Communicated on 11 September 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 959/15 Hilal Alif oglu MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 24 December 2014

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant, who was a journalist and civil society activist, for drug dealing, high treason and incitement to ethnic, racial, social or religious hatred and hostility. The applicant claims that the criminal case against him was fabricated and that he was convicted on the basis of “planted” evidence. He also claims that the use of his various writings, interviews and articles as evidence for his criminal conviction amounted to a violation of his freedom of expression.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts establish the existence of all the elements of the criminal offences of which the applicant was convicted and provide reasons for their decisions? Was the applicant ’ s conviction based on unlawfully obtained evidence? Was the applicant provided with legal assistance from the moment of his arrest? If so, was his lawyer present during the searches conducted on the applicant ’ s person and in his flat?

2. Has there been a public hearing in the present case, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? If not, w as the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?

4. Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?

5. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention as a result of his criminal conviction? In particular, was his criminal conviction related to the exercise of his freedom of expression? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?