Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06BAKU1428
2006-09-29 12:54:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Baku
Cable title:
AZERBAIJANI APPELLATE COURT UPHOLDS YENI FIKIR
how-toVZCZCXRO4888 PP RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHROV RUEHSR DE RUEHKB #1428 2721254 ZNY CCCCC ZZH P 291254Z SEP 06 FM AMEMBASSY BAKU TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1356 INFO RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RUCNOSC/ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY COOPERATION IN EUROPE PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L BAKU 001428
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/29/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM KDEM AJ
SUBJECT: AZERBAIJANI APPELLATE COURT UPHOLDS YENI FIKIR
CONVICTIONS
REF: BAKU 1022
Classified By: Acting DCM Joan Polaschik for reasons 1.4 b and d.
C O N F I D E N T I A L BAKU 001428
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/29/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM KDEM AJ
SUBJECT: AZERBAIJANI APPELLATE COURT UPHOLDS YENI FIKIR
CONVICTIONS
REF: BAKU 1022
Classified By: Acting DCM Joan Polaschik for reasons 1.4 b and d.
1.(U) On September 28, an Azerbaijani appellate court upheld
the convictions of Yeni Fikir opposition youth
activists Ruslan Bashirli, Said Nuriyev and Ramin Tagiyev,
but reduced the sentence of Ramin Tagiyev from four to three
years. The appellate judge did not specify the legal grounds
for reducing Tagiyev's sentence; we will review court
documents once available to examine the legal basis of the
ruling. (Note: The three Yeni Fikir youth activists were
arrested in August 2005 on charges of fomenting a coup in
connection with the November 2005 parliamentary elections.
The lower court trial took place from March to July 2006, and
was plagued by numerous procedural violations of due process.
The lower court sentenced Bashirli to five years'
imprisonment, Tagiyev to four and Nuriyev to a suspended five
year sentence due to his pre-existing health condition - see
reftel.)
2. (SBU) Embassy observers who attended the appellate court
hearing in September 2006 assessed the proceedings to be a
significant procedural improvement over the lower court
trial. Specifically, the defendants and their attorneys were
granted the right to review and rebut testimony presented
against them. The judge listened attentively to the
defendants' arguments in an atmosphere of relative calm in
the courtroom. However, the appellate court found no basis on
which to overturn the lower court's decision.
3. (C) Human rights activists were not surprised that the
appellate court did nothing to change the verdicts. Most
activists commented that it is rare (if ever) that an
appellate court finds fault with a lower court decision.
Other activists contended that the appellate hearing was pro
forma and pre-ordained.
DERSE
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/29/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM KDEM AJ
SUBJECT: AZERBAIJANI APPELLATE COURT UPHOLDS YENI FIKIR
CONVICTIONS
REF: BAKU 1022
Classified By: Acting DCM Joan Polaschik for reasons 1.4 b and d.
1.(U) On September 28, an Azerbaijani appellate court upheld
the convictions of Yeni Fikir opposition youth
activists Ruslan Bashirli, Said Nuriyev and Ramin Tagiyev,
but reduced the sentence of Ramin Tagiyev from four to three
years. The appellate judge did not specify the legal grounds
for reducing Tagiyev's sentence; we will review court
documents once available to examine the legal basis of the
ruling. (Note: The three Yeni Fikir youth activists were
arrested in August 2005 on charges of fomenting a coup in
connection with the November 2005 parliamentary elections.
The lower court trial took place from March to July 2006, and
was plagued by numerous procedural violations of due process.
The lower court sentenced Bashirli to five years'
imprisonment, Tagiyev to four and Nuriyev to a suspended five
year sentence due to his pre-existing health condition - see
reftel.)
2. (SBU) Embassy observers who attended the appellate court
hearing in September 2006 assessed the proceedings to be a
significant procedural improvement over the lower court
trial. Specifically, the defendants and their attorneys were
granted the right to review and rebut testimony presented
against them. The judge listened attentively to the
defendants' arguments in an atmosphere of relative calm in
the courtroom. However, the appellate court found no basis on
which to overturn the lower court's decision.
3. (C) Human rights activists were not surprised that the
appellate court did nothing to change the verdicts. Most
activists commented that it is rare (if ever) that an
appellate court finds fault with a lower court decision.
Other activists contended that the appellate hearing was pro
forma and pre-ordained.
DERSE