Journalists� call against the state, information, or reflection?

The Baku Serious Crimes Court continues the trials in the case of Mustafa Hajibeyli, the head of the bastainfo.com site, and Anar Mamedov, the chief editor of the kriminal.az website. Journalists, whose arrest is quite real, are accused of "open calls for the violent seizure of power and a violent change of the constitutional order." These journalists are also accused of committing malfeasance by publishing these appeals on their websites. This article is about accusations against journalists "open calls for the violent seizure of power and the violent change of the constitutional order."

The most reasonable explanation for the accusations against the leaders of both sites is that some articles published by journalists on their websites were written in the spirit of a direct call for "forcible seizure of power and forcible change of the constitutional order." According to the prosecution, several citizens who read these articles experienced unrest and a shock, and filed a complaint with the prosecutor"s office.

Signs of anti-state appeals

The main Article of the charges against journalists is the Article 281-2 of the Criminal Code, paragraph 1 of this Article states: Open calls for the violent seizure and retention of power or the forcible change of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the split of the integrity of the territory, as well as the distribution of such materials are punishable by five years in prison.

The second part of the Article is about the repeated actions or the actions committed by a group of persons. Let us make a quick comment on the Article 281. Calls for the violent seizure of power and a violent change of the constitutional order is an act done through action. It is stated that both site managers committed the action by posting articles on the site. However, for an appeal to be considered a criminal act, it must be open. Placing the call on the site does not fit into the concept of "open", because at the end of this Article of the Criminal Code there is an expression "as well as the distribution of materials of such content." Thus, the call cannot be considered open only because it is distributed. Open call is clear and understood from the first reading.

A call for the violent seizure of power and a violent change of the constitutional order is a crime that can be completely directly and intentionally. That is, if a person understands that the act committed by him is dangerous and will see its socially dangerous results in advance, wishing them, in this case it can be argued that the crime was committed intentionally.

In order to come to the decision on committing a crime, it is necessary to have all three of the listed signs, in the absence of at least one, and then there is no direct attempt.

In order to consider the crime described above as accomplished, the appeal must be direct and deliberate. A condition for the implementation of direct intent is the desire to achieve the results of the act. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify whether these journalists, as noted in the materials of the case, wanted "excitement or shock to their readers". Moreover, these desires must necessarily have the power of realization. The sites bastainfo.com and kriminal.az have a narrow readership. There are hundreds of online resources in a country with such a readership.

The content of articles in which there is a criminal call

The indictments made against journalists include several articles published on websites. In addition, several of these articles were taken from other media. The journalists, who are accused, distributed them with a link. According to the indictment, the following expressions are considered an anti-state call.

"Many people know that Elmar Veliyev appointed to the position of the head of the executive power in 2011, wanted to subjugate all the state structures of the city. However, the police are subordinate to the Minister of Internal Affairs and the prosecutor to the Prosecutor General; and E. Veliyev forced them to worship him. That is why there was a serious confrontation between Rasim Musayev, the former police chief of the city of Ganja and E. Veliyev. When Rasim Musayev worked as a chief of police in Ganja, he had a conflict because of the mother of a martyr. It was rumored that at one of the official events the mother of the martyr, whose house was demolished, approached Veliyev and reproached him that the children of the sons who died in Karabakh remained on the street. The head of the executive in severe form ordered the police to arrest the woman. Rasim Musayev showed gentleness towards the mother of the martyr, which angered the head of the executive branch. Then at one of the meetings, Veliyev used rude expressions in relation to Musayev. Moreover, they grappled. After that, Musayev left Ganja ... It was even said that people close to Veliyev had shot Musayev"s official car in the Hajikend ... Why did not the authorities see Veliyev"s arbitrariness, his rudeness, why they did not punish him? Ganja residents have always been proud and fearless. Therefore, what happened with Veliyev should have happened sooner, or later. If the government does not draw a conclusion from this, then the events in Ismayilli and Guba can be repeated in Ganja ..."

The investigation regarded the placement of the recorded expressions on the website a ground for filing a lawsuit under three Articles of the Criminal Code. How could such expressions be regarded as a call?

Calls, spread information, or reflections?

In general, the conclusion that the expressions contained in the articles are a product of the intelligence of convicted journalists seems to be wrong. To do this, first, it is necessary that those journalists who are judged be the authors of these statements. Several articles generally refer to completely different media. On the other hand, it is necessary to emphasize that the content of the articles is not new.

The main content of the articles is related to the head of the executive power of Ganja, its activities. There are thousands of materials on the Internet with such content. If you give a search on the Internet, you can find hundreds of articles with negative content about the activities of the head of the executive power. Moreover, in comparison with the articles on Internet, the materials that caused the charges are rather mild. If a group is prone to violent seizure of power or a change in the constitutional order, then these articles will not be included in their "literary list".

From the above mentioned, it can be argued that the authorship of the articles spread by journalists does not belong to them. In addition, there is no open anti-state call. In which part of the articles on which the prosecution relies, is there a call for a violent change of power? How can the fact that the police chief does not get on well with the chief executive, informing about dissatisfaction with the activities of the chief executive, and asking the authorities to respond appropriately be regarded as anti-state call?

The expressions that are included in the indictment can only be regarded as kindly expressed journalistic reflections addressed to the authorities.

Expressions are not addressed to a specific circle having the necessary resources

One of the conditions that determine the openness of the call is the presence of a specific circle to which the call is addressed. If the appeal is distributed for committing a crime, then it must be addressed to a specific audience. In the articles published by the journalists, there is only one circle - the authorities.

The articles emphasize that people in Ganja are dissatisfied with the administration, it is necessary to take measures; otherwise, the events that create a public threat that happened in previous years in other areas can be repeated. The purpose of other articles is to inform citizens, and this is the basis of the activities of media and journalism. Against the background of these observations, it can be stated that there is no specific circle to which the articles that have becomes the basis for the indictment are directed.

Since there is no specific circle to which the call is addressed, there is no need to address the issue of whether or not the accused journalists have the power to influence any circle. Although this is also an important question.

Let us assume that the call is directed to some famous circle. Then the question arises whether or not this circle is able to fulfill this appeal? An important condition for committing an action, as reflected in Article 281 of the Criminal Code, is the availability of the necessary resources, possession of these resources by the circle to which the appeal is addressed. It must be taken into account that the violent seizure of power, the violent change of the constitutional system is not any ordinary hooligan actions. Let us recall the reports of the law enforcement agencies of Azerbaijan regarding the socio-political, criminal situation in the country. Have you ever met in the reports information about the presence of anyone else, who could disturb the stable situation in the country? Official reports have always stressed that full social and political stability has been restored in the country. Citizens were assured that law enforcement agencies fully ensure stability. According to official information, a mass rally held by the opposition authorities in the recent past of Azerbaijan gathered about 2-3 thousand people. These events, as emphasized in official statements, have always been accompanied by stability. How, then, under such a stable sociopolitical situation, several articles create grounds for the violent seizure of power and the change of the constitutional order.

Summarizing the above said, it can be concluded that in the articles distributed by two defendants journalists there is no open call which is noted in the Article 281. It is unthinkable fact that the journalists are brought to justice for open anti-state calls and their distribution.