Mingachevir buying marijuana

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Mingachevir buying marijuana

Application no. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Fariz Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan ,. Having deliberated in private on 1 December ,. Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:. The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant for the illegal sale of drugs. In particular, relying on Article 6 of the Convention , the applicant alleged that the domestic courts had based his conviction on inadmissible evidence. The applicant, Mr Fariz Ahmadov, was an Azerbaijani national who was born in and at the time of the events in question lived in Mingachevir. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was working as a waiter at a tearoom in Mingachevir. On 7 March R. At the police station 0. He told the police that he had obtained the marijuana from A. On the same day, A. The applicant was arrested on 8 March at approximately 8 p. The applicant stated in a hand-written declaration that he waived his right to be legally assisted and that he chose to defend himself. On 10 March the applicant was charged under Article On 10 March the applicant was questioned by an investigation officer of the city police. Before being questioned he was apprised of his rights, including the right to be represented and not to incriminate himself. The applicant signed a handwritten document in which he acknowledged that the pertinent legal provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been explained to him, that he waived his right to be assisted by a lawyer, and that he chose to defend himself personally. A report describing in detail the procedural rights of accused persons was compiled by the investigation officer and signed by him, the applicant and a State-funded lawyer appointed by the investigation officer. During the questioning that followed immediately thereafter, which was conducted without the presence of a lawyer, the applicant stated that on 7 March A. He had refused to do so, but a few minutes later he had noticed some animal manure lying on the floor of the backroom and had put it into a cigarette, which he had then given to A. On 10 March a face-to-face confrontation was held between the applicant and A. According to the record of the confrontation, A. The applicant challenged A. However, he had informed A. The applicant also stated that he had given A. The confrontation was held in the absence of a lawyer, as the applicant had already waived his right to a lawyer and had chosen to defend himself. On 5 April the applicant appointed a lawyer of his own choosing. On 5 August a new face-to-face confrontation was held between the applicant and A. The applicant confirmed A. According to the record of a separate testimony given by A. When asked why he had made a different statement.