data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b79fe/b79fe2eee5f47b77068dcda8662811e024df40f2" alt="At the trial in the case of the advisor to the head of the PFPA"
At the trial in the case of Mamed Ibrahim, the adviser to the head of the Popular Fro Party accused of hooliganism, one of the victims spoke. Oruj Veliyev claimed that on 29 November, 2015, he tried to separate Ibrahim and Mikail Guliyev near the teahouse in the Narimanov district, but Ibrahim attacked him and repeatedly struck. The investigation presented a forensic examination of the receipt of a less serious injury. However, according to Ibrahim, during the incident Veliyev was not there at all.
Responding to questions from the lawyer Yalcin Imanov, the victim Veliyev contradicted his own testimony at the inquest. So in court, he admitted that he went to the police on October 1, though at the preliminary investigation he alleged that he was taken to the police together with the participants of the incident. In court, Veliyev said that Ibrahim gave struck him, but at the investigation he said that there were a few strikes. He explained the contradictions in the testimony by his poor memory and inability to perceive events. In this regard, the lawyer orally requested a forensic medical examination of the Veliyev to determine his adequacy. The court left the petition not considered. At the next meeting on 22 January the lawyer intends to put forward a repeated motion.
The lawyer Imanov said that Oruj Veliyev and Muhammad Gurbanov were "backdated" involved as victims, to reinforce the charge with a simple "hooliganism" for "hooliganism with the use of violence against protecting public order."
Ibrahim was arrested on a complaint of the former party member Mikail Guliyev, who left the organization, together with the ex-deputy head of APFP Razi Nurullayev. However, at the previous meeting, Guliyev refused to complaint against Ibrahim.
The PPFA believes that a provocation was committed against Ibrahim in order to discredit the party. Initially, Ibrahim was charged under the Article 221.1 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code providing for up to one year imprisonment. Later, the investigation retroactively caught two "victims" and reclassified the charges to Article 221.2.2, for which he can be imprisoned up to five years. -06B-
Leave a review