Regular meeting in the case of advisor to the head of the Popular Front Party Mammad Ibrahim took place in the Narimanov District Court on February 12 under the chairmanship of Turgay Huseynov. A witness of prosecution testified in favor of the opposition member. The judge initiated the procedure for attracting lawyer Yalcin Imanov to disciplinary punishment. The reason is the critics by the lawyer saying the court rejects a defense motion and does not want to carry out objective investigation.
M. Ibrahim was arrested on September 30 last year on charges of disorderly conduct (221.1) (Complaint was filed by Mikyail Guliyev - a former member of the PFPA.) Subsequently, the Article was reclassified to a heavier charge – Article 221.2.2, under which Ibrahim can be convicted up to five years in prison.
On 1 February 1 two prosecution witnesses were Vugar Abbasov and Elchin Shukurov testified. They were at the scene and found that first Mikyail Guliyev attacked Ibrahim.
Today at the trial testified a witness Agshin Akhverdiyev. He noted that on September 29 near the teahouse in the Narimanov district there were five people- Akhverdiyev, Vugar Abbasov, Elchin Shukurov, Anar Ismayilov and Mikail Guliyev.
According Akhverdiev when Mammad Ibrahim came up to them he asked Guliyev why he had insulted his family? In response, Ibrahim Guliyev began to bear Ibrahim.
Akhverdiyev tried to separate them, was also hit by Guliyev, but he managed to pull Guliyev away. Two others held back Ibrahim.
The witness gave information important to the protection, that on the scene were not other two victims - Oruj Veliyev and Mohammed Gurbanov. Akhverdiyev also said that previously Ibrahim asked to influence Guliyev, to make him stop insulting opposition and his family on Facebook. Akhverdiyev told Guliyev, who kept silence for about it and the three days, and then resumed insulting Guliyev.
The lawyer Yalcin Imanov requested to find as victims Vugar Abbasov and Agshin Ahverdiev in connection with their testimony of the receipt of attacks by Guliyev. However, the prosecutor strongly opposed, and the judge dismissed the application. The lawyer further requested to appeal to the police to investigate violent actions by Guliyev. However, the request was rejected.
The lawyer said that the court does not carry out an objective investigation. In response, the judge instructed the Secretary to place on a record of "not respecting the court by lawyer" and handling the bar to bring Imanov to disciplinary punishment.
Imanov said the remark of the judge was unfounded because it simply criticized, and has never expressed disrespect to the court. The next trial was scheduled for February 19.
Mikail Guliyev, who is involved in the case left the PPFA together with a group of Razi Nurullayev last summer. -06B-
Politics
-
On November 28, the Tbilisi City Court ruled to extradite Afgan Sadigov, the head of the website Azel.TV, to Azerbaijan. This was reported by his wife Sevinj Sadigova. The defense will appeal the court's decision.
-
The leader of the Azerbaijan Popular Front Party (APFP), Ali Kerimli, has stated that his internet blockade has become more severe. “For almost five years, I have been under an internet blockade. But recently, it has taken on an openly blatant and shameless form,” Kerimli said during a press conference today.
-
On November 27, an online hearing took place at the Khatai District Court regarding a petition from the defense for the release of Alaskar Mammadli, the founder of Toplum TV, under house arrest. Mammadli has been in custody at Baku’s Detention Center No. 1. The court denied the petition, Mammadli's brother, Nasimi Mammadli.
-
On November 28, another hearing took place in the case of public activist Ilhamiz Guliyev. During the proceedings, the court reviewed a response from the 28th Police Station of the Yasamal District in Baku. At the previous hearing, the defense had requested that the court obtain footage from the surveillance cameras at this police station, where Guliyev was taken on December 4 of last year. However, the police response stated that the video footage had not been preserved.
Leave a review