I incorrectly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in SERGEY BIBIN v. AZERBAIJAN.

Information

• Judgment date: 2018-10-16
• Communication date: 2014-10-13
• Application number(s): 81518/12
• Country:   AZE
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 6-3-a
• Conclusion:
  Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
  Just satisfaction)
• Result: No violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.852921
• Prediction: Violation

• Inconsistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Sergey Nikitovich Bibin, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Baku.
He is represented before the Court by Ms V. Leonidchenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 July 2010 the applicant, together with his brother and one acquaintance of him (respectively Mr Genadiy Bibin and Mr Anatoliy Vaytkevich – hereinafter referred to as “G.B.” and “A.V.” – whose applications nos.
81545/12 and 81547/12 are being considered simultaneously with the present one), were arrested in Baku while travelling by plane from Kiev to Tehran via Baku.
Following a search carried out during their arrest, electric relay and contactor systems were found in their baggage.
According to the applicant, neither after his arrest, nor during his first questioning was he provided with legal assistance.
On 4 July 2010 the applicant was charged with the criminal offence of fraud as provided by Article 178.3.2 of the Criminal Code.
On the same day the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of three months.
On 8 October 2010 the investigator in charge of the case re-qualified the criminal case under Article 206.4 (smuggling, committed by an organised group) of the Criminal Code and decided to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
The charges against him were based on the fact that the applicant, together with G.B.
and A.V., had smuggled electric relay and contactor systems, which could be used for military purposes, without making a customs declaration.
In the meantime, a technical forensic examination of relay and contactor systems was carried out.
It appears from the forensic report of 5 October 2010 that the expert concluded that although the items in question could not be considered as firearms, weapons or their component parts, they could be used for military purposes.
The expert, however, refused to reply to the question whether the movement of these items was forbidden and required a special licence, finding that this question fell out of his competence.
On 26 November 2010 the Assize Court held a preliminary hearing in which it decided, inter alia, to hold the trial in camera and to leave unchanged the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant.
On 2 May 2011 the Assize Court found the applicant guilty of smuggling, committed by an organised group, and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.
The court held that the applicant, G.B.
and A.V., with their one Iranian and two Azerbaijani accomplices, planned to smuggle through the Azerbaijani border to Iran items which could be used for military purposes.
It appears from the judgment that in the course of the proceedings before the Assize Court the applicant claimed his innocence stating that he was a retired military engineer by profession and intended to travel to Iran with G.B.
and A.V.
in order to repair the missile system “S‐200”.
He also stated that in May and June 2010 he had already travelled to Iran for this purpose.
On 26 October 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Assize Court’s judgment in respect of the applicant.
The hearings before the appellate court were held in camera.
On 6 July 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 26 October 2011 in respect of the applicant.
On 29 November 2012 the applicant was provided with a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision translated into Russian.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the court hearings were held in camera without any reason and that he was not provided with all documents relating to the criminal proceedings in a language which he understands.
He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was not provided with legal assistance at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings, in particular after his arrest and during his first questioning.