�MILD� RESPONSE OF THE INSTITUTE OF PEACE AND DEMOCRACY TO �RUDE RESPONSE OF JUDGES�

On December 10, 2009, on the International Day of Human Rights, newspaper "Azerbaijan" (an official mouthpiece of Azerbaijan"s Parliament) published a full-page article titled "Rude response of judges to a new smear campaign of antinational "human rights defender" Leyla Yunus". The article actually presented a shorthand record of a session held by Public Association of Judges with 300 judges-members (!) according to the article out of 424 practitioners of the country. The Session addressed the presentation of the so-called "blacklist of judges" arranged by the Institute of Peace and Democracy (IPD) on November 26, 2009. Once again IPD released the list of names of the judges who had passed ungrounded sentences violating a bunch of articles with the European Convention o Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention).
Pursuant to the press-release, IPD specified "two undoubtedly dramatic issues of our society - suppression of freedom of speech and thought and deprivation of property (immovable property)" and judges with sentences (rulings) failing to comply with the national law and the Convention. The IPD press-release reads, "Trials on the two problems have become systematic, and sentences (rulings) grossly violate the law".
The article in "Azerbaijan" newspaper and a subsequent alike publication posted on the official website of the Judicial and Legal Council (JLC) (http://www.judicialcouncil.gov.az/3014.htm) titled "Grant-spongers now target at courts" can be treated not only as a "rude response of judges", but also a start for a much-needed dialogue between the civil society and judicial manpower. The topic of the dialogue: "LACK of INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL SYSTEM in Azerbaijan". We would genuinely avail ourselves of the dialogue.
Well then, the article presents the following speakers addressing at the Session:
• Aladdin Jafarov, Judge, Yasamal District Court of Baku, Chair of Public Association of Judges
• Vafaddin Ibayev, Judge, Supreme Court
• Ilham Asadov, Judge, Baku Court of Appeals
• Asad Mirzaliyev, Judge, Supreme Court
• Khagani Mammedov, Judge, Yasamal District Court
If we drop many quotes like "notorious for her slanderous and nihilistic stance Leyla Yunus who completely lacks impartiality ... seeking to discredit all achievements of Azerbaijan in the eyes of the international community. All her activities in this direction are of antinational character" and try to get the gist of judges" responses, we should quote the following assertions arousing interest:
1."Verdicts of judges passing on behalf of the Republic of Azerbaijan can be disputed only by superior judicial authorities". Which legal act prohibits dispute, criticism, impeachment, condemnation of verdicts? Only a superior judicial authority is entitled to reverse a judgment, but no citizen is prohibited from disputing it both orally and in writing, including through the mass media. The need for such explanations looks strange.
2. "We should also keep in mind that it is merely impossible to elicit all the truth between two parties being at law". How can that be? A court is supposed to punish the guilty and justify the innocent. If judges claim impossibility of ascertaining the truth, what on earth is the mission of a judge, court and justice?
3. "Governing by the law a judge passes a fair decision only in favor of the right party". Quite obviously this assertion completely denies the previous one being in conflict with the aforesaid thesis! (Noteworthy, they go one after another in the article). At the same time, this statement goes ungrounded, as judges themselves acknowledge in the article judicial errors and breach of law occurring in the world judicial practice.
4. "Taking advantage of the existing freedom of speech and assembly and resorting to biased and slanderous claims this "human rights defender" infringes the rights and honor of judges who are entitled to inviolability... "Back in 2007 she saw fit to send a "striped robe" to some judges thus actually insulting them".
What is the right of a judge to inviolability? When the European Court (EC) decides against Azerbaijan, a plenary session of the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan Republic based on the decision of EC reverses sentences of judges whose decisions EC found in conflict with articles of the Convention. Such judges shall be imposed a penalty on. Do these penalties and punishments also encroach on their inviolability? Whatever, what does inviolability of judges imply?
5. "Only superior judicial authorities, the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights are entitled to dispute legality of court decisions. One shouldn"t cast aspersions on judgments which have entered into legal force". As was said earlier, the right to dispute legality of a court decision is an inalienable right of every citizen. "Aspersions on judgments", or rather confidence in their wrongfulness, is a merit of judges trampling down the legislation of AR and articles of the European Convention.
6. "One shouldn"t rob the authorities of credibility thus injuring them in the eyes of the public, but rather contribute to rise of public trust in courts. Such subjective sentiments touching honor and dignity of judges lead to decline of a professional prestige". Such a concern for the professional prestige of judges can only but gladden. It is primarily that this concern be resulted in commitment of judges to principles of justice and law!
7. "Based on the Constitution the current authorities afford an opportunity to apply to the European Court". It is generous, indeed. Taking advantage of the afforded opportunity, the country"s citizens seek justice in EC. The latter passed 21 decisions against Azerbaijan. So, approximately 140 judges with first instance, as well as the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, violated the European Convention in their judgments (sentences), thus not only undermining their professional prestige, but also the country"s image.
It is not enough to only reverse decisions at a plenary session of the Supreme Court. The Judicial and Legal Council must address the issue of competence of these judges, especially cases when judges pass two or even more sentences inconsistent with the Convention!
The names of the judges must go public. Otherwise, the prestige of the entire judiciary declines and "the aspersions are cast" on all.
And at last the article reads, "If Leyla Yunus concerned herself with reforms in the judicial and legal system, she would meet with judges and discuss problems". I want to emphasize that repeatedly IPD invited judges, especially JLC members, to all events dedicated to monitoring of legal trials.
On January 29, Friday, IPD will present the list of the names of judges whose sentences (decisions) were reversed by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of AR based on decisions of the European Court. The presentation will be held in Media Center (218, Dilara Aliyeva Str.), at 12.00 a.m. - 13.30 p.m. IPD will send invitations to JLC members, and, of course, to all the judges who addressed the Session of the Public Association and whose names were mentioned above. The dialogue is exigent, as exigent would be "addressing the issues".