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