CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 2024

.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 } Published on 25 March 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16077/18 Rauf Habibula oglu MIRGADIROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 2 April 2018 communicated on 5 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant on charges of high treason. The applicant was convicted under Article 274 (high treason) of the Criminal Code for conspiring with officials of Armenian intelligence services by meeting with them in Armenia and Georgia and providing them with information which constituted State secret. By a final decision of 3 October 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments sentencing the applicant to six years’ imprisonment suspended on probation. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair and arbitrary because he did not commit any criminal offence, the domestic courts failed to provide reasons for their decisions, and he was not able to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf. 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, did the domestic courts establish the existence of all the elements of the criminal offence of which the applicant was convicted and provide reasons for their decisions?   2.     Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, as required by Article   6 § 3   (d) of the Convention?