CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 décembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 26915/18 Afgan SADIGOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 May 2018 communicated on 20 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, a journalist and chief editor of a news portal. By a judgment of 12 January 2017, the Jalilabad District Court convicted the applicant of deliberate infliction of moderate harm to health with hooligan intent under Article 127.2.3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to two and a half years’ imprisonment. The court held that the applicant had deliberately assaulted a woman inside a building of a government authority, resulting in a concussion and soft tissue injuries to her head. After a series of appeals, by a final decision of 7 November 2017 (served on the applicant on 27 November 2017), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, but reclassified the offence under Article 127.1 (deliberate infliction of moderate harm to health) of the Criminal Code and reduced the sentence to one and a half years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complains about the alleged unfairness of the domestic proceedings. In particular, he complains that he was convicted on the basis of unreliable evidence and that his rights to a reasoned decision and to effective legal assistance have been violated.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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 (see Zayidov v.   Azerbaijan (no. 3) , no. 60824/08, §§ 87-94, 19 January 2023; and Abdullayev v.   Azerbaijan , no. 6005/08, §§ 58-63, 7 March 2019)? In particular: (a) was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence against him, to oppose its use and to adduce evidence in his favour? (b) was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected? (c) was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention (see Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, §§ 123-50, 9 November 2018)?   The parties are requested to submit relevant documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the victim’s and witnesses’ statements, bill of indictment, transcripts of court hearings, the applicant’s requests and decisions of the courts concerning those requests, expert reports, copies of relevant medical documents, and so on.