The case of I.Mammadov has a character of struggle between two alternatives

***

- Of course, you are aware of the fact that in response to the ECHR decision on the immediate release of Ilgar Mammadov, the Plenum of the Supreme Court sent his case for review to the Sheki Court of Appeal. It seems that the government is maneuvering to prevent Ilgar Mammadov's release of freedom?

- In the case of Ilgar Mammadov, the ECHR issued two judgments. In the first of them, the court pointed out that articles 5 and 18 of the Convention had been violated, recognized the arrest of I. Mammadov as illegal and for political reasons, and demanded his release. And in the second judgment, the European Court found a violation of the Article 6 of the Convention, found the trial of I. Mammadov unfair and demanded a new trial of the case of I. Mammadov in accordance with the standards of justice. Since 2014, the government has refused to comply with the first European Court decision. Therefore, a special production has been started, connected with Azerbaijan, and the Grand Chamber of the ECHR must make a decision on recognizing Azerbaijan as a country that does not comply with the Convention.

-"What were the procedural rules supposed to be?" Is there any violation in this matter?

- With regard to the implementation of the second judgment of the European Court, in order to implement this decision, the Plenum of the Armed Forces had to cancel the decisions, forward the case for review to a lower authority, which was done. But there is one question: according to the first court decision, Ilgar Mammadov was to be released. On the other hand, after the last decision of the Plenum, I. Mammadov is no longer convicted, but accused, and the fact that a person is under this status for 5 years and 4 months is a disgrace; you arrest a person, keep him 5 years 4 months in prison , and still cannot find whether he is guilty or not. In this case, the Plenum itself had to change or annul the measure of restraint in relation to I. Mammadov. However, the Plenum did not do this. In this case, the Sheki Court of Appeal must immediately do so. Probably, the lawyer of I. Mammadov will file such a petition. All these cases show that the authorities want to use the latter situation as an excuse not to release I. Mammadov. But it is a fact that there are all sufficient and necessary conditions for the release of I. Mammadov.

- If I'm not mistaken, even before that the Plenum of the Supreme Court adopted such a decision, and the Sheki Court of Appeal, once again having examined this case, left the previous resolution in force. And can he now, having reconsidered the case, change the decision?

-Yes. And earlier, but not the Plenum of the Supreme Court, but the Board of the Supreme Court canceled the decision of the lower court against I. Mammadov and returned the case for reconsideration to the Sheki Appeal Court. Then the Board of the Supreme Court referred to a violation of the Article 6 of the Convention, that is, during the preliminary consideration of the case of I. Mammadov, the lower courts ruled unjust decision. However, the Sheki Court of Appeal, reviewing this case, ignored the arguments specified in the Supreme Court decision and again upheld the verdict. Despite the filing a cassation appeal against this decision, the Supreme Court, upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal as if nothing had happened. But this time the European Court has already found a violation of the Article 6. Moreover, he referred to the groundlessness of the arguments used against I. Mammadov and to the refutation of their convincing evidence presented by the defense in the case. In this case, it is very problematic that the Sheki Court of Appeal, which will review the case, will not again be based on the same arguments of the prosecution, and will not ignore the evidence of innocence of I. Mammadov, presented by the defense. Normal courts, probably, will not do so. But, unfortunately, we do not have to talk about normal courts. Especially in this politically sensitive issue.

-What steps from the legal point of view can the lawyers of Mammadov take if the decision does not change?

- If the Sheki Court of Appeal upholds the verdict this time, I believe that along with filing a cassation appeal against this decision, on the basis of failure to comply with the second judgment of the European Court, defenders should apply to the Cabinet of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This circumstance will strengthen the argument about willful refusal to comply with the first decision of the European Court. It is necessary to continue the fight within the law, this time based on the failure of two judgments of the European Court of Justice.

- Do you think the issue of the release of I. Mammadov depends only on the will of the Azerbaijani authorities, or does the weakness of other parties play a role here? In particular, is the unprincipledness of the international community in favor to the continuation of his stay in the detention?

- In my opinion, the role of Ilham Aliyev plays the role ion the fact that I.Mammadov has not been released yet. This has already become a character of the direct struggle between the two alternatives. The authorities have never had sincere intentions to carry out reforms, and probably, never will be. Reforms mean the end of this system. And the end of the system means the end of the power of Ilham Aliyev. There is a problem of the will of Western institutions. Western liberal democracy is in crisis. On the one hand, liberal democracy has been for many years suffocated and weakened because of bureaucracy; on the other hand, its internal problems are growing. If to add here the interests, it becomes clear why the West cannot show adherence to principles. And the political essence of I. Mammadov is one of the pretexts that affects the principle of his defense. It makes

possible for Ilham Aliyev and his undemocratic rulers to maneuver between the latest orders of the democratic world experiencing the crisis of liberal democracy.