The Qazakh District Court issued a verdict against Gozel Bayramli
Gozel Bayramly
Analysis of violation of law during Gozel Bayramli’s judicial proceedings
Qazakh District Court
Case no. 1(023)-4/2018
January 23, 2018
Presiding Judge: Agarza Samedov
Public Prosecutor: Vasif Salimov
Accused: Gozel Bayramly
Defenders: Elchin Sadiqov, Bahruz Bayramov
On May 25, 2017 Deputy Chairwoman of the opposition Popular Front Party, member of the National Council of Democratic Forces – Gozel Bayramli was detained on her way crossing Georgian – Azerbaijan border, at Azerbaijan Republic “Shixli” passport control checkpoint located at Qazakh region by the employees of State Border Service of AR.
As per Gozel Bayramli testimony, around 8:40 pm, she approached the passport control checkpoint on Azerbaijan border. There she was informed that the system to check identification was not working. Later the system started working. After G. Bayramli passport details were entered into the system, she was asked to follow into the inspection room.
Escorted by the employees of the State Border Services of AR and before reaching the customs supervision zone, she was brought with all her belongings inside the inspection room. According to Gozel Bayramli, she felt that something was put stealthily in her bag while she was passing through non illuminated part of the route. Afterwards, during the search the plastic bag with 12 thousands U.S. dollars was found in her bag. Gozel Bayramli claimed that those were not her money. But she was detained.On the following day, on May 26, 2017, she was brought to Baku around 6 pm, where she was interrogated at the administrative building of the State Border Service of AR. After interrogation, she was accused in the execution of crime under Article 206.1(smuggling) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Attorneys did not agree with the accusation and filed the motion on carrying out fingerprintingforensic expertise on the presence of Gozel Bayramly fingerprints on the plastic bag and on the cash; and the motion on the seizure of the videos from the surveillance cameras at “Shixli” checkpoint.
Without examining these motions, Investigative Body of the State Border Service applied to the court with the request of issuance of the arrest warrant for Gozel Bayramli.
On May 26, 2017 around 11.30 pm Baku City Sabayil District Court examined the request of Investigative Body to issue the arrest warrant. The attorneys filed again the motions on assignment of fingerprinting forensic expertise and on seizure of the video from the surveillance cameras, but the court declined these motions. Baku City Sabayil District court granted the request of the State Border Service on issuance of the arrest warrant and made the decision on application of the restrictive measures against Gozel Bayramli in form of imprisonment for the period of three months.
Not agreeing with the given decision, the attorneys filed the appeal. On June 2nd, 2017, Baku Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and left the decision of Baku City Sabayil District court from May 26, 2017 unchanged.
After the investigation the criminal case was referred to Qazakh district court. During the trial was interrogated as a witness investigator of Customs Department from Tovuz district Hasan Mahmudov who says that he didn’t see how was money found on Gezal Bayramly.
The lawyers of the defendant have applied to court with several motions:
– ordered fingerprints of G.Bayramli into packet and banknotes;
– exemption of CCTV cameras between 25 and 26 May 2017, in which is clear that banknotes was planted to G.Bayramli by members of the State Border Services and State Customs Committee;
– to change of the preventive measure from arrest to other measure which do not involve incarceration. But court did not grant the defence motion.
The lawyer of accused also motioned the court to summon of additional witnesses. Thus, during the preliminary investigation the chairman of Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan Ali Kerimli, members of National Council Democratic Forces Gultakin Hadjibeyli and Solmaz Huseynova were interrogated. The had shown that G.Bayramli didn’t commit any crimes. However, since then the names of this witnesses were erased from the list which annexed to the indictment and was sent to trial. But court dismissed the defence motion for subpoena this witnesses.
Gozel Bayramli itself repeatedly declared during the trial that proof of her innocence are videos from surveillance cameras of State Border Service. However, despite repeated the defence motion, these videos were not represented in court.
At the end of the trial the Prosecutor made an accusatory speech and requested the court to recognize G.Bayramli guilty of an offence and called for her to be sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. The defence insisted on full innocence of the defendant and requested the judgment of acquittal.
On January 23, 2018 the Qazakh District Court found G. Bayramli guilty of the charge and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.
Commentary by an expert lawyer:
A court verdict is illegal, unreasonable and unmotivated.
Before passing the border G. Bayramli was held skanner inspection, which was clearly seen everything that was on her and her things. The scanner inspection did not catch any money. It proves once again G. Bayramli’s innocence. Otherwise she would be detained on examination place.
According to Article 206.1. of Criminal Code of Azerbaijan Republic, includes G.Bayramli, the offence is formed when a person transferred across the state border goods without customs control or with use of illegal documents or customs identification means or if incorrectly declare goods or does not declared goods.
Meanwhile, from the case file revealed that the money in the bag of G.Bayramli were found when she don’t yet crossed the border.
Thus, based on the above-mentioned facts criminal charges against G. Bayramli should be filed according to article 39.1.1. of Criminal Procedure Code of the Azerbaijan Republic (CPC of AR). In this article states that the criminal proceedings may not be instituted, and instituted is subject to be eliminated in the event of absence of crime.
From case file also revealed that the witnesses involved in the verification of goods, were not explained their rights and responsibilities set out in article 94 of CCP of AR. In addition, they were not clarified the right to objection. G. Bayramli also was not explained the right to challenge of witnesses. This fact is a ground for exclusion of their testimony from the list of evidence.
As mentioned above, during the pre-trial investigation and the trial the defence had filed a number of motions, directly relate to the case. However, the defence motions were rejected. If the appeal is granted, G. Bayramli’s innocence is would be easy and fully proved.
Denial of motions relating to case are not provided by the criminal procedure law. According to article 121.2. of the CPC of AR, “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”.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is one of the main legal acts for the member states of the Council of Europe. According to article 46 of the European Convention, the states which ratified the Convention acceptance of the European Court of Human Rights compulsory jurisdiction and enforced of its judgments.
During the trial was violated the principle of equality between parties and the adversarial principle provided by article 6 (1) of the European Convention. The European Court of Human Rights categorically stated that the right to a fair trial took such place in democratic society that limited interpretation of article 6 (1) of the Convention is unacceptably. The implementation the principle of equality between parties in legal proceedings is the basis of democratic society (decision of ECHR in the case Moreira de Azevedo v. Portugal from August 28, 1991, paragraph 40). http://freecases.eu/Doc/CourtAct/4525048
The principle of equality between parties before the law and courts is enshrined also in article 25 of the Constitution and in article 11.1. CCP of the Azerbaijan Republic.
In the case of G. Bayramli the investigation and courts showed clear disrespect to this principle. Based on opinion of Prosecution were rejected the reasonable petitions of defence, and arguments of the defendant and her lawyers were not taken into account and carefully investigated.
In addition, during the trial many inconsistencies and contradictions have been exposed, concerning both the the investigative documents and testimonies of witnesses, witnesses and accused. All these inconsistencies the defence tried overcome through means provided by law, namely filed motions, appeals and complaints. However, these contradictions have not been resolved by court. These contradictions did not benefit the accused, as it is provided in article 63 (II) of the Constitution and in article 21.2. CCP of the Azerbaijan Republic
Finally, the investigation and court was aware that G.Bayramli is suffering a number of serious illness (arthritis of jaw, blood disease, etc.). Defence more than once appealed to the investigation and court petition to change of preventive measure of G.Bayramli. However the court disregarded age, personality and accuses of the accused a serious illnesses, didn’t access medical documents and did not changed the measure of restraint. Thus, are a violation of article 3 of the European Convention, which prohibits inhuman treatment even in situations of military conflict or fight against terrorism. This article does not have limitations and it operates in all situations. Thus, unmotivated, unreasonable and illegal sentence is flagrantly violates the fundamental rights and freedoms provided by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.