Chingiz Ganizade
There is an opinion that the arrest of Emin Abdullayev and Adnan Hajizade is related to their public activity. What do you think about it?
As far as I know, the criminal case on Abdullayev and Hajizade has been instituted on the fact of hooliganism. The articles in press about the court hearings also do not say that they were brought to responsibility for their public activity. I think such opinions are groundless.
The statements in press that quote the representatives of foreign countries and foreign political structures say that the investigation and the court proceeding were not transparent and were held in private. What can you say about it?
Investigation on any case must be held in line with procedural legislation. The investigation should involve the convicted persons and their defenders. The defending party must familiarize with all materials of the case. If these main demands are fulfilled, we cannot speak of nontransparent investigation. Moreover, I have never seen in any other countries that the details on criminal investigation are made public. Therefore, I think these claims are unclear.
As for the court process, I would like to note that I have been closely watching it in press. I have never seen information that any court hearing is held in private. The court hearings were held with participation of public as well as representatives of international organizations and embassies of different countries. I consider that information about holding the court hearings in private are groundless.
After the verdict was passed, the CE secretary general, representatives of several embassies and several foreign countries made statements regarding the verdict and the court process. How do you assess these statements?
The statements of the embassies of the foreign countries on the court process on the "bloggers" case that are not based on facts and are aimed at politicizing the issue should be evaluated as a biased attitude to the activity of courts and human rights activists of Azerbaijan and pressure on them.
Due to the statement of the German embassy about the appearance of “new political prisoners” in Azerbaijan, it should be noted that even the CE rappourter on the issue of political prisoners in Azerbaijan Christophe Schtrasser did not use this notion in his statements. The use of the term that has no legal description and has long been causing legal disputes should be assessed as an attempt to politicize the criminal case. Moreover, the spokesman for the German Foreign Ministry forgets that his country also holds a blogger in prison. There have been several statements that there are also arrested bloggers in other European countries.
I have already voiced my opinion regarding the statements that the criminal case and the court proceeding on Abdullayev and Hajizade are connected with their public activity. I think CE Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland should not have voiced groundless opinions.
On the whole, the party that was malcontented with the court proceeding or the verdict may use any legal means to defend its position. Such statements prevent the defense from using legal means and results in irrational defense. In this sense, I do not believe that the statements of international organizations and foreign embassies will promote the release of the two young men. On the contrary, these statements hamper this process.
I think it would be more effective if the two young people and their defenders appeal against the court verdict. I hope the higher court instances will demonstrate a humanistic approach and Abdullayev and Hajizade will be released.
Commentary