CLOSED TRIAL FOR YENI FIKIR ACTIVISTS TO START

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BAKU 000519 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/24/2016 TAGS: PHUM KDEM PGOV PREL AJ SUBJECT: CLOSED TRIAL FOR YENI FIKIR ACTIVISTS TO START APRIL 5 REF: 05 BAKU 1169 Classified By: DCM JASON HYLAND FOR REASONS 1.4 B AND D. ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: On March 31 Azerbaijan's Court of Grave Crimes held the pre-trial hearing for the three Yeni Fikir (New Thought) youth group activists accused of plotting a violent takeover of the government and engaging in illegal entrepreneurship. The panel of three judges heard arguments from the two Yeni Fikir lawyers that as the Prosecutor General's office has not shared with them its evidence proving the case has enough merits, the case should either be dismissed or delayed. The prosecutor argued that he would present the evidence during the trial and advocated that the trial be closed due to national security concerns. After a break of five hours, the judges ruled to go forward with the trial (scheduled for April 5) which will be closed to all parties except the defendants, their lawyers, and witnesses. Said Nuriyev, one of the three accused, told PolOff the three would likely register their protest to a closed trial by first firing their lawyers, with later steps to possibly include taping shut their mouths followed by a hunger strike. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) The March 31 pre-trial hearing itself for the joint case against Yeni Fikir youth activists Ruslan Bashirli, Ramin Tagiyev, and Said Nuriyev lasted approximately one hour at the Court of Grave Crimes. The three are charged with plotting a violent overthrow of the government and engaging in illegal entrepreneurship. The last charge, added only a month ago, apparently stems from "evidence" discovered that the three accepted USD 50,000 from an unnamed embassy without reporting the sum. The GOAJ argues that the three activists used this money, in addition to the USD 2,000 Bashirli allegedly accepted (reftel) to plot a coup. Rumors indicate that the prosecutor will claim the USD 50,000 came from the Norwegian Embassy and the Open Society Institute, although the prosecutor has not divulged this information to the defense and refused to answer in open court. ¶3. (U) Bashirli's lawyer began by claiming the defense had not received a full list of witnesses or a full list of evidence. He stated that, according to the information the defense has received from the prosecutor, there is insufficient evidence to go forward with the case. The key missing elements include the tape allegedly showing Bashirli accepting money from Armenian agents (reftel),testimony or reports from the Armenian Secret Service confirming the identity or involvement of its agents (the linchpin to the coup charge),and the identity of the Embassy that supposedly was responsible for funding Yeni Fikir. The defense argued that without this evidence, it is impossible for the lawyers to prepare for the case and adequately defend their clients. They also said that the absence of these key pieces of evidence made it impossible for the prosecution to argue it has a case. According to the defense, access to evidence is codified in the procedural code and the court's willingness to proceed without accommodating this vital provision is illegal. ¶4. (U) The prosecutor in turn argued that it is in the process of collecting evidence on the Armenian Secret Service angle; as soon as the evidence is collected, it will be provided to the defense. Regarding the identity of the embassy supposedly responsible for giving Yeni Fikir USD 50,000, the prosecutor said he will address this issue during the trial, not during the pre-trial hearing. He further stated that he had provided the defense with sufficient information and materials and the rest would be presented during the trial. On the issue of the tape, the judge decided on the spot that the defense would be able to see the tape itself when it is shown in open court. The judge further stated that it was "for the benefit of the defense" that the Prosecutor General's Office had not yet shared all its evidence. ¶5. (U) Finally, the prosecutor argued that for national security reasons, the court should be closed to the public. The judge also read two telegram petitions from two of the witnesses (the Georgian informants who participated in the video, reftel) who requested that the trial be closed to ensure their security. The defense argued that the case did not involve state secrets and that most of the evidence, including the tape of Bashirli allegedly accepting money from Armenians, had already been released by the prosecutor's office to the media. He stated that little was left that had not already been made public. If the evidence did involve national security questions, he asked that the prosecutor prove those links. The defense lawyer and each of the defendants further argued that the conduct of the trial was in the public interest and the trial should be open to observers to protect the rights of the defendants. BAKU 00000519 002 OF 002 ¶6. (SBU) After a five-hour recess, the panel of judges read out a decision that granted most of the prosecutor's petitions and almost none of the defense's. The trial will be conducted behind closed doors, excluding all participants except the defendants, their lawyers, and witnesses. The judges further ruled that sufficient evidence had been presented to start the trial on April 5. According to Said Nuriyev, who is not being detained for health reasons and therefore the only accessible defendant, the three will likely announce soon that they will fire their lawyers in protest over the court's decision (a common step in Azerbaijan that does not necessarily reflect dissatisfaction with the lawyers' performance),followed by taping their mouths shut and finally a hunger strike, if necessary. While it was difficult to determine the health condition of Bashirli and Tagiyev, Nuriyev (who suffers from chronic health problems that prompted his release on bail) appeared to have physical strength but had an obvious yellow pallor to his face and his eyes were also yellowed. ¶7. (C) COMMENT: While the GOAJ will stress national security grounds, a close trial will make it very difficult to ensure a fair trial. We also are very concerned that the defense will not be able to access key evidence against the defendants. A closed trial will not allow for independent monitors of the process to comment on whether the proceedings are fair or not. However, we will remain in close contact with the defendants to follow the proceedings and obtain official information to the extent available. We will continue to urge the GOAJ at all levels to conduct a fair trial in accordance with international rule of law standards and to be as open as possible about the proceedings. HARNISH