Message: Ali Jahangir oglu Guliyev v. Azerbaijan. Message N 1972/2010. The Views were adopted by the Committee on October 16, 2014.
In 2010, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Azerbaijan.
Subject matter: torture during pre-trial detention; inhumane conditions of detention; unfair trial; commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment at a time when life imprisonment was not provided for by law.
Substantive issues: torture, fair trial, inhuman treatment; imposition of a heavier punishment than that which was to be applied at the time of the commission of the criminal offence; right to appeal.
Legal positions of the Committee. The Committee recalls that, according to the principle of equality of the parties, both parties should be provided with the same procedural rights, except if the differences are provided for by law and can be justified on objective and reasonable grounds that do not actually put the defendant at a disadvantage or otherwise unfairly treat him (paragraph 9.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case. The Committee notes the author's allegations that the conditions in which he is serving his sentence of life imprisonment, including after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, amount to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Covenant. It notes that the State party has confirmed most of the author's claims regarding the following: the size of the cells; the ability of persons serving life sentences to engage in work, education, vocational training, or sports; the number of visits and telephone conversations they are allowed; and, in general, the ability for them to maintain contact with their relatives. The Committee also takes note of the State party's general argument that prison conditions comply with international standards. The Committee concludes that the conditions of the author's detention between the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party and 24 June 2008, as described, were a violation of his right to humane treatment and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and, consequently, They contradicted article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (See communications No. 1813/2008, Aquanga v. Cameroon, Views adopted on March 22, 2011, paragraph 7.3, and No. 1628/2007, Pavlyuchenkov v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted on July 20, 2012, paragraph 9.2.). In the light of this finding, the Committee will not consider separately any possible allegations affecting articles 7 or paragraph 3 of article 10 (paragraph 9.2 of the Views) in this regard (See communication No. 1406/2005, Viravansa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 17 March 2009, paragraph 7.4.).
The Committee takes note of the author's claim that, following the rejection of his cassation appeal on 20 September 2005 by a panel of judges of the Supreme Court, the Plenum of the Supreme Court reviewed the decision again on 24 October 2005, which led to a change in the author's sentence; the Plenum held a meeting in the presence of the prosecutor, but did not notify the defense, and Neither the author nor his lawyer were present at the hearing. The State party does not deny these allegations (paragraph 9.3 of the Views).
The Committee notes the author's claim that commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment for a crime committed during a period when life imprisonment was not provided for by law was a violation of article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. In accordance with the last sentence of paragraph 1 of article 15 of the Covenant, if a lighter punishment is imposed by law after the commission of a crime, this law applies to the offender in question. With regard to the present case, the Committee notes that the life imprisonment imposed by the Law of 10 February 1998 replaced the death penalty, which is a more severe punishment compared to life imprisonment. In addition, with regard to some of the crimes for which the author was convicted, such as murder, no new provisions were subsequently introduced into the legislation introducing more lenient penalties that could apply to the author, except for the aforementioned amendment on life imprisonment. In such circumstances, the Committee cannot conclude that the State party, by commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment for the crimes for which the author was convicted, violated the author's rights under article 15, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 9.4 of the Views) (See communications No. 1425/2005, Martz v. the Russian Federation, Views adopted October 21, 2009, paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6, and No. 1346/2005, Tofanyuk v. Ukraine, Views adopted on October 20, 2010, paragraph 11.3.).
Conclusions of the Committee. The Human Rights Committee considers that the facts presented to it indicate a violation of Mr. Guliyev's rights under articles 10, paragraph 1, and 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 10 of the Views).