The judicial system should not be an instrument of policy, Halid Agaliev

-Halid Bey, the President said that there is a serious need for reform in the judicial system. For many years, experts have been talking about this. What do you think is missing in the legal and judicial area?

- Recently, the World Justice Project announced the "Rule of Law Index". This assessment was carried out for the second time. Azerbaijan was not among the countries in which the rule of law was evaluated. Of course, this may not be considered an important criterion. Only where the rule of law is fully ensured can one be content with the content of the judicial system. The judicial system should not be an instrument of policy, a system of punishment for dissent of citizens, it should be the place of administration of justice. The institution of the bar should also be completely independent. There are few state structures and ministries left in Azerbaijan that do not have an investigative service, almost every structure conducts an investigation. All this should not be. It seems that the government, albeit belatedly, understands the situation. Reforms are more aimed at correcting specific parts of the system, our system seems to consist of flaws. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that sometimes reforms can correct the deplorable situation.

- What still prevented the judicial system from acting independently, who or what prevented it?

-Political system. Under the existing system in Azerbaijan, the judicial-legal system cannot be otherwise. For example, the formation of our legislative power. For almost 30 years, Azerbaijan has been independent. The Constitution grants the right to elect and be elected to every citizen, punishment is established for violation of this right. However, until now, the courts of Azerbaijan have never recognized a violation of the right to vote, although all complaints alleging a violation of the right to vote were appealed to the EU, as a result, it was found that the violation was committed. Or consider cases involving journalists. Since 2003, journalists in the performance of their professional duties at least 500 times were subjected to physical pressure, they were prevented from collecting information. For this, national legislation implies punishment. However, even one percent of local courts did not rule in favor of journalists. The attitude of the judicial system to members of opposition political parties is unambiguous, which in itself is shameful. So far, thousands of oppositionists have been convicted on very dubious charges. None of them was released pending trial. The same European Court finds that there are violations in all these cases. The list of such examples can be continued. Behind such a quantity of negativity there can be not individuals of several persons, but only a political system.

- Suppose that the reforms have been carried out. Will there be guarantees after them that the courts will be independent? They will not fulfill the political order, they will be far from corruption.

- Until now, the need for reform was emphasized only in connection with a specific area. It is not known what steps will be taken, what is planned. In a normal situation, before taking action, broad public discussions should take place, public opinion should be studied, specific problems and ways out in a transparent form should be found. In any case, in this direction, the movements are not visible. And then - reforms in this direction should differ sharply from the measures presented so far in this area as reforms. If you remember, about 2 years ago, the introduction of a reform of the mitigation of the system of punishment was announced; more precisely, a document providing for this was adopted. As part of these reforms, it was announced that the practice of widespread use of preventive measures would be eliminated. If you ask the government about this, you will most likely be told that it was successfully applied. However, is this really the case? And does the statistics confirm this unequivocally? No, because no one, relying on official figures, will be able to assert that the system of punishment has been softened. Even if someone does this, then, without relying on reality. If the above conditions are not fulfilled and the reform practices of our government are taken into account, it is difficult to say something optimistic.

-Do you think the presence of reforms will reduce the number of complaints to the European Court?

- It can be argued that in European countries within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, the rule of law in the legal system is ensured. But this does not mean that no complaints are filed to the European Court from these countries. To approach the question in this context would not be so successful. Ensuring the rule of law in our country can carry with it a positive. For example, in 2018 Azerbaijan was one of the six countries that most send complaints to the European Court. More than 2000 complaints from Azerbaijan are waiting for their consideration. That is, we are ahead of only 5 countries. This is a very bad indicator. This is a barometer of the situation in the judicial system. The adoption of effective measures in the judicial-legal system can save Azerbaijan from such poor indicators. Only the goal should not be to reduce complaints to the European Court.

- What needs to be done to make people happy who have so far faced an illegal court sentence?

- There is nothing unnatural here. If the right is violated, it must be restored, and the damage caused to the victim must be repaid fairly, in accordance with the law. Our legal system is too poor with such examples. For example, in the practice of the European Court it happens that there are 1500 complaints against a certain country under consideration. After one year, it turns out that only 50 complaints were considered, but the number of complaints awaiting consideration was reduced 50-60 times. It proceeds from the measures taken by the state, eliminating the facts of violation of the rights of citizens, not waiting for the decision of the European Court, pays for the damage. We do not recall such positive examples. The authorities are aware of hundreds of complaints of almost the same content that are pending in the European Court of Justice, about relevant precedents, but the system does not take the necessary steps. Yes, and national judicial practice does not change.

-What do we need to start reforms in this area? What work needs to be done?

- This is quite a long sphere. The main focus should be the courts and judges. If the goal is a completely new and flawed judicial-legal system, then the judiciary should be seriously updated. The current judiciary worked on a political order. The judiciary must be cleared of them. The mechanism for electing judges should be updated, measures should be taken to determine their professionalism and independence. Being a separate branch of government, it is necessary to completely remove the influence of other branches of government on the judiciary. Reforms must embrace the prosecutor"s office. The most serious reason for reform is the institution of the bar. At present, our bar system is a legacy of the Soviet system and it must be re-created. It is possible to show an unusual attitude to the fact that representation in court is completely monopolized by lawyers, however, this practice should be eliminated in the shortest possible time. It is necessary to change the mechanism of becoming a lawyer. Groups of lawyers should be united in structures independent of any center, and conditions should be created for this. These structures should be able to conduct their own exams.