CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 40258/23 Ali ALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 4 November 2023 communicated on 17 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an opposition politician and the former head of a small political party. The application concerns the criminal proceedings instituted against him under Article 127.2.3 (deliberate infliction of minor physical injury with a hooligan intent) of the Criminal Code while he was serving a prison sentence imposed in earlier criminal proceedings. By a judgment of 22 November 2022, the Sabunchu District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. The court held that the applicant had deliberately inflicted minor physical injury on his cellmate by striking a glass jar on the latter’s head during an altercation allegedly initiated by the applicant and sentenced him cumulatively to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The court relied on multiple witness statements, an expert opinion and the other evidence provided. The applicant appealed arguing that the incident had been staged, that he had not hit his cellmate, and that the criminal proceedings against him had been fabricated. On 25 January 2023 the Baku Court of Appeal, in a brief manner, dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment. On 8 May 2023 the applicant was released from serving the remainder of his sentence after being pardoned by a presidential decree. By a final decision of 13 July 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s judgments. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the unfairness of the proceedings. In particular, he argues that equality of arms was not respected, that the courts based their findings on unreliable evidence, and that they failed to provide adequate reasoning for their decisions. He further complains under Article 18 in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention that the authorities pursued an ulterior purpose in securing his conviction, allegedly aiming to extend his term of imprisonment. 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, were the principle of equality of arms and the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment respected? Was the applicant afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 §   3 (b) of the Convention?   2.     Were the applicant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention restricted for a purpose other than those provided for in the Convention and thus in contravention of Article 18?   The parties are invited to submit evidence in support of their submissions and related to the criminal proceedings (in particular, the expert report, the investigation records ( istintaq protokolları ), and other evidence).