Published on 31 March 2025
 
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 38800/22 and 14892/23
Ali ALIYEV against Azerbaijan
lodged on 5 August 2022 and 9 December 2022 respectively
communicated on 12 March 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is the head of a small opposition party. The applications concern two separate sets of criminal defamation proceedings against him which were instituted on the same date but separately by two private prosecutors, J.E. and A.R., who were the only two persons surviving a helicopter crash which had occurred on 30 November 2022.
On 9 December 2022, in an interview on a YouTube channel, while talking about the accident, the applicant stated, inter alia, that it was unconvincing that someone on board of that helicopter could have survived such a crash and that the survivors had barely any bodily injury while the other victims’ bodies were in an unrecognisable state.
By separate judgments of 13 January 2022 and 15 April 2022, the Yasamal District Court convicted the applicant under Article 147.1 (slander) of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced cumulatively to six months’ imprisonment. The court found that the applicant discredited the honour and reputation of J.E. and A.R. by making the abovementioned statements and implied that they had given false and misleading information to the investigation and the media about the accident. Following a series of appeals, by final decisions of 22 June 2022 and 18 October 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.
Relying on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings and argues that his conviction amounted to a violation of his freedom of expression. He also complains that he was tried twice for the same criminal offence in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In respect of both sets of proceedings, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment respected?
 
2.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? Were the sanctions imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued (see Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan, no. 35877/04, §§ 48-50, 18 December 2008)?
 
3. Has the applicant been tried, convicted or punished twice for the same offence, as prohibited by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7?
 
The parties are invited to submit translations into English or French of the applicant’s allegedly defamatory statements which led to his criminal conviction.