Domestic

Domestic

Azerbaijanâ€™s Supreme Court comments on reports about extension of term of Eynulla Fatullayevâ€™s imprisonment

08 December 2010 15:33 (UTC +04:00)

Supreme Court told APA that an article was published in press says that the decision passed by the Plenum of the Supreme Court on November 11 extended the term of his imprisonment.The Court says that it does not have authority to pass a decision on extending the term of imprisonment or aggravate the circumstance.

Under the first decision on Eynulla Fatullayev passed by the Plenum on November 11, judgment of the cassation instance was annulled, the consideration of the case was ended.

Under the second decision of the Plenum, the judgment on Eynulla Fatullayev passed by the cassation court was annulled partially on two accusations, the consideration of the criminal case in these parts was ended. According to this case, Eynulla Fatullayev was sentenced to four-month imprisonment over tax evasion.

He committed this crime during the term of conditional sentence by the Yasamal district court on September 26, 2006 (Fatullayev was sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment) and therefore the Plenum, in the term of sum of sentences and basing on the criminal law norms (article 67.1 of the Criminal Code), keeps the sentence of two years and three months of imprisonment in force, partly uniting the first and last sentences. Taking it into consideration that Fatullayev served this term of imprisonment, as well as proceeding in the term of special charge was ended, the Plenum made decision to release Fatullayev from the prison on the reviewed cases.

The Plenumâ€™s decision is completely meeting the demands described in the European Courtâ€™s April 22 decision on Fatullayevâ€™s case. According to the Plenumâ€™s decision, the term of sentence for both tax evasion and punishment on the basis of sum of sentences was not extended, but in contrary, the convictâ€™s situation was mitigated.

Due to Fatullayevâ€™s other crime committed in jail, he was detained in penitentiary. The case heard by the first instance court was not a matter of argument of the Supreme Court Plenum.