Published on 5 June 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 10952/17 Khadija ISMAYILOVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 28 January 2017 communicated on 15 May 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns criminal proceedings against an investigative journalist resulting in her criminal conviction for an allegedly defamatory post she published on Facebook in 2011.

By a final decision of 28 June 2016 (notified to the applicant on 28 July 2016), the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court convicting the applicant under Article 147.2 (slander by accusation of having committed a serious or especially serious criminal offence) of the Criminal Code and sentencing her to a fine in the amount of 2,500 Azerbaijani manats (approximately 1,500 euros at the material time) in the framework of the private prosecution proceedings instituted by E.H. The domestic courts held that the applicant slandered him in her Facebook post, which allegedly had been deleted later, by accusing him of rape committed in 1992. In the domestic proceedings, the applicant argued that there had been no reliable evidence proving that she published a post with that content in 2011.

The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention and Article 10 of the Convention that she was convicted on the basis of inadmissible evidence, and that her motions to hear a particular witness were refused and that the domestic courts’ decisions were in breach of her freedom of expression.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a public and fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the use of evidence against her and to examine a particular witness against her?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim? Was the sanction imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued?

3. The parties are requested to submit documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including transcripts of the court hearings, and translation into English or French of the impugned post published by the applicant which led to her criminal conviction.