Communicated on 17 April 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 42781/13 Ilgar RZAYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 10 June 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ilgar Rzayev , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1979. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Mustafazade and Mr A. Mustafayev, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant as well as his mother and brother are members of the opposition Open Society Party. At the time of the events the applicant worked for a real estate company.

On 22 April 2012 the opposition group Ictimai Palata held a demonstration. During the demonstration the applicant ’ s mother gave a speech harshly criticising the Government. According to the press releases submitted by the applicant, during the demonstration the applicant ’ s mother called the President of the country a corrupt official and a dictator.

On 11 May 2012 the applicant was arrested on street near his workplace and brought to the Narcotics Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Once in police custody, the applicant was subjected to bodily search upon which 0.425 grams of heroin was found. On the same date police officers carried out a search in the applicant ’ s flat and found 0,528 grams of heroin. Both searches were carried out in presence of two attesting witnesses.

Later that day, the applicant was brought to the Narimanov District Police Office and charged under Article 234.1 (illegal possession of narcotic substances in an amount exceeding that necessary for personal use without intent to sell) of the Criminal Code. The applicant was remanded in custody pending trial.

On 31 August 2012 the Narimanov District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years ’ imprisonment. In finding against the applicant, the trial court relied on the material evidence, testimonies of police officers and attesting witnesses.

On 19 September 2012 the applicant appealed. The applicant argued, in particular, that the drugs found during his bodily search and search in his flat were planted by the police and that this piece of evidence was inadmissible because the searches were conducted in breach of domestic law.

On 24 October 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. The appellate court ’ s judgment was silent as regards the applicant ’ s complaints concerning the unlawfulness of the searches and planting of evidence by the police.

On 17 April 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant ’ s conviction and dismissed the applicant ’ s above complaints as being unfounded without further explanation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were not fair. In particular, he alleges that his conviction was based on the planted evidence and that he was not given an opportunity to oppose its use.

Relying on 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the real reason for his criminal conviction was his and his family ’ s involvement in political activities and their criticising the Government.

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, were the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was taken and used in the proceedings, fair? Do the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy? Was the applicant given an opportunity of challenging the authenticity of the evidence and of opposing its use?

2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his polit ical views, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 6?

3 Was there a violation of Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6?

The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant.