Are the Charges in the "Toplum TV Case" Substantiated?

The charges in the so-called "Toplum TV Case" have reportedly been escalated, with the investigation nearing its conclusion. This case involves the arrest of certain employees and representatives of Toplum Internet Television, the Institute for Democratic Initiatives, and the Third Republic Platform initiative. According to the defense, new charges under Azerbaijan's Criminal Code, including Articles 162-1.1 (engaging workers without an employment contract), 192.3.2 (illegal entrepreneurship with substantial income), 193-1.3.1 and 193-1.3.2 (legalizing property acquired through criminal means in significant amounts), 206.4 (organized smuggling), and 213.2.1 (tax evasion) have been added. Initially, those arrested were charged under Article 206.3.2 (smuggling committed by a group acting in collusion), carrying a potential eight-year sentence. The revised charges now increase the maximum penalty to 12 years.

Earlier, charges were also escalated in the "AbzasMedia Case," where individuals faced accusations of smuggling.

The defense lawyers for the accused in the "Toplum TV Case" argue that there is no material or legal basis for either the initial or the updated charges. According to Shehla Humbatova, the lawyer representing Akif Qurbanov, a speaker for the Third Republic Platform currently in custody, the accusations lack foundation and are politically motivated. Qurbanov himself rejects all charges against him, viewing them as an attack on independent media and civil society.

Humbatova further criticized the continued detention of the accused for over ten months despite repeated, well-substantiated motions for house arrest. She called the new charges of illegal entrepreneurship "absurd" and without legal merit.

Zahid Oruj, head of the Human Rights Committee in Azerbaijan’s parliament, highlighted a broader context, alleging Western interference in the internal affairs of other nations through donor organizations post-2010. He stated that legislative measures in Azerbaijan tightened as a response to such interventions, with media outlets like USAID serving as examples. Addressing the "Toplum TV Case," Oruj suggested that the founder, Alesger Mammadli, staying under house arrest during the investigation would not have negatively impacted the proceedings.

Oruj also noted that receiving funds indirectly from abroad has been reclassified as smuggling under stricter laws. He claimed Toplum TV relied on approximately 1 million manats from international donors managed through centralized sources. While acknowledging the legal defenses, he hinted that a softer judgment might have been possible if the accused acknowledged violations of specific legal provisions without implying betrayal of the state.

Lawyer and human rights advocate Asif Yusifli expressed grave concerns, stating that the process of dismantling the last remnants of civil society and independent media in Azerbaijan is ongoing. He cited the arrests of journalists from AbzasMedia, Toplum TV, Meydan TV, Channel 13, and Channel 11 as evidence that independent media has all but disappeared.

Yusifli also criticized the broader crackdown on civil society and political figures, asserting that the investigations and charges are entirely baseless and politically driven. He contended that the political system in Azerbaijan prioritizes suppressing independent information over addressing genuine crimes.