CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 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 21 May 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16246/23 Ilham Aslan oglu TAHMAZOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 13 April 2023 communicated on 3 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant, a lawyer, which were instituted as private prosecution by Y.A., a representative of an NGO. The applicant hosted live-streaming group discussions about the so-called “Terter events” (related to the alleged torture of Azerbaijani military personnel accused of high treason in 2017 in the aftermath of the “four-day war” in April 2016) on a YouTube channel, with the direct participation of close family members of the victims. By a judgment of 9 June 2022, the Yevlakh District Court convicted the applicant under Article 148 (insult) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. After a series of appeals, by a final decision of 24 November 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. The courts found that, during one of his live streams, the applicant had made defamatory statements and gestures concerning Y.A., and in a provoking manner, requested the YouTube channel’s viewers who might have known Y.A. to give information about her. Following his request, two participants of the discussion used insulting language directed at Y.A. which the applicant did not prevent. While the applicant was serving his sentence, by a judgment of 2   December 2022, the Mingachevir City Court convicted, in a separate unrelated set of proceedings, the applicant of a different incident of slander under Article 147.2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year and six months’ imprisonment. The court merged the new sentence with the remaining portion of the previous one, resulting in a cumulative sentence of one year and seven months’ imprisonment. The applicant does not provide information about any appeals against that judgment and does not complain about that second set of proceedings. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention about the alleged unfairness of the first set of the domestic proceedings and argues that he was convicted because of his investigative work on the “Terter events”. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected? Was the applicant’s right to have witnesses against him examined respected, as required by Article   6 § 3   (d) of the Convention?   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? Were the sanctions imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued?   The parties are requested to submit the transcripts in English or French of the applicant’s allegedly defamatory statements, provoking request and the allegedly insulting statements of others which led to the applicant’s criminal conviction.