CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 18 December 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 26563/16 Parviz HASHIMOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 April 2016 communicated on 27 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a journalist. He was charged with smuggling and illegal acquisition, storage and carrying of weapons. By a final decision of 27 October 2015, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments convicting the applicant and sentencing him to eight years’ imprisonment. The domestic courts held that the applicant had illegally acquired pistols, cartridges, and other ammunition from an unknown Iranian citizen through cross-border smuggling and kept some of them in his apartment. Relying on Articles 6, 10 and 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains about unfairness of the criminal proceedings. He particularly argues that the charges against him were fabricated, his conviction was based on planted evidence, his right to confidential communication with his lawyer was breached, and that the criminal proceedings were instituted in order to punish him for his journalistic activity. 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 and 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s conviction based on lawfully obtained evidence? Were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to challenge the evidence against him and to oppose its use? Was the applicant able to communicate in private with his lawyer in the pre-trial detention centre (see Insanov v. Azerbaijan , 16133/08, §165, 14 March 2013 , and Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan , no. 51164/07, §§ 47-48 and 52, 12   November 2015)?   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, video recordings of searches, decisions of the first instance court concerning the applicant’s requests, and so on), and a translation into English or French of the article in question published by the applicant which allegedly led to his criminal conviction.