The Sabail District Court has made decisions to extend the pre-trial detention measures for a number of prominent individuals within the framework of the criminal case conducted by the State Security Service (SSS).
The court, considering the submissions of the investigative p, extended the pre-trial detention measure chosen for the chairman of the APFP Ali Karimli and the member of the APFP Presidium Mammad Ibrahim for 5 months.
At the same time, the investigative p's request to extend the house arrest pre-trial detention measure chosen for the former head of the Presidential Administration Ramiz Mehdiyev was also granted. According to the court's decision, Ramiz Mehdiyev's house arrest pre-trial detention measure was extended for another 5 months.
But what is the legal meaning of extending the investigation period and pre-trial detention measures? What conclusions can be drawn from these decisions regarding the course of the investigation and the future legal fate of the accused persons?
In his statement to Modern.az, lawyer and head of the Constitutional Research Foundation Alimammad Nuriyev stated that the investigative p does not yet consider the case to be completed:
"The extension of the investigation period and pre-trial detention measures for persons accused of serious crimes indicates that the investigative p does not yet consider the case to be completed. Such decisions are usually made when there is a need to conduct additional investigative actions, collect new evidence, verify existing evidence, and obtain expert results. That is, the main issue here is the collection and evaluation of evidence. From this point of view, the extension of the investigation period indicates that the investigation has not yet reached a final conclusion. The extension of the investigation period does not mean that criminal cases will be opened against new persons or that the scope of the accusation will necessarily expand. Although the emergence of new facts and additional episodes is not excluded as the investigation continues, decisions must be made based on the evidence obtained, not on assumptions. For this reason, there is legal logic in the court's decision to extend the investigation period."
According to him, the complexity of the case also plays an important role in making this decision:
"These individuals are accused of serious crimes. There may be a need to collect and evaluate additional evidence, and to interrogate new individuals. Also, there may be a need to clarify some issues related to the expansion or restriction of the scope of the accusation. All these are circumstances that justify the extension of the investigation period. From the point of view of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, this is a completely legal procedure."
The expert also commented on the repeated extension of Ramiz Mehdiyev's house arrest.
He noted that the court has not yet seen sufficient grounds to change the pre-trial detention measure chosen so far:
"This may be related to factors such as his age or health. If other circumstances had emerged, it would have been possible to choose a stricter pre-trial detention measure. Therefore, at the current stage, concluding that he will definitely be arrested does not seem sufficiently legally justified. There is no direct link between the extension of the investigation period and the tightening of the pre-trial detention measure. These are different procedural institutions, and each requires separate legal grounds. For house arrest to be replaced by imprisonment, the investigative p must justify additional risks and arguments before the court. It may be that such risks do not exist, or factors such as the person's health condition and age are taken into account. The main conclusion that can be drawn at present is that the investigation is ongoing. This indicates that new information may emerge in the coming period regarding both the factual circumstances of the case and its legal evaluation. According to the principle of a legal state, it is not correct to prejudge the outcome of the investigation. The final legal evaluation can only be given after the court investigation is completed."
The expert believes that at the current stage, events should be approached based on procedural facts, not emotional or political considerations:
"The facts show that the investigation is ongoing and the prosecution needs additional time to complete the investigation. Drawing definitive conclusions at this stage would be a hasty step from a legal point of view. At the same time, definitive statements can be evaluated as interference in the course of the investigation."
