Legal crisis

* * *

Question: Nasimi bey, you are aware of what happened against Bakhtiyar Hajiyev. What name do you think should be given to the incident?

Answer: This act against Bakhtiyar Hajiyev is a pre-planned crime committed by an organized group. It is a fact of ill-treatment and torture that degrades human dignity. The aim was to humiliate, intimidate, and discourage Bakhtiyar Bey. If the investigation is conducted objectively, other goals may also be revealed.

Question: Is it possible to do such things in a state governed by the rule of law?

Answer: Crime can happen in any country. There are and will be people prone to crime in any country. Individual or group crimes are not excluded too. However, in a state governed by the rule of law, such crimes are objectively investigated by the police and receive a legal assessment by a fair court decision in the end. Facts such as the protection of criminals by law enforcement agencies are rare in a state governed by the rule of law. Government bodies are usually interested in most unsolved crimes. Therefore, the authorities must find the culprits in order to dispel suspicions.

Question: True, the MIA reacted to the incident, the minister met with him, and a criminal case was opened. However, there is a lack of confidence in a society that this incident will be solved. Because the form of disclosure of what happened and official statements to the public in the previous Tofig Yagublu incident and after Bakhtiyar Hajiyev's rally in front of the MIA have shaped this mistrust. Why such cases are not investigated and the public is not properly informed? What are they trying to cover up by hiding it?

Answer: Minister Vilayat Eyvazov's quick reaction, his personal reception and listening to Bakhtiyar Bey, and his promise of an objective investigation are positive in themselves. However, such receptions should not be for imitation. If we analyze the attitude of law enforcement agencies to the crimes committed against public and political activists so far, there are serious grounds for distrust in these government bodies. Suspicions are leveled at them because law enforcement agencies have not solved such crimes. There can be two reasons why such crimes are not solved. Either government bodies are not interested in solving crimes, or professionalism is very low. The government is responsible for both.

Observations show that currently, more than 15,000 cameras have been installed at more than 4,000 road junctions and intersections in Baku. The whole city is under security surveillance. In such a situation, the probability of crimes remaining unsolved is very low.

Systematic violations of human rights and freedoms have been taking place in the country for a long time. This situation can be called a legal crisis without hesitation. People are either unable to secure their violated rights in the country at all or are able to do it with great difficulty. Although there are complex legal mechanisms for the protection of rights in the country, it is very difficult to implement them in practice. The government bodies that are supposed to protect citizens’ rights have also become the bodies that mainly carry out the political orders of the government. Without the supreme will and intervention of the government, the rights of the people cannot be restored. The situation is especially bad for opposition-minded people.

Question: What should they do against the background of the recent events in order to convince society?

Answer: The government is still not afraid of public criticism on such issues. If its interests demand it, it can turn a blind eye to any lawlessness. At the same time, only the active part of the society usually responds adequately to such events. The government does not feel threatened by society because the vast majority are indifferent to offenses.

Even criticism regarding human rights and freedoms in international reports does not encourage the government to carry out legal and political reforms.

If the government wants, it can find both the orderer and the perpetrator of this crime in a short time. The only way to convince the public is to solve the crime. An investigation is underway, let's wait and hope that the criminals will finally be found.

Question: Everyone knew that Bakhtiyar Bey had a quarrel with the MIA. However, the fact that those who abducted him openly mentioned the name of the Minister of Internal Affairs raises many doubts. There are some versions regarding this. The first version is that someone is openly using his name to turn the MIA into a target. The second version is that those who took this step have the consent from “above” to silence Bakhtiyar Bey, and they take such a step to teach him a lesson. Which of these versions makes more sense? And what could be your version?

Answer: Let's wait for the official investigation, we will determine which of these versions is true from the behavior of government bodies. I can't rule out the first and second versions, even the version that it is a third-party provocation. If a criminal case is opened and the perpetrators are brought to justice, then the government will dispel the suspicion. No, if it does not open it, then the suspicion that the issue is a political order will remain on it.

In particular, the MIA, which has huge resources at its disposal, is obliged to clarify this issue. If the name of the minister has been mentioned, it is his duty to prove the opposite.

Question: There are those in society who say that this is the result of a war between two power structures or two groups. Therefore, they cannot disclose it openly to the public. Or it is done by third forces who want to make an uproar in the country, provocation. Is it worth looking for any other traces of this incident?

Answer: Although we sometimes come across such versions in public discussions, I do not believe that there is any fierce confrontation within the government. The government is very centralized in one hand, and it is not convincing that such arbitrariness occurs outside his supreme will. Individuals and groups within the government who arbitrarily risk such actions against each other, muddy the water, and dare to create intrigue not only do not exist now, they have never existed. During the rule of the Aliyevs, the result of such arbitrary actions would be a tragedy for the perpetrators.

Question: Finally, what should be done to make the law work? What should be done to ensure the safety of socio-political figures and all people in the country?

Answer: It is a thought-provoking and topical question. Indeed, there is a legal crisis in the country. In the current political system, neither the country's constitution and laws nor the courts can play a role in ensuring the rights of citizens. Positive changes in the country should not be expected without holding free elections, separation of powers, and opening the way for public oversight mechanisms. All sections of society must be demanding and mobilized to ensure the rule of law. In societies without free media, independent civil society, and a multi-party system, people cannot live safely.