CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 10 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 73328/17 Makhmud Abdulkhakovich VELITOV against Russia lodged on 4 October 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the conviction of the applicant, the imam of a Moscow mosque, of justification of terrorism (Article 205.2 § 1 of the Criminal Code) for his statements during a Friday sermon and, in particular, for pronouncing a death prayer for a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami who had been killed several days earlier. The applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s conviction amount to an interference with his right to freedom of religion or expression under Articles 9 §   1 or 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Articles 9 § 2 and 10 §   2? Did the domestic courts adduce “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts and the applicable standards under Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did they specify which parts of the sermon were problematic (see Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova , no.   41827/02, §   36, 9   January 2007)? Did they draw their own conclusions from the expert reports (see point 23 of the Supreme Court’s resolution no. 11 of 28 June 2011)? Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim? Did the interference correspond to a “pressing social need”? Was the sanction imposed proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, as regards the non-admission of Ms N.’s “specialist” opinion of 21 June 2017 as evidence at the trial, coupled with the admission as evidence of the expert reports obtained by the prosecution, was there a disbalance between the defence and the prosecution in the area of collecting and adducing expert evidence (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos.   11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 717-35, 25 July 2013)?