Day: September 1, 2023

Blogger Elvin Isayev Arrested in Azerbaijan after Deportation 
Social 

Elvin Isayev

Analysis of violation of law during Elvin Isayev’s judicial proceedings

Baku Court on Serious Crimes

Case №1(101)-1015/2020

30 October 2020

Presiding judge: Afgan Hajiyev

Judges: Ali Mammadov, Telman Huseynov

Defendant:  Elvin Isayev

Defender: Ganga Ibrahimov

Public Prosecutors: Vugar Quliyev, Huseyn Rustamli

In 2001, Elvin Isayev, an Azerbaijani blogger, received Russian citizenship, and in 2014 he was issued a new Russian passport, in view of the loss of the old one. Elvin Isayev lived with his wife and two minor sons in St. Petersburg, and all of his family members are also Russian citizens. In 2014, he started a blog on YouTube, in which he sharply criticized the government of Azerbaijan, spoke extremely disrespectfully about the president of the country and his family members. In a matter of five years, the blogger has collected 17 thousand subscribers.

In June 2018, he recorded an “Appeal to the Azerbaijanis living in Russia”, in which he urged his fellow citizens “not to be afraid of the government” and “save the country”. A week later, the blogger registered a video, in which he told about the threats he had received. According to him, a certain person demanded him “to stop criticizing the family members of the president, the president himself, as well as the government of Azerbaijan”, threatening him with death.

On 24 August 2019 Elvin Isayev was detained while driving from Petro-Slavyanka settlement to St. Petersburg.

Right on 26 August, the Dzerzhinsky District Court of St. Petersburg found Elvin Isayev guilty of violation of the regime of foreign citizens or persons without citizenship who entered into the territory of the Russian Federation (according to the Code of administrative violations of the Russian Federation) and issued a resolution on deporting him to Azerbaijan with penalty of 5 thousand rubles. For that he was sent to the Temporary Detention Center for Foreign Citizens (TDCFC).

However, E. Isayev’s lawyers urgently filed a petition to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to apply the “Rule 39” to Elvin Isayev. Usually, the ECHR considers the received appeals for quite a long time, but in case of emergency when there is a threat to the life and health of a person, the ECHR may request the national court to take “interim measures” to guarantee the security to the applicant. This requirement is mandatory according to the practical guidelines on the application of interim measures (called “Rule 39”) of the ECHR regulations. And, at the next session of the Dzerzhinsky District Court of St. Petersburg, a notice from the ECHR came with a demand to suspend the deportation.

On 10 September 2019, the Dzerzhinsky District Court of St. Petersburg overturned its ruling. After that, Elvin Isayev was released. Since then, nothing was known about E. Isayev’s whereabouts. E. Isayev’s relatives remained wary of his extradition or abduction and his deportation to Azerbaijan.

Back on 22 August 2019, the Baku Nasimi District Court adopted a ruling on the application of preventive measures in the form of arrest against Elvin Isayev.

On 14 December 2019, Elvin Isayev was detained in Ukraine “for violation of the immigration law” and deported to Azerbaijan, where he was imprisoned in Baku Investigative Isolator № 1.

The Department of Serious Crimes of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Azerbaijan Republic initiated a criminal case against Elvin Isayev. He was accused of committing crimes stipulated by the Articles 12.1, 34.2, 220.2 (Appeals to active disobedience to the legitimate demands of the authorities and to mass disorders, as well as appeals to violence against citizens committed by a group of persons upon prior conspiracy of the Azerbaijani citizens who committed a deed (act or inaction) outside the boundaries of the Azerbaijani Republic) and the Articles 12.1, 34.2, 281. 2 (Public appeals to violent seizure of power, violent retention of power or violent alteration of the constitutional order or violation of territorial integrity of the Azerbaijan Republic, as well as dissemination of such content materials committed repeatedly by the citizens of the Azerbaijan Republic who committed an act (act or inaction) outside the Azerbaijan Republic of the Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic).

According to the investigation version, in 2018 Elvin Isayev joined a criminal conspiracy group of political emigrants from Azerbaijan, through social networks and on his YouTube channel distributed videos, in which he opposed the state and made appeals for violent downfall of the power.

In the course of the preliminary investigation, E. Isayev admitted his guilt. However during the trial he denied his guilt and testified that he had admitted under the pressure. Isayev also stated that he had been subjected to physical and psychological pressure. At the trial, E. Isayev said that he, as a free man and opposition minded citizen, had the right to express his opinion, did not approve of the authorities’ policies such as injustice, and he could not keep silence about it. Elvin Isayev admitted that he had participated in a rally in Berlin, but pointed out that it was not a crime. He also said that during the 9 months in the pre-trial detention center he had not been allowed to see his lawyer, he had been deprived of the opportunity to see his elderly, sick father.

The only witness in the case, Elchin Sadigov, testified during the trial that he had established a relationship with the defendant in the 2017. At that time, E. Isayev was engaged in charitable activities and helped the village where he was originally from. Since 2018, E. Isayev has begun displaying videos on the social networks, in which he had been openly speaking out against the President Aliyev and his policy in Azerbaijan. At the rally in Berlin, Isayev spoke out against the authorities and urged others to do the same. After that Elchin Sadigov talked to Isayev’s uncle, Yalchin Isayev. He called Elvin from Yalchin Isaev’s WhatsApp number and told him that he was not on the right track

The forensic-linguistic examination on 08 November 2019, revealed that there had been phrases threatening the public security in Azerbaijan, that urged to forcibly change the constitutional order of Azerbaijan, mass disorders and forcible seizure of power in E. Isayev’s statements. They also contained anti-Azerbaijani standpoint and separatist rudiments.

The forensic psychiatric examination on 14 January 2020, proved that during the criminal act E. Isayev had not suffered from any mental illness or mental disorder.

The forensic narcological examination on 22 January 2020, indicated that E. Isayev neither had had drug addiction nor needed forced treatment.

On 30 October 2020, the Baku Court on Serious Crimes issued a sentence to Elvin Isayev according to which he had been found guilty of committing crimes stipulated by the Articles 12.1, 220.1. and 12.1, 281.2. of the Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic and sentenced him to 8 years of imprisonment in a general regime colony.

Commentary by an expert lawyer:

The court verdict is illegal and unjustified. According to the Article 12.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Azerbaijan Republic, the judicial authorities shall observe the human and civil rights and liberties afforded by the Constitution to all participants in criminal proceedings. This procedure also applies to the arrested persons. Thus, if a person is detained according to a court order, he should not be deprived of procedural rights.

According to E. Isayev, he was denied access to his chosen lawyer for 9 months. According to the Article 61 (I) of the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic, everyone has the right for obtaining qualified legal advice. Lack of an attorney, especially during the preliminary investigation, puts any participants of criminal proceedings in an unequal position. Any detainee has the right to consult with his lawyer. Despite E. Isayev’s statement during the trial that he had been refused a meeting with his lawyer, the court either did not take any steps to establish the truth on this issue or did not make any special determination with regard to those who had violated the procedural rights of the accused.

Under Article 6, paragraph 3 and subparagraph “c” of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require.

The right to protection is also enshrined in the Article 14, paragraph 3 and subparagraph “d” of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

During the trial, the defendant claimed that he had been subjected to physical and psychological torture while undergoing the preliminary investigation. Despite such an important statement, the court did not take the initiative in investigating such a statement. Tortures and inhuman treatments are prohibited under both National and International laws. Thus, according to the Article 46 (III) of the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic, nobody must be subject to tortures and torment, treatment or punishment humiliating the dignity of human beings.

The Article 13 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Azerbaijan Republic states:

13.1. It shall be prohibited to take decisions or allow acts during the criminal prosecution which debase the honour and dignity of the person or may threaten the life

and health of the participants in the proceedings.

13.2. During a criminal prosecution nobody shall:

13.2.1. be subjected to treatment or punishment that debases human dignity;

13.2.2. be held in conditions that debase human dignity;

13.2.3. be forced to participate in carrying out procedures that debase human dignity.

The prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment is enshrined in the Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that Azerbaijan also signed in 2002. In this article states: no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The same principle is set forth in the Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In addition, there are numerous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which are binding on the Council of Europe member states, including the Azerbaijan Republic.

Thus, in the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of Tomasi v. France from 27 August 1992, it is written: “The Convention categorically prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, regardless of the victim’s (accused) behavior. Unlike most of the Convention’s Articles and Protocols No. 1 and 4, the Article 3 does not provide for any exemptions and, according to the Article 15, paragraph 2, there can be no derogations from the Article 3, even in a state of emergency that threatens the existence of the nation”.

http://www.echr.ru/documents/doc/2461435/2461435.htm

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57796

“Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organized crime, the Convention categorically prohibits torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (decision in the case of Assenov and others v. Bulgaria, on 28 October, 1998).

https://cambodia.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/echrsource/Assenov%20&%20Others%20v.%20Bulgaria%20%5b28%20Oct%201998%5d%20%5bEN%5d.pdf

http://www.rrpoi.narod.ru/echr/translation/end_ru/assenov_end.htm

Let’s proceed to the analysis of the evidence-based data collected by the investigating authority. As mentioned above, the main evidence in the case were the testimony of witness Elchin Sadigov and the forensic-linguistic examination report dated 08 November 2019. It is known that the experts conducting the examination pointed out that E. Isayev’s statements had contained the phrases threatening the public security of Azerbaijan, appealing for violent change of Azerbaijan’s constitutional order, mass disorders and violent seizure of power, they also had contained anti-Azerbaijani position and separatist rudiments. All of the above is a legal characteristic, not an expert one in any way. Therefore, it follows that the experts have actually exceeded their authority, noting the legal qualification of the imputed crime. The court sentence does not indicate any specific phrases or statements, which the experts referred to this or that category (forcible seizure of power or forcible change of the constitutional regime in Azerbaijan). According to the Article 97.3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Azerbaijan Republic, a person may not be appointed as an expert or be called in another capacity on judicial aspects of the criminal proceedings.

The court took the expert opinion as a basis of the conviction. But according to the Article 127.3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Azerbaijan Republic, the expert’s opinion shall not be binding on the preliminary investigator, investigator, prosecutor or court; it shall be checked by the prosecuting authority in the same way as any other evidence and evaluated in the light of all the relevant facts. If the opinion is not approved, a reasoned decision to that effect shall be given. Despite the existence of this norm, the court did not doubt in such a questionable opinion and did not call the expert for questioning in court.

Violation of procedural norms casts doubt on the charges. Thus, the right to freedom guaranteed by the Article 28 of the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic, the Article 14 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Azerbaijan Republic, the Article 5(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are violated.

The court sentence against Elvin Isayev was not only illegal and groundless, but also unmotivated. Although the Article 349.3. of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Azerbaijan Republic states that the court sentence must be lawful and motivated.

Thus, violations of norms of both procedural and substantive legislation, as well as of the International treaties in the criminal case resulted in the conviction and illegal detention of a person whose guilt was not proved by the investigating body in the court, and the doubts that arose during the trial were not interpreted in favor of the accused.

This week, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, gave an interview to the BBC in which he declared that older people, the ill and disabled “will fall by the wayside” in the current surge of COVID-19. Fauci was not warning about what would happen unless urgent action was taken. Rather, he was seeking to justify the Biden administration’s policy of inaction and cover-up in the face of a new surge of the disease.

Loading Tweet …

Tweet not loading? See it directly on Twitter

Fauci’s comments reiterate the declaration in January 2022 by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky that the fact that COVID-19 predominantly kills people who are “unwell to begin with” is “encouraging news.” The statements by both Walensky and Fauci implied that the lives of chronically ill and disabled people were less valuable than healthy ones.

Three years ago, Fauci would hardly have imagined that he could make such statements. In accepting a policy of simply letting the vulnerable die, he has suffered a complete moral collapse. He is capitulating to the fascist ideologues who have long advocated allowing the coronavirus to spread without limit.

More significant than his own personal evolution, however, is what his statements say about the Biden administration, which has adopted an unstated but nonetheless deliberate policy of social murder, targeting older, chronically ill, and disabled people. It amounts to a form of homicidal eugenics, reminiscent of the Nazi regime’s policy of murdering handicapped people.

Fauci was speaking under conditions in which wastewater data indicates that COVID-19 cases have more than tripled over the course of the past two months, while COVID-19 hospital admissions have more than doubled. This is the first surge after the Biden administration stopped counting COVID-19 cases on May 11 with the aim of reducing public knowledge of the spread of the disease, leaving the United States essentially flying blind. 

Asked, “How serious could it get again,” Fauci sought to downplay the dangers by asserting that he believes, but does not know for certain, that the present surge of COVID-19 will see fewer hospitalizations and deaths than in the past.

Fauci claimed, “96 percent or more of the population has some degree of immunity, either through prior infection or through vaccines, or both.” He continued: 

I doubt very seriously whether you’re going to see the hospital and death surge that we’ve seen in the past, even if we get a surge of infections, because there’s enough fundamental community-level protection, that even though you’ll find the vulnerable will fall by the wayside. They’ll get infected, they’ll get hospitalized and some will die. It’s not going to be the tsunami of cases that we’ve seen.

Who are these “vulnerable” people, who will be left to die on the side of the road?

In the United States, approximately 45.4 percent of the population are at heightened risk of complications from COVID-19 due to having at least one of six comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, asthma, hypertension and/or cancer. When factors exacerbating the risk from COVID-19, like autoimmune diseases, obesity, and organ transplant, and being over 65, are added, the list of groups that will be left to “fall by the wayside” grows to significantly more than half of the population and approaches two-thirds. 

Fauci, who had for years been a target of fascist attacks for having advocated during the Trump administration for measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, has embraced the doctrine of “herd immunity.” This is the conception advocated by Trump in 2020 that if enough people get COVID-19, the virus will go away, and that the deaths of older people, the ill, and the disabled are an acceptable cost of preserving the profit interests of major corporations.

The greatest argument against the proponents of “herd immunity” is the actual experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, which confirms the warnings made by the World Health Organization (WHO) in October 2020 that “herd immunity” is not a scientifically viable response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at that time. “Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic. It is scientifically and ethically problematic.”

To bolster his claim, the WHO director raised the prospect—at that time hypothetical—that people might become ill with COVID-19 twice, as well as mounting reports of what he said is “now being described as Long COVID.”

Three years after these statements were made, we know that reinfection with COVID-19 is not a notional possibility, but the rule. People in frontline positions, including teachers and health care workers, have reported being infected three, four, or five times.

Each bout with COVID-19 progressively damages major organ systems, including the immune system, brain, and circulatory system. In other words, by allowing COVID-19 to circulate freely, the population that Fauci describes as vulnerable is constantly increasing. 

Finally, when Dr. Ghebreyesus made these warnings, the ability of COVID-19 to mutate to overcome existing immunity was largely hypothetical. Over the next three years, a sea of new COVID-19 variants have shown that no amount of “population immunity” will prevent significant new surges of COVID-19.

Advocates of mass infection have repeatedly increased the share of the population that must be infected to allow the disease to return to “manageable” levels. First it was 50 percent, then it was 70 percent, then 80 percent, then 90 percent. Now, with Fauci declaring that virtually the entire population—96 percent—has “immunity” to COVID-19, schools in the US are being shut down not as a preventive precaution, but because too many staff are ill to keep them open.

Shamefully, leading WHO officials have repudiated their own condemnation of governments’ mass infection policy, ending its COVID-19 public health emergency declaration in May, and this week shutting down its weekly COVID-19 briefings.

The ruling class’s strategy of a “perpetual pandemic” has produced a disaster. In the United States alone, 1.1 million people are dead, and tens of millions more have had their health significantly damaged by Long COVID. Now, COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations are surging, even before the new, highly-contagious B.1.1.7 variant, the most highly mutated version of the disease to date, has begun to widely circulate.

For more than a year, the population has been told by the Biden administration, world governments and the media that the pandemic is over, that they can take off their masks and stop worrying about being infected. It will come as a shock that now, amidst a new surge in infections, they are being told that they should simply accept that they or their loved ones could get severely ill or die.

But this is the logic of the ruling-class response to the pandemic, which is based on the subordination of public health to profit.

This policy of mass death and perpetual infection must be stopped! In every country, the demand must be raised for emergency measures to halt the spread of COVID-19, and to reject the position that it is endemic.

Health care professionals and scientists have a responsibility to speak out against this catastrophic policy. The population, which has been disarmed by the relentless propaganda of the ruling class, must be informed about the ongoing threat and mobilized to fight for a policy of global elimination and eradication.