Mustafa Hacıbəyli

Mustafa Hacıbəyli

Baku/30.01.21/Turan: The announcement of the decision of the Binagadi District Court on the complaint of the opposition journalist and activist Mustafa Hajibeyli against the prosecutor's office, scheduled for January 29, did not take place. The judge postponed the hearing until February 5. Hajibeyli himself reported this.

The head of the press service of the Musavat party and the head of the Basta website, Mustafa Hajibeyli, filed a complaint against the inaction of the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office, the consideration of which began on January 28 in the court of the same district.

 “A year ago, I was detained during a protest action in front of the building of the Central Election Commission of Azerbaijan and subjected to physical pressure from the police. I filed a complaint with the Binagadi District Prosecutor's Office. But, the prosecutor's office refused to open a criminal case on the fact of police violence against me. Therefore, I filed a complaint against the prosecutor's office in the order of judicial supervision,” Hajibeyli said.

The court granted his request and questioned two witnesses.

One of them confirmed that Hajibeyli had no injuries on his face before his arrest. Another witness said that after leaving the police, Hajibeyli showed signs of violence.

According to Hajibeyli, during the trial, a representative of the prosecutor's office asked questions of a political nature.

“For example, he asked why I claimed that the parliamentary elections were rigged, why I shouted out the slogans Freedom, etc. But these questions were not relevant to the subject of the complaint. The prosecutor asked to reject the complaint,” Hajibeyli said.

Judge Elchin Agayev said the court is "retiring for a consultation" and will announce the decision on January 29.

“However, yesterday (January 29), the judge announced that the decision will be announced on February 5,” Hajibeyli said.

He also indicated that his lawyer, Nemat Karimli, was not allowed to the trial.

The lawyer interpreted this as a violation of the right to a fair trial. —21B06-

 

Leave a review

Social

Follow us on social networks

News Line