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

Politics

Follow us on social networks

News Line