Published on 28 August 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 44088/18 Elgiz GAHRAMAN against Azerbaijan lodged on 30 August 2018 communicated on 10 July 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant resulting in his criminal conviction for illegal drug possession.

By a final decision of 29 November 2017 of the Supreme Court, the applicant was convicted of illegal possession of a narcotic substance without intent to sell and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The decision was notified to the applicant on 1 March 2018.

The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention that his conviction was based on planted evidence, that the charges against him were fabricated, and that the criminal proceedings were instituted in order to punish him for a post he had published on Facebook in 2016 making a remark about a member of the President’s family.

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:

(a) Was the applicant’s conviction based on unlawfully obtained evidence? Were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence against him and to oppose its use?

(b) Was the search of the applicant’s person conducted immediately following his arrest? Was the applicant’s body search in accordance with domestic law? (see Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan , no. 51164/07, § 53, 12 November 2015, and Layijov v. Azerbaijan , no. 22062/07, § 74, 10 April 2014).

(c) Was the applicant provided with legal assistance from the moment of his arrest? Was the search carried out in presence of a lawyer (see Sakit Zahidov , cited above, § 54)?

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?

3. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the applicant’s case, purportedly pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?

The parties are requested to submit evidence in support of their replies and submissions concerning the criminal proceedings (transcripts of statements, expert reports, search records, search video, and so on).