Report: there is no state agency responsible for ECHR decisions in Azerbaijan

Mənbə: İDİ

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

The Institute of Democratic Initiatives (IDI) prepared a report titled “On the status of implementation of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against Azerbaijan on the Presumption of Innocence”.

The report includes the concept of presumption of innocence, the guarantees given to the presumption of innocence in local and international legislation, the content and implementation status of the cases in which the ECHR recognized the violation of the presumption of innocence against the state of Azerbaijan.

As a result of the monitoring of the legislation, it was determined that the provisions related to the presumption of innocence are reflected in the legislation of Azerbaijan. 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 stated.

The authors of the report state that the protection of the presumption of innocence in the documents to which Azerbaijan is also a member and which includes the presumption of innocence is considered one of the main priorities in the international sphere.

For example, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 14), European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6.2). “Since ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights (April 15, 2002), the court has recognized the violation of Article 6.2 (presumption of innocence) in ten cases against Azerbaijan.”

The report states that the ECHR 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 fact that the applicant has a high socio-political influence could require the state authorities to keep the public informed about the criminal charges against him and the course of the criminal process. However, the Court has consistently emphasized that the choice of statements made by state officials before a person is tried and found guilty of a specific crime is important.”

IDI notes that in eight out of ten decisions, the compensation awarded to the applicants was paid in full. However, in one decision (“Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan”) compensation was not provided. In one more decision (“Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan”), the government did not provide any information to the court regarding the payment of compensation.

“Out of ten investigated decisions, the government submitted an Action Plan to the court for only two decisions. Although the government focused on the payment of compensation in connection with the execution 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 upholding ECHR 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 the end, it leads to non-execution of the decisions issued by the court.”

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

According to “” website, when the implementation of general decisions issued by countries is calculated as a percentage, Azerbaijan ranks 1st in terms of unimplemented decisions.

The authors of the report believe that the main reason for the above is the state’s neglect of the ECHR’s decisions, the lack of a unified mechanism for the implementation of decisions, and loopholes in local legislation.

Ana səhifəNewsReport: there is no state agency responsible for ECHR decisions in Azerbaijan