T. Yaqublu to the Court demonstrated that on 29 November 2023, E. Mammadov made a call to T. Yagublu’ telephone number.

The data submitted by T. Yaqublu to the Court proved that on 14 November 2023, between 11:23 and 11:29, Tofiq Yaqublu had not been anywhere near the Baku City Narimanov District Court but in the area of the Baku City Sabunchu and Baku City Khatai districts.

Moreover, the same data registered on 14 November 2023, between 11:10 and 11:12, indicated E.Mammadov’s presence near the Baku City Narimanov District Court, then he headed towards the bus station, whereas T. Yaqublu was elsewhere at that time.

The same data showed that E.Mammadov had not called T. Yaqublu on 8 December 2023.

The satellite data submitted by T. Yaqublu to the Court indicated that on 8 December 2023, at 15:51, T. Yaqublu had been in Mehdiabad settlement, and at 16:44, in Goradil settlement, thus, on that day at 16:00, T. Yaqublu had not been in the area of ‘Ganjlik’ metro station.

1. Yaqublu’s defence also submitted to the Court the extracts from the Get Contact application concerning E.Mammadov’s phone number, where he was identified as ‘Elshen Mehkeme’ (‘Elshan’s court’), ‘Elshen Polisde Ish Halleden’ (‘Elshan who settles cases in the police’), ‘Elshan Xezer Polisi Shahid’ (‘Elshan is a witness of the Khazar police’), etc.

Tofiq Yaqublu submitted to the court an extract from the screen of his mobile phone, which shows that on 18 and 19 December 2023, he received a notification of email hacking, through which there was interference on Facebook. He explained that the interference by the investigator who requested his ID was indeed the reason of the messages sought by the investigation.

As a proof of T. Yaqublu’s defence there were submitted some extracts from the website “kaim.az”, containing the information about establishing a committee on protection of Mikhail Saakashvili’s rights with Elnur Mammadov’s photo. On that photo Elnur Mammadov had an entirely different look: thick hair and wearing glasses.

The disc presented to the court by T. Yaqublu shows that during the search of Yaqublu’s house, his wife Maya Yaqublu says that the police entered the bedroom, where they only examined the chest of drawers. They did not search the comod or wardrobe in the bedroom. The police did not inspect either the storage room on the balcony or wardrobe on the top of the staircase. They did not search one of the rooms at all.

On the disc and four photos submitted by T. Yaqublu to the Court can be seen that on 26 October 2023, T. Yaqublu was indeed near the Baku City Narimanov District Court whereas E. Mammadov was not there; E. Mammadov was there on 14 and 16 November 2023, but T. Yaqublu was not.

However, the Court concluded that T. Yaqublu’s denial of his guilt and his testimony about the case fabrication had not found evidentiary basis and was in the nature of self-defence.

The testimony of T. Yaqublu’s wife, Maya Yaqublu, was not considered irrefutable by the Court. The Court took into account their conjugal status as defence.

Having assessed the submitted materials by T. Yaqublu’s defence as evidence, the Court considered that the origin, provenance and accuracy of such evidences had been unknown; besides, those evidences had not been substantiated by the case materials and therefore could not be regarded as irrefutable.

In determining the imposition of punishment, the Court took into account E. Mammadov’s medical condition. In accordance with the existing case file documents, E. Mammadov was diagnosed with ‘sensorimotor axonal polyneuropathy’.

The Court did not find any circumstances mitigating E.Mammadov’s guilt. However, his previous conviction was considered as an aggravating circumstance by the Court.

The Court didn’t find any circumstances mitigating T. Yaqublu’s guilt either. However, his unexpunged criminal record was considered as an aggravating circumstance. On 10 March 2025, the Baku Court of Serious Crimes issued a verdict: to declare Tofiq Yaqublu and Elnur Mammadov guilty of the charges brought against them and sentence them:

• Yaqublu to 9 -year imprisonment with serving the sentence in a general regime penal institution;
• Mammadov to 8-year deprivation of liberty to be served in a strict regime penal institution.

In protest against the wrongful conviction, T. Yaqublu has started a hunger strike on 1 April 2025. He stated that he would continue his hunger strike until the sentence was overturned and the persecution against him ceased. Yaqublu also said that his hunger strike would either end with his release or death.

Currently, Tofiq Yaqublu’s health is visibly deteriorating with each passing day.

On 26 April 2025, on the twenty-sixth day of his hunger strike, T. Yaqublu was transferred to a medical facility of the Penitentiary Service. However, notwithstanding that, T. Yaqublu’s condition is still serious and health-threatening.

 

Commentary by expert lawyer:

The court verdict is unlawful and unjustified.

The Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic, Article 7, defines the State as democratic, law-based, secular and unitary.

Apart from the National Law provisions, Azerbaijan has ratified several International Treaties, such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and others.

As a member of the European Council, one of the obligations undertaken by Azerbaijan is to align the National Law norms with the norms of the International Treaties. In case of contradiction, the International Norms prevail (Constitution, Article 151).

It is the fourth time that Tofiq Yaqublu has been prosecuted. Unfortunately, the unlawful sentences imposed on him are related to his long-standing political activities. The monitoring of court hearings against Tofiq Yaqublu reveals that there are many inconsistencies, contradictions, deficiencies, lack of evidence, obvious subordination of the judicial power from the executive one, and the interference of executive authorities in the court rulings. It is precisely for this reason that there is no doubt about T. Yaqublu’s innocence, and both local and international human rights organisations recognise him as a political prisoner calling upon the Azerbaijani authorities to immediately release Tofiq Yaqublu.

The latest criminal prosecution was not an exception and, like the previous cases, was full of contradictions, falsification of evidence, the Court’s denial of the defence evidences, and the one-sided position presented by the prosecution. In this case, the Court actually took the same side as the prosecution.

While one of the basic criminal procedure principles is to protect a individual and citizen from violations of his rights and freedoms, T. Yaqublu turned out to be one-on-one with the investigation authority and  Court. However, the obvious preponderance of the submitted evidences by T. Yaqublu’s defence to the Court proved his  innocence. That fact did not evoke any doubts in the minds of anyone about the criminal case political motivation and falsification.

It is necessary to consider the evidence of both sides – the defence and prosecution – in order to be certain.

1. Yaqublu submitted location data to the Court. The data revealed that 15:51 on 8 December 2023, T. Yaqublu was in Mehdiabad settlement, and at 16:44 in Goradil village, therefore, that day at 16:00 he could not be in the area of ‘Ganjlik’ station, as it was stated in the case file.

In addition, between 11:23 and 11:29 a.m. on 14 November 2023, Yaqublu was not around the Baku City Narimanov District Court, as stated in the indictment, but in the area of the Baku City Sabunchu and Khatai districts.

The very same day, E. Mammadov was indeed near Baku City Narimanov District Court between 11:10 and 11:12 a.m., and then headed towards the bus station, while T. Yaqublu was elsewhere during that time.

As can be discerned, the localisation data provided by the prosecution as evidence on the the defendants’ locations does not correspond to the defence’s ones.

Regarding the defence evidences, the Court articulated their opinions in such a way that the source and origin of those evidences were unknown, therefore they cannot be accepted as irrefutable, whereas the Court must rely upon the evidences examined at the trial when rendering its ruling.

According to the Article 138.2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic,

The prosecutor shall be responsible for proving the grounds for the criminal responsibility of the accused and whether or not he is guilty.

The Article 143.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic states,

In accordance with this Code, defence counsel authorised to participate in criminal proceedings shall have the right, for the purpose of providing legal assistance, to present evidence and collect information, including the right to receive explanations from individuals and to request memoranda, references and other documents from various organisations and associations.

According to the Article 143.4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic,

The suspect, accused, defence counsel, prosecutor, victim, civil party, defendant to the civil claim and their representatives, and individuals and legal entities, shall have the right to present objects and documents as well as oral and written information which may be regarded as evidence.

1. Yaqublu’s defence as well as himself took advantage of the above rights and provided proof to the Court that completely defeated the accusation and proved his innocence.

The Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic states, that evidence collected for the purposes of prosecution shall be verified fully, thoroughly and objectively. As part of the verification process the items of evidence collected shall be analysed and compared with one another, new evidence shall be collected and the reliability of the source of the evidence obtained shall be established.

However, as stated above, the Court just emphasized that the evidence submitted by T. Yaqublu had no reliable source. In such a case, the Court was obliged to take the initiative in identifying the source, as well as compare and assess the submitted evidence.

If suspicions which emerge during the process of proving the charge cannot be removed by other evidence, they shall be interpreted in favour of the suspect or accused (Article 145.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic).

The adequacy of evidences is essential to all proceedings. According to the Article 146.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic,

The notion that sufficient evidence has been collected for the prosecution means that the amount of evidence on the facts to be determined is such as to allow a reliable and final conclusion to be reached on the case.

The Court totally rejected all the evidentiary facts in favour of T. Yaqublu. Thus, his testimony as a defendant, testimonies provided by his wife, witnesses and the evidence submitted by his defence, on the pretext of being defensive and not having a reliable source, so being irrelevant to the prosecution. Therefore, all of them were rejected by the Court.

The Court accepted the forensic dactyloscopic examination conclusions concerning the presence of T. Yaqublu’s fingerprints on the seized banknotes as binding.  The Article 127.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic states, that the  expert’s opinion shall not be binding on the preliminary investigator, investigator, prosecutor or court; it shall be checked by the prosecuting authority in the same way as any other evidence and evaluated in the light of all the relevant facts.

It once again indicates that all the evidences analysed in the course of the trial are assessed in relation to each other. If there are doubts whether the evidence is true and correct, they must be either eliminated or interpreted in favour of the defendant.

According to observers, the Judge guided Elshan Huseynov, who was recognised by the investigation as a victim, and the second defendant, Elnur Mammadov, when questioning them and literally advised what they should reply to the defence’s questions. They refused to answer those questions that would cast doubt on the prosecution.

According tot he Article 8 of the Law of the Azerbaijan Republic On Courts and Judges, justice is administered in compliance with the principle of ensuring independence of judges without any restrictions, and in a fact based, impartial, just and lawful manner.

The Article 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic states, that duties of judges The judges shall perform the following duties:

• comply with the statutory requirements precisely and implicitly and secure moral and educational impact of judicial activity, and to be just and impartial in the course of administration of justice;
• maintain the secrecy of deliberation and of information revealed at the closed court sessions;
• refrain from any act harming prestige of justice; good name, honor and dignity of a judge. Other duties of the judges shall be provided by the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The defendant’s rights were also violated by the officers of the Penitentiary Service through the confiscation of Yagublu’s notes relating to the criminal case file that he was supposed to use for his defence at the Court hearing. The Article 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan states,

1. Everyone has the right to protect his/her rights and freedoms using ways and means not prohibited by law.

In the course of investigation, Elshan Huseynov testified that he had never been to Israel or any other country, while his wife testified otherwise. At the trial it was found out that Huseynov cooperates with the special services of Israel, and that he was considering travelling to Israel, Germany or Belarus for medical treatment but finally decided to go to Germany. The defence revealed the fact of Huseynov’s intentionally false testimony and pointed out that it cast doubt on the truthfulness of his testimony regarding T. Yaqublu.

Furthermore, in the course of trial, it became clear that E. Huseynov’s mobile phone number, indicated in the investigation materials, was not his real one. The defence found out his actual number and applied with a motion to the Court providing the satelite data of his phone numberduring the relevant periods of time. However, the Court denied that motion, along with a litigation motion filed by the defence.

According tot he Article 121.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic,

Reasons shall be given for the decision taken on an application or request, together with an assessment of the applicant’s arguments. Applications and requests for any matters connected with the prosecution to be examined thoroughly, fully and objectively under the required legal procedure, and for the violated rights and legal interests of the parties to the criminal proceedings and of other participants in the proceedings to be restored, may not be rejected.

In the course of trial, the defence repeatedly asked to modify the measure of restraint. But the Court dismissed those motions on the grounds that T. Yaqublu could interfere with the preliminary investigation. The Court’s reaction was at least absurd, and at most it violated the criminal procedure law, as at that stage the preliminary investigation of the case had been completed and the case was transferred to the Court for consideration.

According tot he Article 299.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic, in all cases, during the preparatory hearing of the court with the participation of the parties to the proceedings, the following matters shall be examined:

• whether the criminal case file, the file on simplified pre-trial proceedings or the complaint with a view to a private prosecution received by the court are within its jurisdiction or not;
• whether the requirements of this Code were violated during the investigation;
• whether there are grounds for suspending or discontinuing the criminal proceedings;
• whether there are grounds for choosing, altering or cancelling a restrictive measure in respect of the criminal case.

Despite that, the Court delivered an absurd judgement on the issue of changing the preventive measure and failed to terminate the criminal prosecution against T. Yaqublu.

The defence claims that the testimonies voiced at the trial were distorted in drafting the verdict.

The Decision of the Azerbaijani Constitutional Court Plenum on Sentencing dated 9 September, 2005, is stipulated as follows:

A Court verdict resolves such vital issues as an ind vidual’s guilt or innocence. Therefore, according to the Procedural Law, a judgement must be lawful and well-grounded (Article 349.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic).

A Court verdict shall be considered lawful if it was rendered in compliance with the AR Constituon provisions, Code of Criminal Procedure, criminal and other legislation of the Azerbaijan Republic (Articles 10.1, 349.4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic). A judgement may be considered lawful when its form and content meet the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Criminal Law or other legal acts of the Azerbaijan Republic. Every issue to be considered in the verdict shall be resolved only on the basis of the legislation requirements.

The Article 349.5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic states, that in the following cases the court judgment shall be considered well-founded:

• if the conclusions at which the court arrives are based only on the evidence examined during the court’s investigation of the case;
• if the evidence is sufficient to assess the charge;
• if the facts established by the court are consistent with the evidence investigated.

According to the requirements of the above article, one of the main conditions for the validity of a court judgement is that the conclusions reached by the court must be based only on the evidence examined in the court investigation. This means that the court in the verdict may refer exclusively to the evidence examined in the court investigation in the manner prescribed by Articles 325-337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic.

The court judgement must refer to the evidences either confirming or refuting its conclusion on a particular issue.

One more condition for the court verdict validity is the conformity of the circumstances set forth in the verdict with the evidence examined in the course of judicial enquiry. The Article 28.5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Azerbaijan Republic states, that the court decision regarding the guilt of the person charged may not be based on opinion but shall be supported by all the reliable evidence concerning the case.

The presumption of innocence is set out in the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republiс, Article 63, as one of the most important human rights protections. According to the Article 63 para II of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan,

A person under well-grounded suspicions of crime may not be considered guilty.

In accordance with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, anyone facing any criminal charge shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by the law. Any person accused of an offence shall be considered innocent until his/her guilt is proven as provided by the law. The provisions set out in these Articles and the principles forming its core are also enshrined in the National Legislation. “In general, from the standpoint of procedural safeguards related to the protection of the rights of the accused and their defense counsel, the consideration and evaluation of all evidence in court during the merits of the case, as well as ensuring the equality of procedural rights of both the prosecution and the defense, are of significant importance in upholding the principle of the presumption of innocence.”

Summing up the above, we can definitely state that T. Yaqublu has been subjected to a serious violation of the following rights enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: the right to defence (Article 6, paragraph 3), the Right to Presumption of Innocence (Article 6, paragraph 2), the Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6, paragraph 1), the Right to an Effective Judicial Procedure (Article 13), as well as the fundamental right in any democratic society e.g. the Right to Liberty and Security of the Person (Article 5, paragraph 1).