Azerbaijan does not have a state institution responsible for ECHR decisions

“There are loopholes in local legislation regarding the presumption of innocence”

Institute for Democratic Initiatives (IDI) “Regarding the Presumption of Innocence Europe Court of Human Rights (ECHR) To Azerbaijan decisions against execution about the situation” report prepared.

In the report, the concept of presumption of innocence, the guarantees given to the presumption of innocence in local and international legislation, the ECHR To Azerbaijan the content of the cases against which he recognized the violation of the presumption of innocence and execution the situation is there.

As a result of the monitoring of the legislation, it was determined that Azerbaijan legislation contains provisions on the presumption of innocence. However, it has not been specified what type of responsibility should be borne for its violation.

“This is one of the loopholes in local legislation on the presumption of innocence,” the report said.

Report the authors state that Azerbaijan The protection of the presumption of innocence in documents containing the presumption of innocence is considered one of the main priorities in the international sphere:

“For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11), Civil and political International Covenant on Rights (Article 14), Europe Convention on Human Rights (Article 6.2). Europe After ratifying the Human Rights Convention (15 April 20Year 02) till date court To Azerbaijan against 10 recognized the violation of Article 6.2 (presumption of innocence) in the case.”

The report states that the ECtHR has repeatedly noted that the presumption of innocence of statements by state bodies is violated, and that there is a lack of caution in the choice of statements used by state bodies:

“In some cases, the applicant’s high socialpolitical the fact of his influence could require the public authorities to turn the public against him crime from accusations and crime keep them informed about the progress of the process. However Court continuously emphasized that the choice of statements in statements made by state officials before a person is tried and found guilty of a specific crime is of great importance.

IDI notes that every mentioned 10 the compensations determined in 8 of the decision have been fully paid to the applicants. However, in 1 decision (“Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan”) compensation was not provided for. In one more decision (“Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan”), the government did not provide any information to the court regarding the payment of compensation.

“Investigated 10 The government submitted an Action Plan to the court for only 2 of the decisions. Although the government focused on the payment of compensation in connection with the implementation of the decisions, the implementation of other measures was put in the background,” the report states.

The authors note that there are certain problems not only with the implementation of decisions, but also with the mechanism of implementation of decisions. For example, there is no government agency specifically responsible for ECtHR decisions. In fact, there is a need to create such an institution:

“Also, the activities of this institution should be open to the applicants, their representatives, and society as a whole. These two issues ultimately prevent the full implementation of the presumption of innocence in Azerbaijan. In conclusion court of decisions made by execution leads to not being”.

In the final results and necessary recommendations section of the report, it is noted that in the 2021 ranking of the Council of Europe member countries related to the implementation of decisions Azerbaijan The Republic is in 5th place with 271 unexecuted decisions: “222 of these decisions are repeated, and 49 are main (leading) cases.”

According to the information of “Aihmaz.org” website, when the implementation of general decisions issued by countries is calculated as a percentage, Azerbaijan 1st place for unexecuted decisions.

Report authors believe that the main reason for the above is the state’s disregard for the decisions issued by the ECHR, the implementation of the decisions unit lack of mechanism and loopholes in local legislation.