CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 17 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .sF5553F6A { width:108.07pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s6A0CAB2 { width:8.86%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s5CC81063 { width:10.36%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAF59DB8E { width:11.02%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s70DA68BF { width:17.44%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAB033CB2 { width:12.92%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s880F2912 { width:21.96%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6DD8933 { width:8.86%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sCEECE23C { width:10.36%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC959AA46 { width:11.02%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC909C7DD { width:17.44%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s1AA691CE { width:12.92%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6E29B004 { width:21.96%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF GULIYEV AND SAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 5878/17 and 82482/17)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 17 February 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Guliyev and Safarov v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos. 5878/17 and 82482/17) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Azerbaijani nationals, Nijat Amir oglu Guliyev (“the first applicant”) and Rufat Eldar oglu Safarov (“the second applicant”), whose details are set out in the appended table; the decisions to give notice of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (raised by both applicants), Article 6 § 3 (b) (raised by the second applicant), Article 6 § 3 (c) (raised by the first applicant), Article 6 § 3 (d) (raised by both applicants), Article 8 (raised by the first applicant), Article   10 (raised by the second applicant), Article 13 (raised by the first applicant) and Article 18 (raised by both applicants) to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The present case concerns alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicants. The applicants, who had been prosecuted in separate, unrelated proceedings, complained, inter alia , that those proceedings had been in breach of various fair-trial guarantees in particular because they had been convicted on the basis of fabricated or otherwise unreliable evidence. The applicants also alleged that the proceedings had been brought for political reasons. CHARGES AGAINST THE APPLICANTS 2.     The first applicant was an entrepreneur. In the 1990s he served as the Minister of Foreign Commercial Relations. At the time of the events, the first applicant was portrayed in the mass media as having connections with or being an informal member of an oppositional political group, Milli Shura. 3.     The second applicant was an investigator at the Zardab District prosecutor’s office. On 20 December 2015 he made a statement on social media and several mass media outlets, criticising the authorities, including the prosecuting authorities, and announcing his resignation from his position and his joining the political opposition. On the following day, he was dismissed from his position. The dismissal order emphasised that the second applicant had breached the relevant code of ethics, as he had disseminated defamatory information in the mass media. On the same day, 21 December 2015, the Prosecutor General’s Office made a public statement saying that the second applicant had been dismissed for having breached the code of ethics and that the activities of the Zardab District prosecutor’s office were being inspected. 4.     On 7 August 2013 and 15 January 2016 respectively the applicants were arrested. On various dates the domestic courts ordered the applicants’ pre-trial detention. Subsequently, on the second applicant’s request, his detention was substituted by house arrest. 5.     The first applicant was charged with a criminal offence under Article   228.1 of the Criminal Code (unlawful possession of weapons) and the second applicant was charged under Article 311.3.2 (bribery committed repeatedly by a public official). 6.     According to official records, the first applicant was apprehended on the basis of “operational information”, according to which he unlawfully possessed weapons. The applicant’s car was searched at the side of a road by officers of the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”), whereupon a gun and bullets were found and seized. Subsequently, on the same day, other weapons were also found in a shed situated on the applicant’s property. 7 .     The first applicant submitted to the Court a different account of the events surrounding his arrest and detention. The applicant submitted in particular that he had been arrested in a grocery shop where he had come by car. He was handcuffed and driven in the same car approximately 500 metres. Then, by the side of the road, the MNS officers pretended to find weapons in the car. At the same time, a group of MNS officers went to his house and claimed to have found other weapons. Both the car and the house were under the complete control of the MNS officers (in addition, a large group of officers searched the house and circulated throughout the property), and the weapons were planted there by them. The search-and-seizure measures were video recorded, however, the footage was subsequently not found in the case file. 8.     According to the first applicant, the real reason for the institution of the proceedings against him was his perceived membership of Milli Shura. 9.     The search-and-seizure measures in the first applicant’s car and home were carried out without a court order and without the participation of a defence lawyer (in addition, the applicant was not present during the search ‑ and-seizure carried out in his property). There was no defence lawyer either when the weapons were submitted for the initial examination by a specialist ( mütəxəssis ). According to official records, later the investigating authorities provided to the first applicant a list of lawyers from two law offices. However, he refused to choose any of those lawyers. Nevertheless, on the same day, 7 August 2013, the investigating authorities decided to appoint a State-funded lawyer to represent him. The first applicant refused also the services of that lawyer. On 8 August 2013 two lawyers of the first applicant’s own choosing joined the proceedings. 10.     According to official records, in 2014 the second applicant received bribes for adopting decisions not to open criminal cases in reply to complaints submitted by five individuals against five State or municipal employees. 11.     When questioned, the applicants denied committing any offences. 12 .     In addition to the above-mentioned measures, the investigating authorities carried out other investigative measures (for details see the appended table). In particular, they questioned as witnesses the individuals who had allegedly paid bribes to the second applicant, the officers who had arrested the first applicant and the attesting witnesses who had participated in the search-and-seizure measures. They also ordered ballistic and fingerprint expert examinations of the weapons. 13 .     The second applicant also submitted to the Court a different account of the events surrounding his arrest and detention. He alleged in particular that the proceedings against him had been fabricated and instituted because of his criticism of the authorities and his decision to resign. The witnesses, whose incriminating statements had been the only evidence used against him, had been pressured to give those statements. THE APPLICANTS’ TRIALS 14 .     During their trials, the applicants denied committing the offences with which they had been charged. They presented a different account of the events surrounding their arrests and detentions (see paragraphs 7 and 13 above). 15.     The applicants tried to contest the official account of the events and the reliability of the main evidence used against them by submitting several requests and raising arguments. Those requests and arguments were not granted or addressed (for details see the appended table). 16.     The trial courts found the applicants guilty as charged. They were sentenced to imprisonment sentences. In finding the applicants guilty, the trial courts based their decisions on (i) in the case of the first applicant, the statements given by the MNS officers and attesting witnesses and on the forensic expert examinations of the weapons; and (ii) in the case of the second applicant, the witness statements (see paragraph 12 above and the details set out in the appended table). 17.     The applicants appealed against their respective judgments and requested that they be acquitted. However, the higher courts upheld their convictions (for details see the appended table). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 18.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION 19.     The applicants complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that their convictions had been based on fabricated and otherwise unlawful evidence. In particular, they alleged that the proceedings had been instituted on the basis of false evidence, that they had not been given the opportunity either to challenge that evidence effectively or to adduce evidence in their favour, and that their arguments and requests had been ignored or dismissed without any adequate reasoning. Relying on Article 6 §   3 (c), the first applicant submitted that at the beginning of the pre-trial investigation, he had had no lawyer of his own choosing and no contact with his family. 20.     The Government submitted, inter alia , that the criminal proceedings against the applicants had been fair. The domestic courts’ judgments and decisions had been reasoned and based on evidence which had been fairly assessed. The applicants had been given the opportunity to challenge the evidence against them, to oppose its use and to submit several requests of their own. In respect of the first applicant, the Government also submitted that his right to adequate legal assistance had been respected, as he had been represented by a State ‑ funded lawyer and, subsequently, by hired lawyers. 21.     The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 22.     The requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (see Sakhnovskiy v.   Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 94, 2   November 2010). The Court will therefore examine the complaints under both provisions taken together. In so doing, it will examine the various grounds giving rise to the present complaints in order to determine whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, were fair (see, for a similar approach, Asadbeyli and Others v.   Azerbaijan , nos. 3653/05 and 5 others, § 130, 11 December 2012). 23 .     In several cases against Azerbaijan, the Court has previously found a violation of Article 6 where the domestic courts failed to adequately address important arguments pertinent to the applicants’ line of defence, including their objections against evidence allegedly obtained under duress; where the courts relied on questionable evidence; or where they failed to address serious concerns about the reliability (lawfulness) of evidence, including legitimate concerns about the possible planting of evidence and covert unlawful links between the prosecuting authorities and the witnesses used against the applicants (see, among other authorities, Asadbeyli and Others , cited above, §§ 134-39; Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan , no.   51164/07, §§   50-59, 12   November 2015; Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no.   2) , no. 32734/11, §§   84 ‑ 103, 7 April 2022; Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 3) , no.   60824/08, §§   95 ‑ 110, 19 January 2023; and Dursun Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 20216/14, §§ 124-45, 27 April 2023). 24 .     Turning to the present case, the Court observes that, as in the above-cited cases, the applicants attempted to contest the official accounts of the events and the reliability of the main evidence used against them. The arguments raised by them were pertinent to their line of defence. However, despite the seriousness of their allegations, the domestic courts ignored – or failed to adequately address – the arguments and evidence supporting them and the applicants’ relevant requests (for details, see the appended table). In particular, they failed to examine (i) the applicants’ factual allegations about the circumstances preceding or surrounding their arrest; (ii) whether the search-and-seizure measures in respect of the first applicant had been conducted in compliance with the procedural requirements and whether the manner in which those measures had been conducted had cast doubt on reliability of the relevant physical evidence (in particular, in view of the absence of any judicial order or judicial supervision over those measures, the absence of a lawyer during those measures and the fact that the places (the car and house) subjected to the searches had been under the complete control of the MNS officers – officers who, furthermore, had arrived in a large group and had circulated throughout the property when conducting the search ‑ and ‑ seizure measures on the premises); and (iii) whether the key witnesses had been pressured to give false incriminating statements against the second applicant (compare with the cases cited in paragraph 23 above). 25 .     The Court considers that, in the absence of any proper judicial review of the reliability of the evidence used against the applicants, the weight given to it raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings. 26.     Lastly, it does not appear that the first applicant was given an effective opportunity to contact his family and hire a lawyer of his own choosing following his arrest. The applicant was not represented by any lawyer during the initial period of the pre-trial investigation, in particular, during the search ‑ and-seizure measures and when the weapons had been submitted for the initial examination by the specialist (see paragraph 7 above). There is no indication that at the domestic level any individual assessment of the particular circumstances of the case was carried out at all in order to ascertain existence of compelling reasons to restrict the applicant’s right of access to a lawyer during that period. In particular, there is no convincing explanation as to why the search-and-seizure measures were carried out in a form of operational measures not requiring a court order and the participation of a defence lawyer. Most importantly, all the key evidence subsequently used against the applicant in court was obtained at the initial period of the pre-trial investigation, when no lawyer was involved in the proceedings. The Court considers that the first applicant was deprived of effective legal assistance during the most crucial period of the criminal proceedings against him (see, for general principles, Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no.   25703/11, §§   76-82, ECHR 2015, and Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, §§ 142-50, 9   November 2018 ). 27 .     In view of all the circumstances above, the Court concludes that the applicants’ right to challenge the evidence against them effectively, their right to adduce evidence in their favour and their right to a reasoned decision were not respected. The first applicant’s right to adequate legal assistance was also breached. These factors rendered the criminal proceedings unfair, taken as a whole. 28 .     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention (for a similar approach see cases cited in paragraph 23 above, and Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey , nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 196, 27 October 2020). OTHER COMPLAINTS 29.     On the basis of the same facts and relying on Article 18 of the Convention, the first applicant alleged that the proceedings against him had been instituted because of his perceived membership of Milli Shura. On the basis of the same facts and relying on Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention, the second applicant alleged that the proceedings against him had been brought in order to punish him for his criticism of the authorities and for publicly announcing his political views and his resignation. Having regard to the findings above concerning the manner in which the criminal proceedings against the applicants were carried out (see paragraphs 24-28 above) and given the elements available in the case files and the arguments relied on by the parties, the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the present complaints (compare Haziyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 19842/15, § 44, 6 December 2018; Bagirov v.   Azerbaijan , nos.   81024/12 and 28198/15, § 106, 25 June 2020; and Ayyubzade v.   Azerbaijan , no. 6180/15, § 60, 2 March 2023). 30.     The applicants also complained, relying on Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, that they had not had the possibility of obtaining the attendance of witnesses on their behalf and/or examining witnesses against them. Relying on Article 6 § 3 (b), the second applicant complained that his right to have sufficient time to prepare his defence had been breached. The first applicant further complained under Article 8 that the search ‑ and-seizure which had taken place in his home had been in violation of the relevant domestic procedural laws and his right to respect for his home. He lastly complained under Article   13 of the Convention that during the criminal proceedings against him he had had no effective remedies to challenge the text of the transcript of the first ‑ instance court hearings. Having regard to the facts of the applications, the submissions of the parties and its findings above in respect of Article 6 complaint, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine these remaining complaints ( see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 31.     The applicants claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 25,000 respectively in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 32.     The first applicant also claimed EUR 3,000,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, a sum which comprised the amount of expenses incurred by his family in relation to his detention and imprisonment and his loss of earnings. 33.     The applicants further claimed 20,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (approximately EUR 10,800) and AZN 3,000 (approximately EUR 1,600) respectively for legal services before the domestic courts and/or the Court. Lastly, the applicants claimed AZN 176 (approximately EUR 95) and AZN   48.40 (approximately EUR 26) respectively for postal expenses. 34.     The Government argued, inter alia , that the claims were unsubstantiated and excessive. They also emphasised that the first applicant had failed to submit any contract signed with his representatives. 35.     The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the applicants EUR 4,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 36.     Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award to the first applicant EUR 95 for postal expenses and the second applicant EUR 1,000 for all costs and expenses (to be paid directly into the bank accounts of their respective representatives, Mr F. Agayev and Mr Y. Imanov), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) concerning the fairness of the criminal proceedings admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention on account of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings taken as a whole, in respect of both applicants; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints raised by the applicants; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)   EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) each, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii)   EUR 95 (ninety-five euros) to the first applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, in respect of postal expenses (to be paid directly into the bank account of the applicant’s representative, Mr   F. Agayev); (iii)   EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to the second applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, in respect of all costs and expenses (to be paid directly into the bank account of the applicant’s representative, Mr Y. Imanov); (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 February 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Olga Chernishova   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of cases: Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location Information relating to other main pre-trial investigative measures Information relating to judicial investigation Applicant’s requests and arguments ignored or dismissed by the first-instance court without adequate reasoning Applicant’s appeals and decisions of the higher courts 5878/17 Guliyev v.   Azerbaijan 10/01/2017   Nijat Amir oglu GULIYEV 1963 Baku Azerbaijani Fuad Arif oglu AGAYEV Baku   Afgan Agasalim oglu MAMMADOV Baku Several officers of the MNS were questioned as witnesses and gave statements which corresponded to the official records and charges.   Several attesting witnesses gave statements describing their participation in the search-and-seizure measures.   The weapons (the gun and bullets) allegedly seized from the applicant’s car were subjected to initial examination by a specialist ( mütəxəssis ). The relevant report stated, inter alia , that fingerprints had been taken from the surface of the gun.   The weapons allegedly seized from the applicant’s car and house were subjected to expert ballistic and fingerprint examinations. Expert reports concluded, inter alia , that a fingerprint previously taken from the surface of one of the guns and “provided” to the experts for examination corresponded to the applicant’s fingerprint sample.     The trial court examined the same witnesses, who gave statements in court almost identical to their pre-trial statements.       The applicant alleged that the weapons had been planted in his car and house. In that connection he argued that the manner in which the search-and-seizure measures had been carried out had made possible the planting of the evidence. He argued that, notably, those measures had been carried out without any court order or judicial supervision and without the participation of a defence lawyer; during the search-and-seizure measures his car and house (including the annex where the weapons had allegedly been found) had been under the complete control of the MNS officers and different parts of his house had been searched by a large group of MNS officers who circulated throughout the property; furthermore, the annex in question had an opening with free access from the street (the applicant’s wife and his driver, Mr R.F., had given statements confirming this fact); and, as was apparent from their statements, the attesting witnesses had had no opportunity to closely and fully observe the carrying out of the search-and-seizure measures.   The applicant also alleged that the expert examination reports ordered by the prosecution had been falsified. The applicant indicated several shortcomings related to the manner in which the fingerprint examination had been carried out, including the absence of fingerprint cards in the case file, the lack of any indication of who had taken the alleged fingerprint from the surface of the gun during its initial examination by a specialist, how the fingerprint had been preserved and on which part of the gun the alleged fingerprint had been found. He also complained that there had been no defence lawyer present when the weapons had been submitted to the initial examination by a specialist.   The applicant requested that the prosecution provide the video-recordings of the search-and-seizure measures and that those recordings be examined in court; that the weapons be examined in court and that their origins be traced; and that the expert fingerprint examination reports ordered by the prosecution be examined in court in order to identify any falsification of their conclusions.   The applicant also requested edits to the transcripts of the court hearings because they contained mistakes (in particular, some of the witness statements had been altered and it had falsely been indicated that the specialists and experts had been questioned in court). In his appeal, the applicant reiterated his previous arguments and complained of the trial court’s refusal to grant his requests and failure to address his arguments. He also requested that a new expert ballistic examination be ordered by the court.   The Sumgait Court of Appeal decided to consider the applicant’s appeal “without judicial investigation” and without seeking additional evidence, that is, to consider the appeal solely on the basis of the material in the case file, without taking steps such as rehearing the witnesses or calling new ones. Consequently, the appellate court did not address the applicant’s arguments concerning the reliability of the evidence used against him.   On 12 August 2014 the Sumgait Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment of 2 April 2014.   The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, reiterating his previous arguments and complaints.   On 25 May 2016 the Supreme Court delivered a final decision in the criminal proceedings, dismissing the cassation appeal as unfounded and upholding the lower courts’ judgments.     82482/17 Safarov v.   Azerbaijan 29/11/2017 Rufat Eldar oglu SAFAROV 1981 Baku Azerbaijani Yalchin Jamil oglu IMANOV Baku   Bahruz Front oglu BAYRAMOV Baku   Fariz Mubariz oglu NAMAZLI Baku Five individuals (Mr M.P., Mr E.A., Mr Sh.H., Mr E.Kh. and Mr A.A., who were employees of either State or municipal authorities) were questioned as witnesses and stated that in 2014, upon the applicant’s demands, they had given the applicant AZN 500, AZN 3,000, AZN 800, AZN 1,000 and AZN 700 respectively. They also stated that they had lodged complaints against the applicant only after his dismissal in December 2015 because they had feared retaliation on his part.   Mr B.H. (who had lodged a criminal complaint before the applicant against Mr M.P.) stated that after the applicant’s decision not to open a criminal case against Mr M.P., he (Mr B.H.) had met with the applicant and that during that meeting the applicant had proposed that he (Mr B.H.) receive some of the money which the applicant had obtained from Mr M.P., a proposal which Mr B.H. had rejected.   Several other witnesses gave hearsay evidence.       The trial court examined some of the same witnesses, who gave statements in court almost identical to their pre-trial statements.   Mr B.H. first stated that he had not met with the applicant after the latter’s decision not to open a criminal case against Mr M.P. However, after a pause in the court hearing, Mr B.H. confirmed his pre-trial statement (that he had met with the applicant). The applicant alleged that the proceedings against him were fabricated. In this connection he argued that he had been accused of the alleged offence after he had announced his resignation; that the incriminating statements of the witnesses were the only evidence against him; that the five witnesses who had allegedly bribed him were employees of either the State or municipal authorities (and thus susceptible to pressure); and that in court Mr B.H. had retracted incriminating statements given by him at the pre-trial stage, however, later on the same day, under pressure by the prosecution, Mr B.H. had withdrawn that retraction and reverted to his pre-trial statement.   In his appeal, the applicant reiterated his previous arguments and complained of the trial court’s failure to address his arguments.   On 22 December 2016 the Shirvan Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment of 8 September 2016.   The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, relying on his arguments and complaints raised in his previous appeal.   On 11 July 2017 the Supreme Court delivered a final decision in the criminal proceedings, dismissing the cassation appeal as unfounded and upholding the lower courts’ judgments.