[governance] Summary: All hearings/ Appeals Court upholds verdict against Khadija Ismayilova

[Renata Aquino Ribeiro]

Depressing is an understatement

How can one help?
Em 30/11/2015 11:20, "Anriette Esterhuysen" <anriette at apc.org> escreveu:

> This is really depressing reading. Update on Khadija who was part of
> civil society at the Baku IGF in 2012.
>
> One of the many local activists or journalists whose conditions have
> only deteriorated since then.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
> *Appeals Court upholds verdict against Khadija Ismayilova*
>
>
>
> *Summary: Last hearing (November 25)*
>
>
>
> ·      At the hearing, defense counsel Fariz Namazli submitted a motion
> requesting that Khadija Ismayilova sit next to her lawyers;
>
> ·      At the hearing, defense lawyers made speeches in which they asked
> for Ismayilova’s acquittal;
>
> ·      Khadija Ismayilova made a speech explicitly linking her arrest to
> her work as a journalist;
>
> ·      The public prosecutor asked the court to uphold the judgment of
> the first instance court;
>
> ·      The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Baku Grave Crimes Court.
>
> On November 25, the Baku Court of Appeal, chaired by the judge Ilgar
> Murguzov, held a hearing on the case of journalist Khadija Ismayilova.
>
>
>
> */Defense counsel’s motion: /*
>
>
>
> At the court hearing, defense counsel Fariz Namazli made a verbal motion
> for Khadija Ismayil to be seated next to her lawyers, to allow her to
> consult with them freely. The state prosecutor asked for the motion to
> be dismissed. The presiding judge rejected the motion, citing concerns
> for Khadija Ismayil's safety.
>
>
>
> Khadija Ismayilova said she wanted to consult with her lawyers. The
> presiding judge announced a 10-minute break, during which the defense
> counsels entered the glass-encased cage. Khadija Ismayilova's
> conversation with her lawyers took place in the presence of bailiffs.
>
>
>
> */Khadija Ismayilova's addendum to the appellate complaint/*
>
>
>
> Khadija Ismayilova submitted an addendum to the appellate complaint:
> "The Baku Grave Crimes Court's decision states that I do not have any
> property. I have decided to voluntarily provide information about the
> property to be confiscated: a 5-storey building in London. All the
> apartments on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th floors of that building are
> rented for 9 years by 4 companies registered in Virgin Islands. Due to
> the fact that property tax for foreign nationals is extremely high in
> that country, they were not purchased, but rented…”
>
>
>
> Ismayilova was referring to properties rented out by Leyla Aliyeva,
> daughter of the President. The judge turned off Khadija Ismayilova's
> microphone, cutting her off.
>
>
>
> */Defense counsels' speech/*
>
>
>
> Defense counsel Fariz Namazli spoke first.
>
>
>
>  "It is not right to conduct the proceedings without a judicial
> investigation. During the preliminary hearing, we filed motions to
> conduct the proceeding through partial investigation, to examine the
> evidence that we presented to the court, but the evidence was  not
> examined. I want to speak about the charges. According to the charge
> brought under Article 179.3.2 of the Criminal Code, Khadija Ismayilova
> arranged for a number of individuals, cooperating with Azadliq Radio
> under service contracts, register as payers of simplified tax instead of
> income tax, thereby profiting from the 10% difference between simplified
> tax and income tax, i.e. a total of 17,992.60 AZN. First of all, Khadija
> Ismayilova has not signed contracts with any of the individuals
> mentioned in the indictment: Hamidov Shamsaddin Rauf oglu, Babayeva
> Gulnara Rafig gizi, Javadova Esmira Turab gizi, Mammadov Mustajab
> Mutallim oglu, Nasibova Malahat Ibrahim gizi, Sadigova Gular Miryahya
> gizi, Hasanov Samir Mammadali oglu, Zeynalov Eldar Tahir oglu, Nasibov
> Ilgar Elbay oglu, Mammadli Rafig Humbat oglu and the founder and chief
> editor of the "Fergli Dushunje" (Different Way of Thinking) magazine
> Namazov Shahvalad Abutalib oglu. The case materials do not include
> contracts signed between Khadija Ismayilova and those individuals.”
>
>
>
> Namazli said that the contracts that the defense had presented to the
> court of first instance - which the court had refused to examine -
> showed that Javadova Esmira Turab gizi signed her contract with Radio
> Free Europe/Radio Liberty Corporation employee Elizabeth Portale, and
> Namazov Shahvalad Abutalib oglu had signed his contract with the
> official representative of the radio's representative office, Yahya
> Mirzayev.
>
>
>
> According to the lawyer, the fact that an individual entrepreneur
> establishes working relationships with any enterprise or employer on the
> basis of a service contract rather than an employment contract is not
> contrary to the existing legislation, and there is no legal provision
> that prohibits this practice. Forcing the representative office to pay
> income tax constitutes a gross violation of the right to free enterprise
> provided by the Constitution of Azerbaijan Republic.
>
>
>
> “Shahvalad Namazov has registered as a physical person and obtained a
> TIN from the tax authorities. Radio Azadliq transferred funds to his
> personal account, not to the account of the magazine, which had a legal
> entity status. Unfortunately, the court demonstrated its poor
> understanding of the Law of Azerbaijan Republic on Mass Media, and, in
> general, a failure to grasp how radio stations, magazines and editorial
> offices are regulated. According to Article 14 of the Law on Mass Media,
> permission from state authorities is not required to establish a print
> publication. Any legal entity or physical person who wants to establish
> a print publication is obliged to apply to the relevant executive
> authority, the Ministry of Justice, 7 days prior to printing the
> publication. In his testimony provided in court, Shahvalad Chobanoglu
> stated that he had made such an application to the Ministry of Justice,”
> the lawyer added.
>
>
>
> Fariz Namazli stressed that even if there had been a violation of the
> law - such as a failure to sign an employment contract - Azerbaijani
> legislation stipulates a special responsibility for such action.
>
>
>
> He added that the Articles 179.3.2 and 308.2 – under which their client
> is being charged – refer to a specific person, i.e. the office holder.
> But Khadija Ismayilova was not responsible for finances; in other words,
> she was not an office holder. She was not responsible for finances while
> she was the head of Baku Bureau of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. She
> coordinated production activity on the instructions of the management,
> and was exclusively engaged in production and programming work. She was
> not entrusted with any property or financial obligations.
>
>
>
> “In her testimony as the accused, Khadija Ismayilova noted that her
> employment contract does not include any clause assigning financial or
> administrative authority. Besides, the motion filed with the court to
> add the contracts signed with Javadova Esmira Turab gizi and Namazov
> Shahvalad Abutalib oglu to the case file and to examine them was
> rejected without any legal justification. But those contracts once again
> confirmed that they were not signed by Khadija Ismayilova. Article
> 192.2.2 of the Criminal Code deals with illegal entrepreneurship
> committed by making a large amount of income. RFE/RL Inc. is a
> non-profit company funded by US Congress and has not engaged in any
> business activity since its establishment. The information on the
> Radio's website says that Radio Liberty is a non-commercial organization
> funded by the US Congress. Radio Liberty's mission is to support
> democratic values and institutions by disseminating news and ideas.
> Entrepreneurship is a completely different concept and its features have
> been described in various legislative acts,” emphasized Namazli.
>
>
>
> The lawyer also noted that under the 30 December 2008 decision of the
> National Television and Radio Council, the FM frequency given to Radio
> Azadliq was revoked on 1 January 2009. At this point, Radio Azadliq
> ceased its FM broadcasts.
>
>
>
> Namazli said that obtaining or extending a license was part of the job
> description of the head of the Baku Bureau, and therefore, the charges
> against Khadija Ismayilova in this regard are biased and unfair.
>
>
>
> “As to charges concerning the failure to gain accreditation with the
> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Republic, we would like to
> note that in 2010-2014 Khadija Ismayilova cooperated with Radio Free
> Europe/Radio Liberty on the basis of a service contract and was not an
> employee of that radio station or any foreign or local media outlet. She
> operated as an independent journalist selling her investigative stories
> to a number of media outlets, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
> There is no basis on which the tax evasion charge can be brought against
> Khadija Ismayilova as the head of the Baku Bureau, because, as noted
> above, the head of the Baku Bureau did not have administrative or
> financial authority. Therefore she was not liable for payment of taxes
> and social payments. Based on the foregoing, we request that Khadija
> Ismayilova be acquitted,” concluded Fariz Namazli.
>
> After that, lawyer Javad Javadov gave his speech. “At the Baku Grave
> Crimes Court, we presented the decision on the case "ANS versus Ministry
> of Taxes" as legal precedent. In that case, the signing of service
> contracts instead of employment contracts with employees was considered
> illegal by the Ministry of Taxes. However, all court instances
> considered the Tax Ministry's claim unfounded and ruled that the Tax
> Ministry's decision was contrary to Article 300 of the Civil Code.
> However, the Grave Crimes Court did not accept that decision. The court
> of first instance has not conducted a fair investigation. We do not
> believe either that it would be conducted fairly here,” Javad Javadov said.
>
>
>
> Next, lawyer Fakhraddin Mehdiyev made a speech. “Initially, the criminal
> case was launched under Article 125. After Tural Mustafayev said that he
> had filed the complaint under duress, the investigating authority saw
> that continuing this case could lead to serious consequences. Therefore,
> charges related to economic offenses were added. The investigating
> authority committed serious violations. In order for Article 179 to be
> relevant there must be a victim, but in this case, there is no victim.
> There is no victim and no damage. At the court of first instance we
> filed 35 motions, none of which were granted. Nor have our motions in
> this court been granted. This proves that the case is biased. The Grave
> Crimes Court violated Khadija Ismayilova’s right to a fair trial
> provided for in the European Convention. The court's decision is a
> serious blemish on Azerbaijan's image. This will lead the judges of
> European Human Rights Court to make a decision that will be a shock for
> them...”
>
>
>
> */Khadija Ismayilova’s speech/*
>
>
>
> After that, Khadija Ismayilova made a speech: “You do not have the
> tolerance to listen to free speech. Whoever is in control of the
> microphone turns it off whenever he wants. This country is ruled by mob
> law.
>
> /(At this point, the judge turned off the microphone again)./
>
> At the court of first instance, I requested that the head of the
> Anti-Terror Department of the Ministry of National Security, Ilgar
> Aliyev be interrogated. He directly supervised my case.
>
> /(At this point, the judge turned off the microphone again)/.
>
>
>
> You are too old to play with buttons. I am talking on the charges. I was
> not the head of Azerbaijani Bureau of Radio Liberty. I was the head of
> Baku Bureau. The charges should have been brought against the
> Azerbaijani representation, not against me. This is the US Secretary of
> State John Kerry. Ask him whatever questions you have. I am also charged
> with failing to gain accreditation. You gain accreditation in order to
> be able to attend state events. But I was never invited [to state
> events], because they knew that I would ask them difficult questions. If
> they do not let me attend the events held in the country, why should I
> go and obtain accreditation? The prosecutor's office has written a
> 16-ton indictment, which does not include a single fact. /(Laughing)/
> And yes, I should also say that the property in London, which I
> mentioned at the beginning of my speech, is not in my name, but in Leyla
> Aliyeva's.
>
> (/At this point, the judge turned off the microphone again and cut off
> Khadija Ismayil’s speech/).
>
>
>
> After this, the public prosecutor made a speech and requested that the
> verdict of the first instance court be upheld.
>
> The Court of Appeal ruled to uphold the Baku Grave Crimes Court verdict
> of 1 September 2015.
>
>
>
> Background: Khadija Ismayil was arrested on 5 December 2014. She was
> initially charged under article 125 of the Criminal Code (driving to
> suicide). Later, she faced new charges under articles 179
> (misappropriation), 192.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.2 (tax
> evasion) and 308.2 (abuse of official powers). On September 1, the court
> acquitted Khadija Ismayil of the charge filed under Article 125 of the
> Criminal Code of Azerbaijan Republic (incitment to suicide). However,
> the court found her guilty under Articles 179.3.2 (misappropriation and
> waste on a large scale), 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.1 (tax
> evasion) and 308.2 (abuse of official powers) and sentenced her to 7.5
> years in jail and a 3-year ban from holding certain positions or
> engaging in certain activities.  Amnesty International has recognized
> Khadija Ismayil as a prisoner of conscience.
>
>
>
> *Dispatches from Khadija Ismayilova’s trial*
>
>
>
> *Khadija Ismayilova’s trial: court orders alleged victim Tural
> Mustafayev to attend*
>
>
>
> _Summary: Hearing 2 (7 __August 2015)_
>
> ·               Tural Mustafayev, officially deemed a victim in the
> case, did not attend the hearing; consequently the court issued an order
> requiring his presence;
>
> ·               The public prosecutor announced the final part of the
> indictment against Khadija Ismayilova, who stated that the charges were
> unclear to her;
>
> ·               Ismayilova testified, and rejected the charges. She told
> the court that she had never held any administrative authority at Radio
> Azadliq (Radio Liberty’s Azerbaijani Service);
>
> ·               A witness for the prosecution, Aynur Imranova, was
> questioned and told the court that Ismayilova was innocent and that
> Tural Mustafayev suffered from mental health issues. She also stated
> that she had been pressured by investigators to incriminate Ismayilova
> in her statement;
>
> ·               Tural Mustafayev’s ex-fiancée, lawyer Rovshana Rahimli
> testified;
>
> ·               The former head of Radio Liberty’s Baku Office, Babak
> Bakir, told the court that neither he nor Ismayilova had dealt with
> contractual or financial matters, and these issues were managed by the
> Prague headquarters of Radio Liberty.
>
>
>
> On 7 August, the Baku Court of Grave Crimes heard the case of journalist
> Khadija Ismayilova. Judge Ramella Allahverdiyeva presided over the hearing.
>
>
>
> Although a large crowd of people arrived to see the journalist’s trial,
> the courtroom was filled with people who had no obvious interest in the
> trial or its participants, while others were denied entry. Only
> representatives of the US, German and French embassies were allowed in.
> Ismayilova filed a motion to allow members of the public and journalists
> to enter the courtroom, aimed at upholding the principle of judicial
> openness. However, her motion was denied. The defence lawyers, in turn,
> objected to the composition of the court on the grounds that (1)
> Ismayilova’s motion had been rejected and (2) that the court required
> that the witnesses be questioned before the alleged victim. However,
> this motion was also rejected.
>
>
>
> _Defence motions_
>
>
>
> The defence filed a motion to allow the journalist to sit next to her
> lawyers, but this was denied, on the grounds that Ismayilova was being
> held inside the glass cage for her own safety.
>
>
>
> A second defence motion addressed the issue of financial authority and
> liability. Because the Radio Liberty Azerbaijani service (RL) had an
> account with the Azerbaijan International Bank (AIB), argued the
> defence, an inquiry must be sent to the AIB to establish whether they
> had held Ismayilova’s sample signature as the head of RL’s Baku Bureau,
> and/or payment orders bearing her signature intended for the conduct of
> financial operations.
>
> The lawyers filed another motion requesting the court to add the
> decisions on opening and suspending the tax inspection in RL’s Baku
> Office to the case file.
>
>
>
> The motions were denied.
>
>
>
> _Announcement of the indictment_
>
>
>
> Public prosecutor Ramazan Hadiyev announced the concluding section of
> the indictment. He noted that after finding out that Tural Mustafayev
> was engaged to another woman and despite knowing that he had attempted
> suicide, Ismayilova prevented him from gaining employment at RFE/RL’s
> Azerbaijani service in order to render him financially dependent on her,
> thereby humiliating his dignity.
>
>
>
> The prosecutor also stated that from 1 July 2008 until 1 January 2009,
> Ismayilova hired employees for RL’s Baku Office, acts which due to RL’s
> unlicensed status, constituted illegal entrepreneurship (generating
> 335,880 AZN in revenue). Ismayilova was also alleged to have evaded
> 45,145 AZN in taxes. The public prosecutor added that there was
> sufficient evidence that she had committed these crimes.
>
>
>
> _Khadija Ismayilova’s testimony_
>
>
>
> Ismayilova argued that the charges brought against her were groundless.
> “While I was at Radio Azadliq, I did not employ anyone or sign any
> contract. I was responsible only for the broadcast programmes and
> quality control of published articles. Employment contracts were signed
> by the Prague office. As for Tural Mustafayev, I had no relationship
> with him at all”.
>
>
>
> _Prosecution witnesses_
>
>
>
> The first witness to take the stand was journalist Aynur Imranova. She
> told the court that she had been interviewed extensively by
> investigators, and requested the court to ask specific questions.
>
>
>
> Prosecutor: Did you have any contact with Radio Azadliq? How long have
> you known Khadija? How do you know her? Which of Khadija Ismayilova’s
> programmes have you been involved in? Have you applied to Radio Azadliq
> to work as a journalist? Why did you want to work there? Were you a
> taxpayer? Until when were you friends with Khadija Ismayilova? Have you
> collaborated on any projects? How do you know Tural Mustafayev and since
> when? Were you together with Tural Mustafayev’s fiancée Rovshana
> Rahimova on 9 March 2014? What do you know about Khadija’s relationship
> with Tural Mustafayev? Do you have any information about Tural
> Mustafayev’s attempted suicide?
>
>
>
> Aynur Imranova: I did not have contact with Radio Azadliq. I have known
> Khadija since 2012. I participated in several of her programmes as well
> as in other presenters’ programmes. I have not worked for Radio Azadliq.
> I applied once and Khadija told me that she did not handle recruitment,
> as she was not authorised. The reason I wanted to work for Radio Azadliq
> was because I thought my articles were similar to their style. Yes, I
> have been a taxpayer for quite a long time. Khadija and I have not met
> since May 2014 due to personal problems. I have developed a project on
> capacity-building of investigative journalists, and Khadija voluntarily
> assisted me in translating my project. Khadija’s investigations are well
> known in many parts of the world. I have known Tural Mustafayev since
> 2013; we met when Khadija was returning from abroad. I met Rovshana
> Rahimli on 9 March 2014 in a café. Tural attempted suicide because he
> quarrelled with Rovshana Rahimli several times. I have been questioned
> by five people at the investigative agency. I have no information about
> the relationship between Khadija and Tural. Tural is an alcoholic who is
> mentally ill. He used to beat Rovshana Rahimli. Once Tural tried to hang
> himself but he failed; he took a photo of this, which he shared via MMS
> with friends. The investigators took my statement under pressure. They
> offered me an apartment, money, and so on if I would testify against
> Khadija.
>
>
>
> The former head of RL’s Baku Bureau, Babak Bakir, was next to testify.
> He told the court that he had cooperated with Radio Azadliq since 1997,
> and that in 2005 he became a full-time employee. “From 2010 till 2014, I
> worked as a coordinator, which is essentially the acting head. But
> recruitment and salaries were both determined by the Prague office.
> Yahya Mirzayev was in charge of dealing with documentation. Khadija and
> I were not involved in it. I had an account with Azerbaijan
> International Bank. I worked based on an employment contract and paid
> all relevant taxes. Our employees were accredited by the Ministry of
> Foreign Affairs. I know Tural Mustafayev. He wanted to work for RL, and
> I employed him. He was not a staffer. Once he wrote me an e-mail saying
> that he was tired and wanted to leave his job and wanted to give up
> journalism for awhile. But later, he worked for Meydan TV. After
> quitting his job there, he applied to work with us again, but we did not
> have any vacancies. The head of the RL’s Baku Bureau was not entitled to
> be involved with financial matters. After leaving the position of the
> Bureau head, I worked as a correspondent, and the coordinator was Zeynal
> Mammadli. Khadija Ismayilova did not express any opinion on Tural
> Mustafayev”.
>
>
>
> Hakim Ahmadov, who works as a security guard on Baku Boulevard, also
> testified. He said that he did not know Khadija. “Citizens reported an
> incident, and I called an ambulance. None of his relatives or friends
> were present, until one person came. The man was conscious and able to
> talk. Then the ambulance arrived and took him”, said the witness.
>
>
>
> The court scheduled the next hearing for 10 August at 11.00am.
>
>
>
> Three journalists attempting to film the hearing from outside were taken
> to the police office, but were later released. After the hearing,
> journalists who wanted to interview the hearing participants were
> attacked. The assailants tried to smash their cameras and the police
> officer guarding the court failed to intervene. A journalist who tried
> to take refuge inside the court building was forced out by the police
> officers.
>
>
>
> /Background:/ Khadija Ismayilova was arrested on 5 December 2014. She
> was initially charged under article 125 of the Criminal Code (incitement
> to suicide). Later, she faced new charges under articles 179.3.2
> (misappropriation - on a large scale); 192.2.2 (implementation of
> illegal business activity - with extraction of income in a large
> amount); 213 (evasion of payment of taxes or other obligatory payments
> of a significant amount); and 308.2 (abuse of official powers -
> entailing heavy consequences or committed to influence the outcome of an
> election or referendum). Amnesty International has recognised Ismayilova
> as a prisoner of conscience.
>
>
>
> *Journalists attacked after Khadija Ismayilova’s trial*
>
>
>
> On 7 August, the Baku Court of Grave Crimes held a hearing in the case
> of journalist Khadija Ismayilova. Numerous journalists and activists
> arrived to attend the hearing, but were not allowed in. The court guards
> only allowed representatives of foreign missions (the US, German, and
> French embassies) to enter the courtroom. The court officers said that
> the courtroom was full and no empty seats were left. Journalist Orkhan
> Rustemzade, who was filming in front of the courthous, was taken to
> Police Station #22. He was released after two hours, after giving a
> statement.
>
>
>
> After the hearing was over, Voice of America radio journalist Tapdig
> Farhadoglu asked those leaving the court building whether Ismayilova had
> attended the hearing. The situation escalated when he asked an elderly
> man, who said he had attended the hearing, whether he was related to
> Ismayilova. Farhadoglu was then assaulted by two women and a man. Meydan
> TV journalists Izolda Agayeva and Aytaj Ahmadova, filming together with
> Radio Liberty reporter Islam Shikhali, also faced violence; an elderly
> woman took a glass bottle from a bin and attempted to hit Aytaj
> Ahmadova. Fortunately Ahmadova’s colleagues intercepted the blow, but
> another woman did manage to hit Ahmadova with her bag. A man attacked
> and tried to assault Shikhali, but he managed to escape.
>
>
>
> Meanwhile, one of the women threw her shoe at Tapdig Farhadoglu, who
> tried to seek refuge in the court building, but the court guards and
> police forced him back out towards the waiting crowd. A young man came
> from a distance and hit Farhadoglu. Police officers present at the scene
> failed to intervene and protect members of the press from this outbreak
> of violence. The police and assailants told Farhadoglu to refrain from
> “causing provocations”.
>
>
>
> *Khadija Ismayilova’s trial: Alleged victim Tural Mustafayev admits to
> slandering Ismayilova during the investigation*
>
>
>
> _Summary: Hearing 3 (10 August 2015)_
>
>
>
> ·               Tural Mustafayev, the alleged victim in Khadija
> Ismayilova's case, testified that it was he who had slandered
> Ismayilova, and he had suffered no emotional damage and had no claims
> against her;
>
> ·               Mustafayev's mother and father, who were questioned as
> prosecution witnesses, stated they had no claims against Khadija;
>
> ·               Prosecution witness Rovshana Rahimli told the court that
> Mustafayev (her former fiancé) was mentally ill, physically abusive
> towards her, and that each time they had split up, he had attempted
> suicide;
>
> ·               The defence’s motions to include Mustafayev's interview
> in the evidence list and to revoke his victim status were denied;
>
> ·               Prosecution witness Shahvalad Chobanoglu testified,
> stating that Khadija herself was the victim of a crime.
>
>
>
> On 10 August, the Baku Court of Grave Crimes resumed the hearing in the
> case against journalist Khadija Ismayilova. Judge Ramella Allahverdiyeva
> presided over the hearing.
>
>
>
> Although numerous people wanted to attend the trial, the courtroom had
> been filled in advance with people unrelated to the trial, and so many
> of those seeking to attend were denied entry. Only the representatives
> of the US, German and French embassies were permitted to observe.
>
>
>
> _Defence motions_
>
>
>
> The defence filed a motion requesting that the media interviews of Tural
> Mustafayev, recognised as a victim by the prosecution, be included in
> the evidence list. In those interviews, Mustafayev said that law
> enforcement agencies had blackmailed several people with secretly
> recorded videos in order to compel them to give statements incriminating
> Ismayilova.
>
>
>
> With regard to the lawyer's motion, Ismayilova said, "Tural Mustafayev's
> first statement against me was written on 25 November, but the
> prosecutor's office had obtained the court warrant to listen to my phone
> conversation a month earlier, on 28 October. Did the prosecutor's office
> receive some kind of revelation or glean news of the future from
> extra-terrestrials in order to know that Tural would file such a
> complaint, enabling them to obtain the warrant in advance?”
>
>
>
> The lawyer also requested that Mustafayev's victim status be dismissed;
> however both motions were denied.
>
>
>
> _Tural Mustafayev’s testimony_
>
>
>
> Mustafayev testified that his suicide attempt on 20 October 2014 was
> unrelated to Ismayilova. "I got to know Khadija Ismayilova in October
> 2013, and our relationship was purely professional. Neither my
> employment at Radio Azadliq, nor my decision to leave, nor my
> cooperation with Meydan TV bears any relation to Ismayilova. The
> documentation regarding my treatment at a psychiatric patient in
> Mashtaga [settlement] is in the case file. Due to my poor mental health
> I attempted suicide three times in 2014”.
>
>
>
> However, due to the contradiction between the statement Mustafayev gave
> in court and his prior statement, the court read out the statement he
> had provided during the investigation.
>
>
>
> When the court asked for an explanation for this contradiction,
> Mustafayev said he had slandered Ismayilova in the testimony he provided
> to the investigators. "I had no dependence on Khadija in any way. She
> played no role in my dismissal from my job, or my drinking the rat
> poison. I do not consider myself a victim", said Mustafayev.
>
>
>
> _Prosecution witnesses_
>
>
>
> Mustafayev's mother, Nazakat Mustafayeva, who had been interrogated by
> investigators as a witness, was also questioned. She said that she lives
> in Goychay. Her son came to Baku in late 2013, but she was unaware of
> his job or the persons with whom he was involved. However, in her
> initial testimony to investigators, she confirmed her son's statement
> and requested that Ismayilova be held to account for driving her son to
> attempt suicide.
>
>
>
> The next prosecution witness, Mustafayev's ex-fiancée Rovshana Rahimli,
> told the court that Mustafayev had attempted to take his own life three
> times, and that none of these incidents had been related to Ismayilova.
> She requested that the court consider her court testimony as valid,
> because her testimony to the investigators had been distorted.
>
>
>
> “I met Tural on 8 March 2014 at a holiday party and we got engaged on 28
> May. He suffered from mental health issues. While we were together, he
> attempted suicide three times. Tural repeatedly insulted and physically
> assaulted me when he was drunk, but then he would promise to behave and
> we would reconcile. On 15 October, we had a big argument, leading me to
> file a police complaint on 16 October. After drinking rat poison on the
> Boulevard on 20 October, Tural Mustafayev wrote a text message to my
> friend Samira Agayeva saying that he did not want to live without me.
> After the suicide attempt, he was first taken to Semashko [hospital] and
> kept there for one day, before being transferred to the mental health
> unit. We consulted a doctor while we were together, and he was diagnosed
> as a psychopath, meaning that his condition is impossible to treat”,
> Rahimli told the court.
>
>
>
> Mustafayev's father also testified as a witness. "I had already said to
> investigators that we did not suspect anyone. Then we went to Rovshana's
> house and she said that it might have been done by Khadija Ismayilova
> and I was convinced. I do not have a complaint against anyone. Rovshana
> Rahimli told me that Tural lost his job and could not find a new one
> because of Khadija", he said. But when Ismayilova asked him, "Do you
> consider me guilty in your son's suicide?", he replied, "I do not blame
> anyone at all".
>
>
>
> When the judge asked about the discrepancies between his initial
> testimony and his statement in court, he replied that he had simply
> repeated what he had heard from Rahimli to the investigators.
>
>
>
> Samira Agayeva also confirmed in her testimony that Mustafayev had
> psychological problems. "Before his suicide attempt, I met him in the
> city and he said that he had been drinking for a week and did not want
> to live. And an hour later, I received a text message that read "Tell
> Roshka that I did what she had told me..."
>
>
>
> Mustafayev's ex-wife Shafa Mustafayeva said they were divorced on 8 May
> 2014 and have two children, and that Mustafayev had gotten engaged to
> Rovshana after the divorce. "I heard from his family that he was
> unemployed and had lost his mind. I did not face any pressure from the
> investigators", said Mustafayeva.
>
>
>
> Another witness for the prosecution, Matanat Abdinova, who worked as a
> cleaner for Radio Azadliq, said she was hired in 2008 and signed a
> service contract with Mr. Yahya. "I did not sign a contract with
> Khadija. She only gave me instructions related to cleaning. I discussed
> all my job-related issues with Mr. Yahya. My salary was transferred to
> my bank account, and I paid all the required taxes".
>
>
>
> According to witness Gulnaz Guliyeva, she was hired as a translator for
> Radio Azadliq by Ismayilova. "I was not a permanent employee. I worked
> with a TIN. I had a bank account, which is now closed".
>
>
>
> Shahvalad Chobanoglu testified that he had first been questioned in
> December 2014, but the interrogation was not directly related to
> Ismayilova, because the charges against her were only brought in
> February 2015. "Khadija herself is the victim of a crime. I have been a
> taxpayer since 2006. Khadija Ismayilova was not involved in my work. I
> was the editor and founder of the ‘Different Opinion’ magazine, which
> was registered with the Ministry of Justice. All related funds were
> transferred to my bank account and I paid four per cent as tax".
>
>
>
> Next, a former employee of Radio Azadliq, Chingiz Sultansoy, testified.
> "When I was summoned for interrogation, I requested a lawyer, but the
> authorities told me that the lawyer could come later. Nonetheless, I
> refused to provide a testimony. Then I was questioned for three hours.
> They asked numerous questions. I told them that I had signed my
> employment contract with the [RFE/RL] head office, and showed them my
> contract. I said that I had been hired by Kenan Aliyev, and that my
> salary bore no relation to Khadija Ismayilova", the journalist told the
> court.
>
>
>
> *Khadija Ismayilova’s trial: The court finishes questioning prosecution
> witnesses*
>
>
>
> Summary: Hearing 6(13 August 2015)
>
> ·               The court denied a series of motions filed by the
> defence regarding some details that would prove important for the case
> and ensure its objective investigation;
>
> ·               Radio Azadliq employee Ulker Guliyeva, who had been
> questioned by the prosecution, testified and answered questions related
> to the radio;
>
> ·               The court announced the witness statement of Radio
> Azadliq technical maintenance worker Farid Abdullayev, who had been
> interrogated by the prosecution;
>
> ·               Khadija Ismayilova and her lawyers objected to the rapid
> pace of the trial, but the court did not take the objection into account.
>
> On 13 August, the third successive hearing was held in the case of
> journalist Khadija Ismayilova in the Baku Court of Grave Crimes. Judge
> Ramella Allahverdiyeva presided over the hearing.
>
> As in previous days, only representatives of a few embassies and
> government media outlets were allowed to enter the courtroom.
>
>
>
> _Defence motions_
>
>
>
> The defence requested that Shahla Humbatova be questioned as a witness
> in relation to the suicide attempt of Tural Mustafayev, who was
> considered a victim by the court. The motion was rejected.
>
>
>
> lawyer Fariz Namazli also stressed the importance of further
> investigation of the claims that Mustafayev had been fired from Meydan
> TV at Ismayilova’s insistence. The lawyer said they had sent an inquiry
> to Meydan TV in this regard and received a response, and they wanted
> this response to be included in the evidence list, but the judge refused
> to do so, because, according to her, the source of the response was
> suspicious.
>
>
>
> The defence then requested the inclusion in the evidence list of Tural
> Mustafayev’s email correspondence with the head of Radio Liberty’s Baku
> Bureau, Babak Bakir, about his intention to quit his job at Radio
> Azadliq. However, this motion was similarly dismissed.
>
>
>
> The defence filed a motion to summon Adil Ismayilov, a representative of
> Radio Azadliq, to the trial, but the judge also denied this motion.
>
>
>
> “At least, don’t make it so clear that you’ve closed the radio station
> because of me. You closed down the radio station to arrest me, because
> you needed to arrest me after searching the radio station, but you did
> the opposite”, Ismayilova said.
>
>
>
> Lawyer Fariz Namazli noted that during his testimony as a victim, Tural
> Mustafayev stated that he had not voluntarily presented his personal
> Facebook correspondence to the prosecutor’s office. Therefore, the
> lawyer requested that this correspondence be removed from the evidence
> list, but the motion was denied.
>
>
>
> Namazli also requested that relevant structures of the Ministry of
> Communications and Information Technologies and representatives of the
> National Television and Radio Council be summoned to court as additional
> witnesses in connection with the issue of the radio station’s broadcast.
> However, this motion was rejected too.
>
>
>
> The lawyers and Ismayilova protested the rapid pace at which the trial
> was being held, and requested more time, but the judge did not take
> their request into account.
>
>
>
> Ismayilova objected to the judge. “You say a 15-year sentence awaits me.
> I am ready to be jailed even for 25 years. At least I would spend a
> small part of it here, in the courtroom, striving and fighting for my
> rights. To ensure my rights. I understand that you’ve been given an
> order with regard to me. You already know what sentence you’ll give me.
> Maybe you even feel remorse for coming and seeing me here every day.
> But, give me an opportunity to defend my rights”, said Ismayilova.
>
>
>
> _Prosecution witnesses _
>
>
>
> Radio Azadliq employee Ulker Guliyeva, a witness for the prosecution,
> gave her testimony. She was asked about the radio station’s activities
> and the difference between full-time employees and contract workers.
> Ulker Guliyev said she had been working for the radio station since 2005
> and received her salary in her International Bank account and then via a
> plastic card. She told the court that there was no significant
> difference between full-time employees and contract workers.
>
>
>
> Radio Azadliq’s technical maintenance worker Farid Abdullayev was then
> due to testify, but as he was not present, his investigation statement
> was read. In his statement, he had noted that he worked based on a
> service contract and paid all required taxes. He had added that he had
> once seen another Radio Azadliq employee, Javanshir Agamaliyev, receive
> a few thousand AZN in addition to his salary in his bank account, and
> withdraw the money from his account.
>
> Ismayilova objected to this statement, saying that Farid Abdullayev’s
> statement had changed and he must come to court. The court said this
> issue would be assessed at the end.
>
>
>
> Thus, the questioning of prosecution witnesses was completed and the
> next hearing was set for 14 August at 15.00.
>
>
>
> *Defence motions repeatedly rejected *
>
>
>
> _Summary: Hearing 7 (14 August 2015)_
>
>
>
> ·      Khadija Ismayilova objected to the presiding judge and the court
> clerk, but her objections were dismissed;
>
> ·      Defence lawyers filed a number of key motions, but all were
> denied by the court.
>
> Journalist Khadija Ismayilova’s trial continued at the Baku Court of
> Grave Crimes on 14 August. Judge Ramella Allahverdiyeva presided over
> the hearing.
>
>
>
> It was another semi-closed hearing. As in previous hearings, employees
> of the APA, Virtualaz.org and Telegraph news agencies were allowed to
> enter the courtroom in advance. While representatives of the US, German,
> French, and Norwegian embassies, Ismayilova’s family members, and an
> Azadliq newspaper reporter were let in through the second door,
> representatives from the UK embassy and Human Rights Watch were denied
> entry. Many journalists and members of the public were also prevented
> from attending denied entry. Numerous police officers and non-uniformed
> Ministry of National Security (MNS) officers were waiting near the court
> building.
>
>
>
> The seats in the courtroom were again filled with outsiders,
> non-uniformed court staff, and MNS employees.
>
>
>
> _Defendant’s objections_
>
>
>
> As soon as the hearing started, Ismayilova presented an objection to the
> presiding judge, which stated:
>
> “Referring to Article 109.1.8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of (CPC)
> Azerbaijan Republic, I object to Judge Ramella Allahverdiyeva,
> considering the fact that she has demonstrated bias throughout the court
> proceedings. This motion is based on the following circumstances:
>
>
>
> 1) The presiding judge has violated the principle of the equality of
> parties. The defendant, in breach of the law, was not been provided with
> copies of the criminal case documents during the investigation, and was
> given only a small part of the required documents after filing a motion
> with the court. The decision to deny a second motion was justified on
> the grounds that ‘those [which have been] presented are enough’. Thus,
> the judge ignored a violation of Article 285 of the CPC and demonstrated
> her interest in the unequal status of the defence in the criminal
> prosecution. The decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of
> Azerbaijan Republic ‘On the Application of the Provisions of the
> European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
> Freedoms and the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in the
> Administration of Justice’ of 30 May 2006 was also violated as a result
> of these actions.
>
>
>
> 2) Judge Ramella Allahverdiyeva threatened the defendant at a court
> hearing, saying that a 15-year jail sentence awaited her. This threat
> was not voiced in the context of interpreting the legislation or the
> totality of the crimes. The judge said it in response to the defendant’s
> criticisms and insistence that she would answer questions only at a
> public hearing.
>
>
>
> 3) Judge Ramella Allahverdiyeva refused to include in the case file the
> documents refuting charges that had been presented by witnesses, namely
> the [employment/service] contracts presented to the court by Shahvalad
> Namazov and Chingiz Sultanov. Instead, she returned the documents to the
> witnesses.
>
>
>
> 4) None of the defence’s motions were granted.
>
>
>
> 5) The defence motion filed on 13 August 2015, which requested
> questioning of witnesses, was rejected. Namely, the motions that
> requested questioning of witness Humbatova Shahla Knyaz gizi and
> representatives of the Ministry of Communications and Information
> Technologies were denined, although the motions stated that the
> questioning of those witnesses was of great importance in uncovering the
> truth. Those witnesses possess first-hand information regarding the
> allegations made in the indictment. In addition, the defence motion for
> the questioning of the representative of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
> (RFE/RL) was also rejected. The court agreed with the prosecutors’
> objections that the charges were against Khadija Ismayilova, not Radio
> Liberty, although RFE/RL is often mentioned in the indictment and their
> documents are cited, and the charges are related to Khadija Ismayilova’s
> activities in this organisation.
>
>
>
> 6) The judge refused to include in the case file Tural Mustafayev’s
> interview with Azadliq newspaper of 4 August 2015, and his video message
> published on YouTube on 3 May 2015, deeming them ‘questionable’
> evidence, although the motion to include the YouTube message in the case
> file was also filed by the victim Mustafayev himself. During his
> questioning [in court], Mustafayev confirmed what he had said in that
> video message, and asserted that he had been pressured by the prosecution.
>
>
>
> 7) The motion to revoke Tural Mustafayev’s victim status, which was
> backed by Mustafayev as well, was rejected groundlessly.
>
>
>
> 8) By scheduling a hearing every day, Allahverdiyeva deprived the
> defendant of the opportunity to liaise with her lawyers, thus violating
> the right to effective defence. The judge has ignored the repeated
> requests and objections made in this regard. Allahverdiyeva also
> overruled the objections regarding interference by court guards in
> confidential discussions between the defendant and her lawyer, and
> failed to intervene in this regard. I should remind that the
> investigation of evidence is the direct duty of the court under the CPC.
>
>
>
> Considering the bias that Ramella Allahverdiyeva has demonstrated during
> the court proceedings by violating all her duties set forth in Article
> 28.4 of CPC, I request that she be dismissed from the present case. I
> request that the above-mentioned circumstances be re-investigated and
> new decisions be made on these motions under the chairmanship of an
> impartial judge. I want to additionally note that in the detention
> facility, I came across people repeatedly accused and convicted of many
> crimes, and among them, there are some charged under Article 144, which
> is human trafficking. Among people, they are known as “mama rosa”
> [nickname for a female procurer]. What Ramella Allahverdiyeva has done
> to Themis is nothing compared to what those women have done to the
> victims of human trafficking. You have not respected the justice
> legislation and have turned it into the bondmaid of the prosecutor’s
> office. I request that the court disqualify you from this proceeding. I
> don’t want to see the law being insulted in such a non-professional
> manner”.
>
>
>
> The defence backed the motion. Commenting on the objection, the public
> prosecutor said that the motions [referred to in the objection] were
> vague and unsupported by the circumstances of the case and not
> consistent with the case materials. He said that they had not been filed
> in accordance with criminal procedure legislation, and there were no
> grounds to justify them. He further remarked that the issues raised in
> those motions were of a general nature and were rightly rejected by the
> court’s rulings. He therefore noted that there were no grounds on which
> to object to the judge who made those rulings. After a deliberation, the
> panel of judges rejected the objection as unfounded.
>
>
>
> Ismayilova then declared that she wanted to present an objection against
> the court clerk on the grounds that the court minutes had been
> falsified, and said that she wanted to discuss this objection with her
> lawyers. As the reason for the objection, Ismayilova referred to the
> misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the judges’ words regarding
> the 15-year jail sentence awaiting her in the court minutes. Ismayilova
> said that the true context of these words had been shown in the media.
> Ismayilova recalled that after the court’s denial of her motion
> requesting audio and video recording of the proceedings, she had asked
> to see the court minutes, but the court had not agreed. Ismayilova
> expressed her objection to the court clerk and requested that she be
> given an opportunity to familiarise herself with the minutes of the
> court hearings. Ismayilova noted that there could be other cases of
> falsification regarding other matters and she wanted to file motions for
> the timely correction of those falsifications. But the court denied this
> motion.
>
>
>
> _Lawyers’ motions_
>
>
>
> Lawyer Fariz Namazli filed a number of motions during the hearing. The
> lawyer requested that the representative of Radio Azadliq, Adil
> Ismayilov, be invited to the hearing for the reason that the charges
> filed against Ismayilova were related to her activities at Radio
> Azadliq. “A criminal case has been launched against Radio Azadliq in a
> separate proceeding, and investigations are allegedly on-going. Since
> the charges are directly related to the activities of Radio Azadliq, it
> is important that its representative, Adil Ismayilov, be invited to the
> hearing and questioned to clarify their position”. However, this motion
> was rejected.
>
>
>
> The second motion requested that the following documents be added to the
> case file and investigated at the stage of examining the documents: a
> letter dated 23 April 2015 of the National Television and Radio Council
> (NTRC); an extract from the minutes of the NTRC’s meeting #11 dated 30
> December 2008; a letter dated 14 May 2015 of the State Radio Frequency
> Department of Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies; a
> letter dated 23 June 2015 of the Radio and Television Broadcasting and
> Satellite Communications Production Association of the Ministry; and a
> letter #255/6 dated 30 December 2008 of the NTRC. This motion was also
> rejected.
>
>
>
> The lawyer also requested that the contracts signed between Javadova
> Esmira Tural gizi and the RFE/RL Corporation and between Namazov
> Shahvalad Abutalib oglu and the RFE/RL Corporation be added to the
> criminal case materials and examined at the stage of examining the
> documents. This motion was denied.
>
>
>
> Namazli filed another motion requesting that six witnesses mentioned in
> the indictment be questioned. The lawyers also requested time to prepare
> new motions and to hold discussions with Ismayilova for this purpose.
>
> The next hearing was set for 18 August at 11.00am.
>
>
>
> *Prosecutor seeks nine-year jail sentence for Khadija Ismayilova*
>
>
>
> _Summary: Hearing 8 (18 August 2015)_
>
>
>
> ·      Khadija Ismayilova presented a letter to the chairman of the
> court requesting the protection of the presiding judge’s right to
> vacation time;
>
> ·      Ismayilova raised an objection to the composition of the panel of
> judges, which remained unconsidered;
>
> ·      Ismayilova and her lawyers filed numerous motions, but none were
> granted.
>
>
>
> On 18 August, the hearing resumed at the Baku Court of Grave Crimes.
> Judge Ramella Allahverdiyeva presided over the hearing.
>
>
>
> Like previous hearings, this hearing was semi-closed. Only Ismayilova’s
> family members and representatives of the German and UK embassies were
> allowed to attend the hearing. From the media, only Azadliq newspaper
> and APA news agency reporters were permitted entry. Numerous other
> journalists and members of the public who attempted to observe the
> hearing were again denied entry to the courtroom. Once again, many
> others unrelated to the case were already seated in the courtroom.
>
>
>
> _Khadija Ismayilova’s letter to the chairman of the court _
>
>
>
> At the beginning of the hearing, Ismayilova said she had a letter to be
> presented to Mahmud Nabiyev, the Chairman of the Baku Court of Grave
> Crimes.
>
>
>
> The letter said: “For the sake of a fair trial, ensure Ramella
> Allahverdiyeva’s right to vacation. The summer is going to be over and
> the holiday season is about to end, and I don’t want my right of defence
> to be violated or to be tried based on hasty decisions made in a hasty
> proceeding. Please, do not base the judge’s right to rest on the
> progress of my trial, and allow Allahverdiyeva to go on vacation. I will
> wait. If after returning from the vacation the judge continues the
> proceeding earnestly and without haste, I think that it will benefit the
> justice henceforth. Best wishes, Khadija Ismayilova”.
>
>
>
> The judge said that the letter written to the court chairman had no
> relation to her and advised it be presented to the court though the mail
> or a lawyer.
>
>
>
> Ismayilova then stated her objection to the composition of the bench.
> “Considering the fact that the court panel is interested in the criminal
> prosecution and has violated the principle of equality of parties, I
> object to the composition of the bench, referring to Article 109.1.8 of
> the Criminal Procedure Code. The objection is based on the following
> arguments:
>
>
>
> 1) The court is consistently denying the defence motions, including
> those that request the inclusion in the case file of the documents and
> the questioning of witnesses, both of which serve the purpose of an
> objective investigation. Thus, the court only supports the stance of the
> prosecutor and does not create conditions for the defendant to defend
> herself.
>
>
>
> 2) Judge Karimov Novruz Agakarim oglu justifies the threats made against
> the defendant by the presiding Judge Ramella Allahverdiyeva, thereby
> violating the law. Moreover, the panel demonstrates unanimity in
> rejecting the [defence] motions, while repeating the prosecutor’s
> statements verbatim. Such cases continued to occur after another
> objection had been raised against the presiding judge, and the panel
> chaired by Ramella Allahverdiyeva prevented the inclusion into the case
> file of the documents confirming that only Radio Liberty, not Khadija
> Ismayilova, was authorised to hire new employees, and the documents
> confirming that the license issues related to the radio’s broadcasting
> were dealt with by the Baku Bureau. In view of the above-said, I request
> that the composition of the panel be changed and the Judicial Legal
> Council be requested to investigate the illegal actions of the judges
> Ramella Allahverdiyeva, Tamilla Nasirullayeva, and Novruz Karimov. I
> would like to add that Judge Novruz Karimov not only justified a breach
> of law, but also made references to the falsifications in the minutes.
> Considering the inadmissibility of a judge’s telling lies, I believe
> that the current panel cannot consider this case”. The defence lawyers
> backed the motion.
>
>
>
> Commenting on the motion, the public prosecutor Ramazan Hadiyev said as
> in the previous objection to the presiding judge, this objection was not
> supported by reasonable evidence. He noted that the alignment of the
> prosecutor’s and the court’s positions cannot be interpreted as the
> court’s partiality. He said the objection was unfounded and requested
> that it remain unconsidered. The judge broke for a deliberation to
> discuss the objection. After the deliberation, the court left the motion
> unconsidered.
>
>
>
> _Defence motions _
>
>
>
> Then, Ismayilova filed a motion requesting the court to present any
> contract or payment order bearing her signature. She quoted the bill of
> indictment as stating that she had allegedly hired employees to Radio
> Azadliq based on service contracts, enabling them to pay less tax to the
> state budget. Ismayilova said there were no contracts or payment orders
> bearing her signature, adding that she would welcome the opportunity to
> see them in court. The prosecutor declared the motion was unfounded and
> requested that it be rejected. The judge denied the motion after a short
> deliberation.
>
>
>
> Subsequently, Ismayilova and her lawyer Fariz Namazli filed a motion to
> question additional witnesses, namely, Interpress website editor Ramal
> Huseynov, ann.az website director Naila Bagirova, and Aznews website
> editor-in-chief Elchin Zahiroglu. In support of the motion, the defence
> noted that Ramal Huseynov’s statement was cited in the indictment, and
> he therefore had to be summoned and questioned.
>
>
>
> The judge said that while testifying in court Tural Mustafayev admitted
> slandering Ismayilova, and several other witnesses also recanted their
> original investigation statements defending her position. The judge said
> that the fact that Mustafayev and others provided testimonies that
> differed from their investigation statements would be assessed during
> the court’s deliberations, and that there was no need to question
> additional witnesses.
>
>
>
> Next, lawyer Javad Javadov filed a motion, which said: “The
> investigative agency accuses Khadija Ismayilova of engaging in
> journalistic activities without being accredited by the Ministry of
> Foreign Affairs. Note that there is a presidential decree dated 2
> September 2002 on improving the rules for licensing certain types of
> activities, according to which, journalistic activity does not require a
> license. This is a fantasy made up by the investigative agency, which
> has deemed Khadija Ismayilova’s activity to be illegal entrepreneurship.
> Therefore, we request that the court send a request to the
> Constitutional Court to clarify whether, according to the legislation,
> journalism is an activity requiring a license”. Ismayilova supported her
> lawyer’s motion, saying, “It is indeed an absolute fantasy. Your
> president gathers media workers and says that you need to gain access to
> the foreign press, while, on the other hand, you require a license for
> working as a journalist for the foreign press”. Judge Novruz Karimov
> rejected the motion .
>
>
>
> Lawyer Javad Javadov filed a motion requesting that psychiatrist Araz
> Mahmudchayli be questioned as an additional witness, on the basis that
> Tural Mustafayev’s ex-fiancée Rovshana Rahimli had told the court that
> Mustafayev had serious mental health issues, and they had appealed to
> psychiatrist Araz Mahmudchayli, who had diagnosed Mustafayev as an
> incurable psychopath. The judge denied this motion as well.
>
>
>
> Lawyer Javad Javadov then noted that the documents seized during the
> search in Radio Liberty’s Baku office had not been recorded separately
> in the list, which constituted a gross violation of the procedural
> legislation, meaning that those documents could not be regarded as
> evidence. The lawyer requested that they be removed from the evidence
> list. Judge Novruz Karimov rejected the motion.
>
>
>
> After that, lawyer Fariz Namazli filed a motion requesting that the
> documents on the results of the on-site tax inspection conducted in the
> Baku office of Radio Liberty be obtained from the Ministry of Taxes at
> the request of the court, added to the case file, and examined. Judge
> Novruz Karimov declared that this motion was also denied.
>
> Ismayilova said the court guards were interfering in her consultations
> with her lawyers and requested the court to give her time for
> consultations: “I am not adequately enabled to communicate with my
> lawyers. I cannot consult my lawyers even while in court, as the guards
> listen in on our conversations. My lawyers are hindered from giving me
> documents. My right of defence is violated. On the other hand, being
> brought to court every day, my right to walk in open air and to meet
> with my family is also violated. I request one week from the court to
> consult with my lawyers conveniently”.
>
>
>
> Ismayilova also requested that the alleged victim Tural Mustafayev be
> brought to court when she would testify. She said that after other
> witnesses testified, she would have some questions for the victim. She
> stressed that Mustafayev’s personal presence was important, as his
> representative did not possess information about his private life.
>
>
>
> The judge denied the motion, saying that Mustafayev had attended the
> hearing.
>
>
>
> _Khadija Ismayilova’s testimony _
>
>
>
> “I am charged with abuse of official powers as the head of the
> representative office of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, tax evasion
> and misappropriation in favour of a third party. I have not been the
> head of the Azerbaijani Representation. The Baku Bureau is not the
> Azerbaijani Representation. The Azerbaijani Representation has its
> regulations. Management of the representation is carried out by the head
> appointed by the company. I have not hired anyone. I myself was hired. I
> have not signed a contract with anyone. My contract was signed by John
> Kapler. There has not been such a legal entity as the Baku Bureau of
> Radio Liberty. The Baku Bureau was one of the radio station’s
> departments. My duties as the head of the Bureau were to produce quality
> products and to effectively divide the workforce. In general, it is a
> rule in the western media that there are two branches: financial and
> production. I oversaw the production aspect and have not been engaged in
> financial issues. Like the rest of the radio staff, I was also hired.
> And I did a good job. Therefore, I have been arrested. Radio Liberty
> [Radio Azadliq] has made an invaluable contribution in revealing truth
> in the country. This is one of the reasons behind my arrest.
>
> The contacts regarding the frequencies and broadcasting were signed with
> the US Broadcasting Board of Governors. The license was acquired by the
> US Broadcasting Board of Governors. This institution is based in
> Washington, and its head is the US Secretary of State. If you have any
> comments regarding this matter, address them to John Kerry. There is no
> editorial office in Azerbaijan, where there are no contract workers in
> addition to full-time staff. I preferred working as a contract worker
> myself after leaving the managerial position, because I wanted to be
> free. I made this choice preferring freedom, and to cooperate with other
> organisations. I came when I wished, and did not come when I did not
> wish. I was offered to sign an employment contract as a full-time
> employee, but I refused.
>
> What I am doing here now is proving that yoghurt is actually white,
> because the prosecution has problems understanding even the simplest
> issues. I understand that an order has been given for my arrest. But at
> least they should have made a bit of an effort and put something
> forward. They made up something in Intigam Aliyev’s case, but not in
> mine. I feel hurt. You should have shown me the same respect which you
> showed to Intigam Aliyev. Speaking lengthily about such simple things is
> an insult to my intelligence. With such an approach to the case, you
> insult my intelligence. Even the colour-blind understand that yoghurt is
> white, but the employees of the prosecutor’s office do not. Did you need
> to keep me in detention for eight months to understand that the Baku
> Bureau is not the Azerbaijani Representation? How much did this
> government need to spend to keep me in detention? By the way, by being
> detained I found out secrets. For example, I learned that prisoners are
> not given the meat and cheese that are meant to be given to them. It
> would be better if the prosecutor’s office investigated such cases of
> corruption. It was there, where I learned how and where the prosecution
> authorities committed falsifications and from whom they received bribes”.
>
>
>
> Then, the judge invited Ismayilova to testify in relation to Article
> 125. Ismayilova said she would not testify as long as Mustafayev’s
> presence was not ensured. Mustafayev’s representative Safar Huseynov
> said he could answer necessary questions, but Ismayilova objected. The
> judge said that Mustafayev had answered Ismayilova’s questions in court,
> and announced the notes made in the minutes.
>
>
>
> Finally, the judge declared the beginning of the document examination
> stage. The next hearing was set for 19 August at 15.00.
>
>
>
> *Court partially grants only one of numerous defence motions *
>
>
>
> _Summary: Hearing 9 (19 August 2015)_
>
>
>
> ·      The court examined case documents at this hearing, and the
> documents in the case file were announced;
>
> ·      Khadija Ismayilova’s lawyers filed a number of motions, but only
> one of them, which requested that Tax Ministry employees be summoned and
> questioned as witnesses, was granted;
>
> ·      Imran Nurmammadov, a state tax inspector with the Baku Taxes
> Department, was questioned as a witness.
>
> On 19 August, another hearing was held in the criminal case against
> Khadija Ismayilova at the Baku Court of Grave Crimes. Judge Ramella
> Allahverdiyeva presided over the hearing.
>
>
>
> The courtroom was again filled with people unrelated to the trial, with
> many of those attempting to attend denied access. At the hearing, the
> court continued to examine case documents. The court announced the
> documents in the case file. Khadija Ismayilova requested that the expert
> psychological opinion on Tural Mustafayev be read out in court. She said
> that she had been shown that document by the investigator on the day of
> her arrest. Ismayilova noted that in that document, Mustafayev was
> described as having mental problems over the past two years. However,
> the court could not find the said document in the case file, and stated
> that it would be announced as soon as it was found.
>
>
>
> The presiding judge announced another expert opinion on Mustafayev.
> According to opinion #4267 issued by expert Vusal Mammadov, the issues
> that drove Mustafayev to attempt suicide were his failure to find a job,
> his financial difficulties, the tension in his relationship with his
> fiancée Rovshana Rahimli, the negative opinion of him generated by
> rumours spread about him, and Ismayilova’s actions towards him. The
> expert opinion stated that at the time of his suicide attempt,
> Mustafayev had not suffered any mental illness and was able to plan his
> actions carefully.
>
> At that point, Ismayilova noted that the motions regarding the
> examination had been only partially granted,.. Moreover, said
> Ismayilova, the expert opinion issued in December, which was to be
> presented to the victim within 10 days according to the Criminal
> Procedure Code, was given to him only in February. She noted that it was
> a gross violation of the law and added, “If you accept that instance of
> violation of the law as evidence, then please proceed”.
>
>
>
> Lawyer Fariz Namazli recalled that at one of the previous hearings, when
> the defence filed a motion for the questioning of six witnesses, the
> prosecutor said there was no need as those witnesses’ investigation
> statements had been included in the case file. The lawyer then requested
> that the statements and contracts of those six witnesses, Shamsaddin
> Hamidov, Gulnara Babayeva, Mustajab Mammadov, Malahat Nasibova, Gular
> Sadigova and Samir Hasanov, be announced. The judge said these persons
> had been not interrogated as witnesses and did not have witness
> statements. The judge also said that with those individuals civil
> contracts had been signed, which were announced at Ismayilova’s request.
>
>
>
> Ismayilova then requested the case document, which stated that she had
> signed contracts with Radio Azadliq employees Ilgar Rasulov and Rafig
> Mammadov, but the court said there were no such contracts in the case
> file. During the examination of the documents, it turned out that the
> receipts in the case file bore the name of the Azerbaijani
> representation, not of Ismayilova, who said that the Baku Bureau was
> different from the Azerbaijani Representation, and could not be regarded
> as the same.
>
>
>
> Ismayilova’s lawyers Fakhraddin Mehdiyev and Fariz Namazli filed a
> motion requesting that Imran Nurmammadov and Elchin Aliyev, the
> employees of the Baku Tax Department who had compiled the interim act
> dated 19 January 2015, and Emin Ilham oglu Mammadli and Zaur Zakir oglu
> Mammadov, the experts who had issued the forensic accounting opinion
> #2663 dated 13 February 2015 based on that interim act, be questioned as
> witnesses in court.
>
> The lawyers filed a second motion for the conduct of a new forensic
> accounting examination. The motion was substantiated as follows:
>
>
>
> 1. The opinion states that it was not possible to identify the purpose
> of a portion of the payments made by the Representation, but it is not
> specified in the document /which/ payments they were, or at least the
> amounts in question.
>
>
>
> 2. The opinion does not make clear the identities of the individuals -
> who were not employees of the Representation – allegedly receiving these
> payments. Nor is it clear how it was determined that the payments had
> not been made for work or services related to the Representation’s
> activities.
>
>
>
> 3. The opinion reads that from 01.01.2008 until 01.12.2014, RFE/RL.Inc
> company transferred 4.621.900,0 (four million and six hundred and twenty
> one thousand and nine hundred) AZN funds to the bank accounts of the
> Representation. The opinion interprets this amount as income and thus a
> profit tax of 154.063,3 manat is calculated. This is, at best, an
> indicator of the lack of appropriate professional qualification, and at
> worst  a clear bias, because the 4,621,900,0 (four million and six
> hundred and twenty one thousand and nine hundred) manat funds were used
> to ensure the continuation of the activity of the Baku Bureau of Radio
> Free Europe/Radio Liberty for 6 (six) years, used to pay the wages and
> honoraria of the staff and contract workers, office rent and technical
> maintenance expenses. Accordingly, no income was generated. 4. The
> opinion then notes that from 01.01.2008 till 01.01.2009 the radio
> broadcasted through 101.7 FM frequencies without a license, which is
> presented as the grounds for declaring all its activities as unlawful.
> However, the Azerbaijani Representation of the RFE/Rl.Inc Company was
> registered by the Ministry of Justice of Azerbaijan Republic on 12 April
> 2004 and has not been de-registered. Moreover, the radio broadcasted on
> through short- and medium-wave frequencies and over the Internet. 5. As
> seen from the criminal case materials, Khadija Ismayilova was not
> involved in obtaining a license for the radio or extending its validity.
> This was undertaken by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is
> based in Washington, DC, and which oversaw the contracts and
> correspondence with the Ministry of Communications and Information
> Technologies and NTRC. Besides, Ismayilova, as seen from her employment
> contract with the RFE/RL Corporation, was only involved in production
> work in the Baku Bureau and was not authorized to handle financial and
> administrative affairs. However, despite this fact, she was referred to
> as having administrative powers and responsible for financial affairs as
> the head of the Baku Bureau in the forensic accounting opinion #2663
> dated 13 February 2015. 6. This opinion is based on the interim act
> dated 19 January 2015 of the experts of the Ministry of Taxes.
> Apparently, the forensic accounting opinion dated 13 February 2015 is
> cause for sufficient suspicion, though the evidence on which it is based
> is unreliable.
>
>
>
> The next defence motion requested the inclusion in the case file of the
> letter sent to Judge Ramella Allahverdiyeva and Prosecutor General Zakir
> Garalov by the leadership of Radio Liberty. Commenting on the motion,
> Khadija Ismayilova said: “It seems that something had to be written
> about Khadija Ismayilova and so they wrote this. Everything written
> there is entirely fictitious and without factual basis. Not only was I
> not the head of the representation, I did not have any relations with
> them at all. I headed the Baku Bureau, which is not the Azerbaijani
> representation. One does not need to graduate from the university to
> understand this simple fact; a 3-year school education is enough for
> that. I don’t believe that the employees of the Ministry of Taxes are so
> poorly educated that they cannot understand this. I know that they were
> forced to write this under direction. We are here trying to prove that
> yogurt is white. Unfortunately, the court will not stop repeating the
> prosecutor’s opinions. I think that the verdict will also be a
> repetition of the indictment bill. In fact, we don’t want to prove
> anything to the court. We just want to clarify two issues for ourselves:
> first, whether the court provided a reasonable opportunity for
> investigation, and, secondly, the extent to of the involvement of the
> whole government, including the Ministry of Taxes and Prosecutor’s
> Office, in this bias. As for the motion regarding those, who compiled
> that act, I just want to look them in the face”.
>
>
>
> Then lawyer Fariz Namazli filed a motion saying that the on-site tax
> inspections conducted in the office of Radio Azadliq were suspended
> until August 14, and on August 15 the inspection period was extended
> until September 30. He wanted that decision to be included in the
> evidence list.
>
>
>
> Khadija Ismayilova said that 4 of the 5 charges brought against her were
> related to Radio Azadliq and though she was not responsible for
> financial affairs, experts had issued opinions about alleged violations.
> Expecting the prosecutor to protest the motion, Khadija Ismayilova said
> she wanted to read the text of the letter written by the central
> leadership of Radio Liberty: “For 8 months, the work of the Azerbaijani
> representation of Radio Liberty has been paralyzed by the interference
> of the Prosecutor General’s Office and Ministry of Taxes of Azerbaijan
> Republic, which we consider illegal. Before the tax inspections in the
> Azerbaijani representation of Radio Liberty were concluded, a criminal
> case against our former colleague Khadija Ismayilova was separated from
> this criminal case and sent to court. It became known that the
> investigating authority, as if to underpin the incitement-to-suicide
> charge filed against Khadija Ismayilova in order to arrest her, brought
> the charges of misappropriation of another's property through abuse of
> service powers, illegal entrepreneurship and tax evasion, which are
> related to her activity in Radio Liberty. Since the latter charges are
> directly related to Radio Liberty and its activities, we feel obliged to
> comment on them. We view the charges filed against Khadija Ismayilova
> due to her activity in the radio station as charges against our
> organisation and we do not accept them. As seen from the statute of the
> Azerbaijan representation of RFERL Inc. and contracts signed with the
> heads of Baku Bureau of Radio Azadliq, neither Khadija Ismayilova, nor
> her predecessors or successors had financial responsibility or
> obligation or authority to submit financial or other reports to tax
> authorities. According to another charge filed against Khadija
> Ismayilova, she arranged that some individuals, who cooperated with the
> radio based on service contracts, be registered to pay simplified tax
> instead of income tax, and wasted and misappropriated the 10 percent
> difference between the simplified tax and income tax, i.e. 17 992 60
> manat, thus committing the crime specified in Article 179.3.2 of the
> Criminal Code of Azerbaijan Republic. Even if the investigation was
> telling the truth, charging someone with misappropriation of property
> for this action is illogical; here one could talk about only tax
> evasion. It seems that such an outcome did not fit in with the plans of
> the investigating authorities and they charged Khadija Ismayilova under
> Article 179.3.2, which stipulates a jail sentence for a period of up to
> 12 years”.
>
>
>
> The judge interrupted Khadija Ismayilova saying that the letter had been
> sent to her and when she received it she would read it herself. Khadija
> Ismayilova requested that the letter be included in the case file as an
> addendum to her testimony, but the judge denied her motion.
>
>
>
> The prosecutor requested that the motions be rejected as unfounded. He
> did not object to the questioning of the expert who had compiled the
> interim act. Commenting on the letter sent by the central bureau
> leadership of Radio Liberty, the prosecutor said that the letter emerged
> because of the denial of the defence motion requesting that a
> representative of the radio be invited to the trial. He said that the
> criminal case materials did not need the recommendations made in the
> letter and requested the court to reject the letter.
>
>
>
> Despite Khadija Ismayilova’s insistence, the court once again refused to
> add the letter to the case file. The judge said that the letter must be
> received via mail, registered in the clerical office and presented to
> the judge with the court chairman’s instructions. She said that the
> letter would be added to the case file when it was received by the court.
>
>
> Then, the panel of judges broke for a deliberation to discuss the
> motions. Only the motion regarding the questioning of the experts that
> had compiled the interim act was partially granted by the court, and two
> of the four experts, Baku Taxes Department employees Elchin Aliyev and
> Imran Nurmammadov were summoned for questioning as witnesses.
>
>
>
> This was followed by a 40-minute break in the hearing.
>
>
>
> After the break, the State Tax Inspector of Baku Taxes Department, Imran
> Nurmammadov, was questioned as a witness, but he could not finish his
> testimony, as the working hours of the court were over.
>
> The next hearing was set for 20 August, 11.00am.
>
>
>
> *Protest held in support of Khadija Ismayilova  *
>
>
>
> On 19 August, the next hearing was held on journalist Khadija
> Ismayilova’s case in Baku Court of Grave Crimes. As in previous
> hearings, no one with the exception of a few embassy representatives was
> given access to the hearing. A group of journalists held a protest in
> front of the court building demanding Khadija’s release. The protesters
> held balloons of different colours and posters reading “Freedom to
> Khadija!”
>
>
>
> The protesters were demanding and end to the government crackdown on
> civil society and the release the jailed and detained journalists, human
> rights defenders and political prisoners. “We’ll continue our struggle
> with peaceful methods,” said the protesters. The journalists chanted
> “Free Khadija!” during the protest.
>
>
>
> *Summary: Hearing 11 (21 August 2015)*
>
>
>
> ·      Prosecutor requested a 9-year prison sentence for Khadija
> Ismayilova.
>
> Khadija Ismayilova’s trial continued in Baku Court of Grave Crimes on 21
> August. The presiding judge was Ramella Allahverdiyeva.
>
>
>
> _Speech by public prosecutor, _Ramazan Hadiyev
>
>
>
> “Khadija Ismayilova has abused her powers as the head of Baku Bureau of
> Radio Liberty, has evaded payment of the taxes specified in Article 101
> of Tax Code, and by signing service contracts with employees has enabled
> them to underpay their taxes. However, Khadija Ismayilova did not plead
> guilty to any of the charges. During the course of the trial, Aynur
> Imranova said that she has known Khadija Ismayilova since 2003. She had
> applied to Baku Bureau of Radio Liberty for employment, but was not
> successful. Later, in 2011, she told Khadija Ismayilova that she wanted
> to work at Radio Liberty, but Khadija Ismayilova said she did not have
> the relevant authority on this issue. By the way, I should note that
> Khadija Ismayilova was indeed not entitled to hire employees in 2011.
> After May 2014, Imranova did not meet with Khadija Ismayilova as their
> relationship grew cold. She always sought advice from Khadija
> Ismayilova, as she was a world-renowned investigative journalist. She
> was the guest on the After Work radio programme several times, but apart
> from that, she did not cooperate with the Radio or publish her work
> there, and did not sign an employment or a service contract with the
> radio. In contrast to her court testimony, in her investigation
> statement Aynur Imranova stated that she had applied to Khadija
> Ismayilova, because the latter was the head of Baku Bureau of Radio
> Liberty. Khadija Ismayilova did not agree to give her full time
> employment and suggested that she work under a service contract, but
> Imranova did not accept this proposal. I call the court’s attention to
> the fact that Aynur Imranova has a higher education and knows her
> rights. Thus is it possible to deceive her and compel her to write
> something? Absolutely not. Judging from this fact, it is possible to say
> that in her testimony Aynur Imranova deliberately sought to help Khadija
> Ismayilova to evade responsibility. As that part of her testimony does
> not reflect the objective reality, her investigation statement should be
> accepted as evidence instead of what she said in her court testimony.
>
>
>
> Testifying as a witness during the trial, Babek Bakirov said that he
> started working at the Baku Bureau of Radio Liberty in September 1997,
> knew Khadija Ismayilova as an influential journalist, and was appointed
> as the head of the Baku Bureau in 2008, a role he held until 2010. He
> noted that for those who worked at the radio based on an employment
> contract, the radio paid taxes at a 14% rate, while those who worked
> under a service contract paid taxes at a 4 percent rate, on an
> individual basis. Esmira Javadova, who testified as a witness during the
> trial, said that in 2009 she met with Khadija Ismayilova, presented her
> articles and signed a service contract with her. Her monthly income was
> 500-600 manat initially, later rising to about 1400 manat. She paid
>  simplified tax, and paid 4 percent of her income in taxes. She enjoyed
> all relevant employment conditions at RL. My purpose in outlining this
> is to point out that if Esmira Javadova had signed an employment
> contract she would pay taxes at the 14 percent rate. In her
> investigation statement, Esmira Javadova noted that Khadija Ismayilova
> had recommended that she sign a service contract. This proves that
> Khadija Ismayilova deliberately created conditions for tax evasion.
> Javadova said in her testimony that she was forcibly summoned to give a
> statement at 19.00 on a non-working day and gave her statement under
> duress. However, the interrogation document shows that Esmira Javadova
> was interrogated not on Saturday or Sunday, but on 20 October, which was
> a working day. She changed her testimony after seeing Khadija Ismayilova
> in the trial. She did not make any complaint to the prosecution
> authorities with regard to the circumstances of duress. Therefore, I
> believe that her investigation statement should be accepted as evidence.
>
> Chingiz Sultansoy, who testified in this trial, also noted that he had
> signed a service contract. He stated that as his job involved editing
> texts, which required him to be present in the editorial office. Under
> these circumstances, the reason that a service contract was signed is
> clear to everyone. The purpose was to help the radio avoid paying the
> higher taxes. During the search and seizure, 12 employment record books,
> stamp and seal were taken from Radio Azadliq’s office. If Baku Bureau
> was not an employer, as Khadija Ismayilova said, then why were these
> there? From the Interim Act and other documents it once again becomes
> clear that although there were 12-14 full-time employees, there were 30
> computers in the editorial office. Service contracts were signed with
> employees. During the last year under Khadija Ismayilova’s leadership,
> Radio Azadliq operated without a license.
>
> While testifying in court, victim Tural Mustafayev tried to defend
> Khadija Ismayilova by all means, saying “I don’t know” and “I wanted
> this” in response to my questions. He said that he had slandered her,
> but he forgot one thing. Notably, he appealed to law enforcement
> agencies several times stating incontrovertible things that no one else
> knew. His investigation statement was also confirmed by his ex-wife
> Shafa Mustafayeva. Tural Mustafayev’s family members, as well as the
> results of the forensic examination, show that he is sane and physically
> and psychologically healthy. Khadija Ismayilova forced Tural Mustafayev
> to become financially dependent on her. Later, Tural Mustafayev
> repeatedly begged her for forgiveness in order to restore his previous
> [financial] situation, but Khadija Ismayilova did not forgive him, thus
> bringing him to the brink of suicide. The public threat entailed by the
> offence stipulated in Article 125 of the Criminal Code is that it drives
> a person to death, and is an inhuman deed. Khadija Ismayilova’s offence,
> as specified in articles 179.3.2, 192.2.2, 213.1, 308.2, 125 of Criminal
> Code, has been fully proven. Khadija Ismayilova must be convicted in
> order to rectify the situation and ensure her rehabilitation. She must
> be sentenced to 8 years in jail under article 179.3.2 of Criminal Code,
> to 4 years under article 192.2.2, to 5 years under article 125, to 2
> years under article 213.1 and to 2 years under article 308.2. Thus
> Khadija Ismayilova must be sentenced to 9 years in jail and incur a
> 3-year ban on holding a position in a state or municipal body. Khadija
> Ismayilova must serve her sentence in a prison of common regime and pay
> 364 manat in judicial costs”.
>
> Next, the Tural Mustafayev’s representative Safar Huseynov gave a
> speech. He said that he agreed with what the public prosecutor had said.
>
>
>
> The defence lawyers asked for time to prepare their speeches.
>
> The next hearing was set for 26 August, at 11.00am.
>
> *Lawyers request acquittal for Khadija Ismayilova  *
>
>
>
> _Summary: Hearing 12 (26 August 2015)_
>
>
>
> ·      The defence filed a motion for a new trial, which was rejected by
> the court;
>
> ·      Speeches by the defence lawyers stated that the charges against
> Khadija Ismayilova had not been proved and that she must therefore be
> acquitted.
>
> On August 26, Khadija Ismayilova’s trial continued in Baku Court of
> Grave Crimes. Judge Ramella Allahverdiyeva presided over the hearing.
> Only three embassy representatives and pro-government media
> representatives were granted access to the courtroom.
>
>
>
> _Defence motion_
>
>
>
> The defence filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that “the
> prosecutor requested a sentence for [Khadija Ismayilova] referring to
> documents that were not present among the case materials”. Commenting on
> the motion, the prosecutor said that the defendant and the defence had
> already posed their questions and had received responses, and requested
> that the motion be denied. The court agreed to consider the defendant’s
> testimonies in the deliberation room. The motion was denied,  and the
> court invited the defence lawyers to give their speeches.
>
>
>
> _Closing speeches of lawyers_
>
>
>
> “Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan Republic defines the
> crime of incitement to suicide as follows: /Driving a person, who has
> material, service or other dependence on the culprit, to suicide or to
> attempted suicide by threats, cruel treatment or regular humiliation of
> his dignity/”.
>
>
>
>
>
> First of all, Khadija Ismayilova did not play an instigating role in the
> suicide attempt by Mustafayev Tural Bulut oglu.
>
> The last meeting between Khadija Ismayilova and Tural Mustafayev took
> place on 9 March 2014, i.e. more than six months before the suicide
> attempt. They did not communicated after that. How can a person drive
> another person to suicide without communicating with him?
>
>
> Khadija Ismayilova became acquainted with Tural Mustafayev in 2013. They
> both worked at the Baku Bureau of Radio Liberty. But neither was
> subordinate to or dependent upon the other, financially or otherwise.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, the “regular” aspect is also absent in this case. During a
> confrontation with Khadija Ismayilova at the investigative agency, Tural
> Mustafayev admitted that for more than six months he had repeatedly
> tried to meet with Khadija Ismayilova and had sent numerous text
> messages with this intention, however Ismayilova had not responded to
> any of his messages and no meeting took place.
>
>
>
> There is no specific or objective evidence in the criminal case
> materials regarding Khadija Ismayilova’s alleged intimidation of Tural
> Mustafayev.
>
> The opinion # T 221/2014 dated 28 November 2014 of the forensic medical
> examination conducted within this case shows that based on the referral
> by Goychay Central Regional Hospital dated 27 October 2014, Tural
> Mustafayev was admitted to Republican Psychiatric Hospital #1 for
> inpatient treatment on the same day, diagnosed with “affective
> personality disorder and fits of depression”. Examination and treatment
> revealed that Mustafayev “suffers from depressive personality disorder
> involving suicidal attempts, and during anamnesis he noted that he has
> suffered from mental disorders in the past 1-2 years, outpatient
> treatments have been ineffective and during this period he committed 3
> suicide attempts”. In a video message that Tural Mustafayev posted on
> Youtube on 03 May 2015, he notes that he had attempted suicide and that
> during the investigation of this incident by the Baku City Prosecutor’s
> Office, he was forced by the first deputy prosecutor, Azer Asgarov and
> investigator Vagif Suleymanov to provide a written statement declaring
> that he had been driven to suicide by Khadija Ismayilova.
>
>
>
> While being questioned in court, Mustafayev said that his suicide
> attempt had nothing to do with Khadija Ismayilova, and that it was
> related to his ex-fiancée Rahimova Rovshane Vagif gizi, as their
> relationship was tense and his mental state was unstable. He stated that
> he had slandered Khadija Ismayilova. Witness Rahimova Rovshana Vagif
> gizi, who also testified at the trial regarding this charge, told the
> court that Tural Mustafayev’s suicide attempt had nothing to do with
> Khadija Ismayilova, Tural Mustafayev suffered from the severe form of
> psychopathy and was physically violent towards her on multiple
> occasions, which she reported to the Interior Ministry’s 102 hotline on
> 27 July and 16 October 2014. Following these calls, she was taken to the
> police office together with Tural Mustafayev where statements were taken
> from them. In September 2014 she accompanied Tural Mustafayev to see the
> Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Azerbaijan Medical University, Araz
> Manuchohr (located at Caspian Plaza, 44 Jafar Jabbarli Street, Yasamal
> District, Baku). Araz Manuchohr told Tural Mustafayev that he suffered
> from a severe form of psychopathy.
>
>
>
> Witness Imranova Aynura Imran gizi gave a similar testimony, saying that
> Tural Mustafayev suffered from chronic alcoholism, became aggressive
> after work, and was unable to control himself.
>
> Mustafayev Bulut Bahadir oglu, Mustafayeva Nazakat Hasan gizi and
> Mustafayeva Shafa Shahin gizi, all of whom testified as witnesses, said
> that were unacquainted with Khadija Ismayilova, and that Tural
> Mustayafev’s suicide attempt was related to his relationship with his
> fiancée, Rovshana Rahimova.
>
>
>
> Witness Abdullayev Javid Ilgar oglu did not confirm his investigation
> statement, saying that it had been given under duress. He told the court
> that he had no knowledge of any link between Tural Mustafayev’s suicide
> attempt and Khadija Ismayilova.
>
>
>
> Imranova Aynura Imran gizi also said that she had faced pressure while
> providing her investigation statement, and had been offered well-paid
> job, an apartment, etc. in return for a statement incriminating Khadija
> Ismayilova. In his speech, the public prosecutor referred to the
> statement contained in the indictment rather than any factual evidence
> proving Ismayilova’s guilt.  Khadija Ismayilova must be acquitted of
> this charge,” said the lawyer.
>
> Fariz Namazli stated that the *Article 179.3.2 *charge against Khadija
> Ismayilova is unfounded and illegal. “According to this charge, Khadija
> Ismayilova has arranged that several people with whom the radio had
> signed service contracts, be registered as payers of simplified tax
> instead of income tax, thereby misappropriating the 10% difference
> between the income tax and simplified tax, i.e. 17992,60 AZN.
>
>
>
> First of all, Khadija Ismayilova has not signed contracts with the
> persons listed in the indictment, namely Hamidov Shamsaddin Rauf oglu,
> Babayeva Gulnara Rafig gizi, Javadova Esmira Turab gizi, Mammadov
> Mustajab Mutallim oglu, Nasibova Malahat Ibrahim gizi, Sadigova Gular
> Miryahya gizi, Hasanov Samir Mammadali oglu, Zeynalov Eldar Tahir oglu,
> Nasibov Ilgar Elbay oglu, Mammadli Rafig Humbat oglu and “Fargli
> Dushunja” (Different Opinion) newspaper founder and chief editor Namazov
> Shahvalad Abutalib oglu, and there is no evidence in the case file
> proving that she did.
>
>
>
> It is evident from the contracts - presented by the defence but not
> accepted or examined by the court, constituting a gross violation of the
> right to a fair trial - that the contract with Javadova Esmira Turab
> gizi was signed by Elizabeth Portale, an employee of Radio Free
> Europe/Radio Liberty Corporation. The contract with Namazov Shahvalad
> Abutalib oglu was signed by the official representative of the
> Representation, Yahya Mirzayev.
>
> The position of the official representative of the Representation was
> held by Anne Eveling until 2005, and by Yahya Mirzayev since 2005 .
>
>
>
> Generally speaking, if an individual entrepreneur builds a business
> relationship based on a service contract instead of a labour contract,
> this does not contravene the existing legislation, and there is no legal
> provision prohibiting this practice. It is well known that, the subject
> of both Article 179.3.2 and the Article 308.2 is an official. But
> Khadija Ismayilova was not in charge of finances, and therefore was not
> an ‘official’. While serving as the head of Baku Bureau of Radio Free
> Europe/Radio Liberty, she was not responsible for finances. Her
> responsibility was  limited to coordinating the activities of the bureau
> based on the instructions of the radio leadership. Thus she was involved
> exclusively in production work. In other words, she was not entrusted
> with any property-related or financial obligations. The Azerbaijani
> Representation of the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was officially
> called the Representation of the RFE/RL Inc. Company in Azerbaijan
> Republic. The Statute of the Representation was registered by the
> Ministry of Justice of Azerbaijan Republic on 12 April 2004. According
> to the Statute, the Representation was established by the RFE/RL Inc.
> Company, founded and acting in accordance with the legislation of the
> Delaware State of the USA, which assumes full liability for the
> Representation’s obligations.
>
> According to the Statute, “The Representation is not a legal entity. It
> only advocates for and defends of the Company’s interests in the
> Republic of Azerbaijan in a manner, which is not contrary to
> Azerbaijan’s effective laws and the present statute…”  The
> Representation is managed by the head appointed by the Company. The
> duties, functions and powers of the head of the Representation are
> determined in the power-of-attorney granted by the Company.
>
>
>
> The Representation of RFE/RL Inc. Company in the Republic of Azerbaijan
> is not the employer and it manifests itself on the labor contracts
> signed with employees and the Amendments made to these contracts at
> different times. As such, the labor relations between the employer and
> employee are regulated by the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
> Corporation. Therefore neither the head of the Baku Bureau nor the head
> of the the Azerbaijani Service can be considered financially responsible
> persons. Although the prosecution accuses Khadija Ismayilova of signing
> service contracts with Hamidov Shamsaddin Rauf oglu, Babayeva Gulnara
> Rafig gizi, Javadova Esmira Turab gizi, Mammadov Mustajab Mutallim oglu,
> Nasibova Malahat Ibrahim gizi, Sadigova Gular Miryahya gizi, Hasanov
> Samir Mammadali oglu, Zeynalov Eldar Tahir oglu, Nasibov Ilgar Elbay
> oglu, Mammadli Rafig Humbat oglu and “Fargli Dushunja” (Different
> Opinion) newspaper founder and chief editor Namazov Shahvalad Abutalib
> oglu, they have not presented contracts signed with these persons as
> evidence for this charge. The originals of these contracts were seized
> by the investigating agency during the search of the radio’s office.
> These contracts were later presented to the inspection commission
> together with the documents seized from the office and were examined.
> But they were not later included in the case file, because they had not
> been signed by Khadija Ismayilova. Therefore the prosecution did not
> include these contracts in the case file, and presented an inaccurate
> and unsubstantiated picture.,” Fariz Namazli noted in his speech.
>
>
>
> This Article of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan Republic concerns
> illegal entrepreneurship, which involves generating a large amount of
> income. This charge was filed against my client, because she has allegedly:
>
>
>
> 1)            continued the bureau’s radio broadcasting activities from
> July through December 2008 although the license granted to the Radio
> Free Europe/Radio Liberty expired on 01 January 2008 and was not
> extended; hired various employees; and arranged payment of money to
> herself and those persons under the pretext of salaries or honoraria,
> thereby generating a significant income in the amount of 256,400 (two
> hundred and fifty six thousand four hundred) manat and 54 (fifty four)
> gapik, through illegal entrepreneurship; and
>
> 2)            during the period of her employment with the said bureau
> based on an illegal civil contract as of 01 October 2010, [she] engaged
> in illegal entrepreneurship by acting without accreditation despite
> being obliged to obtain accreditation from the Ministry of Foreign
> Affairs of Azerbaijan Republic in accordance with Articles 50 and 53 of
> the Law on Mass Media of 07 December 1999 and the presidential decree of
> 08 February 2000 regarding the application of this law; and received an
> income of 79,480 (seventy nine thousand and four hundred and eighty)
> manat under the pretext of a salary and honoraria, thereby making a
> total income of 335, 880 (three hundred and thirty five thousand and
> eighty hundred and eighty) manat 54 (fifty four) gapik between 01 July
> 2008 and 01 December 2014.
>
>
>
> First of all, we should note that RFE/RL Inc. Company is a
> non-commercial company and that this company is funded by the US
> Congress. It has never in the history of its operations engaged in
> entrepreneurial activities.. As indicated in the information published
> on the radio’s website, “Radio Liberty is a non-commercial organization
> financed by the US Congress”. Entrepreneurship entails completely
> different notions and its characteristics have been described in various
> legislative acts.  The broader definition of entrepreneurship is given
> in the following legal regulations:
>
> According to Article 1 of the Law on Entrepreneurial Activity,
> entrepreneurial activity is constituted by the independently performed
> activities of a person whose the main objective is the extraction of
> profit (concerning individual entrepreneurs - the income) from the use
> of property, production and/or sales of goods, performance of works or
> rendering of services. As for the accusation related to the radio’s
> functioning without a license, Radio Azadliq was broadcasted over 101.7
> FM frequency based on the special permit (license) # TR N 052 dated 07
> September 2007 issued by the National Television and Radio Council
> (hereafter NTRC) of Azerbaijan Republic.
>
> Radio Azadliq was granted a one-year special permit (license) for radio
> broadcasting by the NTRC’s decision dated 7 September 2007 of.
>
>
>
> The permit in question (license) expired on 7 September 2008. According
> to the NTRC’s decision dated 30 December 2008, the FM frequency
> allocated to Radio Azadliq was revoked as of 01 January 2009.[1] From
> that date, Radio Azadliq ceased broadcasting over the FM frequency. It
> is unclear why the indictment bill indicated that the special permit
> (license) expired on 01 January 2008. As stated in Article 50 of the Law
> on Mass Media, a journalist’s accreditation is not a prerequisite for
> his work, but a right which accords him additional status and
> opportunities.
>
> On the other hand, Khadija was not a foreign journalist in 2010-2014,
> but simply a local freelance journalist cooperating with local and
> foreign media. In this case, it is inaccurate to treat her as a foreign
> journalist and to claim that she needed to be accredited with the
> Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
>
>
>
> Even if we assume that Khadija Ismayilova failed to obtain accredited as
> an employee of a foreign media entity, the responsibility incurred under
> the Law on Mass Media would be limited to the inability to enjoy the
> rights of a journalist. That is, the legislation does not even stipulate
> administrative or civil liability – let alone criminal responsibility –
> for the failure to gain accreditation.
>
>
>
> *a) regarding the charge brought under Article 213.1 of the Criminal
> Code of the Azerbaijani Republic*
>
>
>
> According to this charge, Khadija Ismayilova, as the Baku-based bureau
> head of the Azerbaijani Representation of Radio Free Europe/Radio
> Liberty, engaged in activities inconsistent with the main activity and
> regulations of the organisation that she represented from 01 July 2008
> to 01 October 2010; performed payments non-attributable to a
> non-resident with indefinite purposes, thus evading tax payments of a
> large amount, equalling 45,145 (forty five thousand and one hundred and
> forty five) manat 63 (sixty three) gapik from the derived income of
> 1,354,368 (one million and three hundred and fifty four thousand and
> three hundred and sixty eight) manat payable to the state budget under
> Articles 83.9, 103, 105 of the Tax Code of Azerbaijan Republic and
> Decision #55 of 01 March 2001 and #42 of 04 April 2003 of the Cabinet of
> Minister of Azerbaijan Republic.
>
>
>
> First of all, the statement “engaged in activities inconsistent with the
> main activity and regulations of the organization” is unclear and vague.
> As stated above, the Azerbaijani Representation of the Radio Liberty is
> a non-commercial organisation, whose goal is not entrepreneurial
> activity, but to support democratic values and institutions by spreading
> news and ideas.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, the Azerbaijani Representation of the Radio Free
> Europe/Radio Liberty – RFE/RL Inc. Company has an exemplary record in
> terms of payment of taxes and compulsory social security contributions.
> According to the reports compiled during the tax inspections carried out
> in 2009, 2010 and 2012, no violation of law was found. The same is true
> for the inspections conducted by the State Labour Inspectorate. The tax
> obligations of the employees, working on the basis of labour and civil
> contracts, were performed in accordance with the requirements of
> Azerbaijani legislation.
>
>
>
> Finally, as a non-commercial organisation the Representation of the
> RFE/RL Inc. Company in the Republic of Azerbaijan, was not liable for
> profit tax.
>
>
>
> In general, the fact that the amount of 1,354,368 (one million and three
> hundred and fifty four thousand and three hundred and sixty eight) manat
> transferred to its account from 01 July 2008 to 01 October 2010 are
> presented as income demonstrates clear prejudice [on the part of the
> court], because this amount does not constitute income, but rather the
> minimum operational expenses (office rent, employees’ salaries,
> honoraria for service contracts, maintenance, and material and technical
> costs, etc.).
>
>
>
> Moreover, the tax evasion charge cannot be filed against Khadija
> Ismayilova as the head of the Baku bureau, because the Baku bureau head
> did not have administrative and financial powers, nor bear the
> responsibility for paying taxes and social security contributions. The
> responsibility for tax evasion can be imposed on the persons who pay the
> company’s taxes and submit tax
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20151201/5fe0db80/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t