Lawyer Khalid Bagirov responses to message from General Prosecutor’s Office May 30, 2014
In connection with yesterday’s statement of the press service of the Prosecutor General on the evasion of the spouses Arif and Leyla Yunus from the investigation and warning them about their possible involvement in criminal prosecution and arrest for that, as well as warning of their legal representative Khalid Bagirov, the latter made the following statement:
This message from the Azerbaijani Prosecutor General’s Office http://genprosecutor.gov.az/?/az/news/view/744/) does not reflect reality.
On May 29, around 10.00 in the morning, the investigator Ibrahim Lemberansky called me and Leyla Yunus and said he wanted to further interrogate Leyla Khanum 2 hours later. L. Yunus told I. Lemberansky that she would come under one condition that the passports of her and her husband illegally confiscated would be returned.
I told Lemberansky that on May 29 at 12.00 I would be in court (http://musavat.com/news/son-x%C9%99b%C9%99r/%C3%96m%C9%99r-M%C9%99mm%C9%99dovun-v%C9%99sat%C9%99ti-t%C9%99min-olunmad%C4%B1_197602.html?welcome=1) and after the lunch break I would visit the prosecutor’s office on another case (http://bizimyol.info/?xeber=24026).
On that day, Lemberansky sent L. Yunus a notification to visit the investigation on May 30 at 14.30.
As for Arif Yunus, from April 29 to May 30 he was not called to the investigation in either oral or written form.
Even from our side there was an appeal to the investigation, saying that A. Yunus in accordance with the requirements of the legislation is ready to give testimony with the consent and participation of doctors.
Only on May 30 at 12.30 I. Lemberansky again called and invited A. Yunus to come on 2 June at 10.00 for the forensic examination in connection with the state of his health.
Neither Leyla Yunus nor Arif Yunus has ever refused to testify, which could be a ground for bringing them to justice.
They only require the return of their illegally seized passports. They openly told the press on this.
The law prohibits the removal of witnesses’ passports and restrictions on their activities and it is a violation of Article 2 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms.
In addition, I report that on 30 May I did not receive any warnings.
The content of this warning is unknown to me. Warning of a legal representative could just cause irony.
As for the words said by the spokesman of the Prosecutor General, E. Sultanov, that “all these statements are nothing but ill imagination of Leyla Yunus and her attempts to exert pressure on the investigation and send it to the wrong channel, while in fact, the escape of Matanat Azizova from the country was organized by L. Yunus» (http://anspress.com/index.php?a=2&lng=az&cid=9&nid=274349), it is an insult to the citizen and the violation of her right to the presumption of innocence.
Because of this man’s irresponsible statements the Azerbaijani state was punished by the European Court several times.
On the other hand, the statements of E. Sultanov on L. Yunus are the position of the authority he represents and his leadership. How, after all this, could it be possible to convince the public to believe that the investigation against Yunus will be conducted impartially?
Mövzu
Oxşar xəbərlər
Lawyer Khalid Bagirov responses to message from General Prosecutor’s Office May 30, 2014
03 June 2014
In connection with yesterday’s statement of the press service of the Prosecutor General on the evasion of the spouses Arif and Leyla Yunus from the investigation and warning them about their possible involvement in criminal prosecution and arrest for that, as well as warning of their legal representative Khalid Bagirov, the latter made the following statement:
This message from the Azerbaijani Prosecutor General’s Office http://genprosecutor.gov.az/?/az/news/view/744/) does not reflect reality.
On May 29, around 10.00 in the morning, the investigator Ibrahim Lemberansky called me and Leyla Yunus and said he wanted to further interrogate Leyla Khanum 2 hours later. L. Yunus told I. Lemberansky that she would come under one condition that the passports of her and her husband illegally confiscated would be returned.
I told Lemberansky that on May 29 at 12.00 I would be in court (http://musavat.com/news/son-x%C9%99b%C9%99r/%C3%96m%C9%99r-M%C9%99mm%C9%99dovun-v%C9%99sat%C9%99ti-t%C9%99min-olunmad%C4%B1_197602.html?welcome=1) and after the lunch break I would visit the prosecutor’s office on another case (http://bizimyol.info/?xeber=24026).
On that day, Lemberansky sent L. Yunus a notification to visit the investigation on May 30 at 14.30.
As for Arif Yunus, from April 29 to May 30 he was not called to the investigation in either oral or written form.
Even from our side there was an appeal to the investigation, saying that A. Yunus in accordance with the requirements of the legislation is ready to give testimony with the consent and participation of doctors.
Only on May 30 at 12.30 I. Lemberansky again called and invited A. Yunus to come on 2 June at 10.00 for the forensic examination in connection with the state of his health.
Neither Leyla Yunus nor Arif Yunus has ever refused to testify, which could be a ground for bringing them to justice.
They only require the return of their illegally seized passports. They openly told the press on this.
The law prohibits the removal of witnesses’ passports and restrictions on their activities and it is a violation of Article 2 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms.
In addition, I report that on 30 May I did not receive any warnings.
The content of this warning is unknown to me. Warning of a legal representative could just cause irony.
As for the words said by the spokesman of the Prosecutor General, E. Sultanov, that “all these statements are nothing but ill imagination of Leyla Yunus and her attempts to exert pressure on the investigation and send it to the wrong channel, while in fact, the escape of Matanat Azizova from the country was organized by L. Yunus» (http://anspress.com/index.php?a=2&lng=az&cid=9&nid=274349), it is an insult to the citizen and the violation of her right to the presumption of innocence.
Because of this man’s irresponsible statements the Azerbaijani state was punished by the European Court several times.
On the other hand, the statements of E. Sultanov on L. Yunus are the position of the authority he represents and his leadership. How, after all this, could it be possible to convince the public to believe that the investigation against Yunus will be conducted impartially?
@
