Joint information on Elgun Ibrahimov’s death:it’s more than just a violation of investigative standards

Analysis

On May 13, 18-year-old Elgun Ibrahimov, a resident of Ganja, was hospitalized with a brain injury, but his life could not be saved. On the same day, the Ganja city prosecutor's office initiated a criminal case under Article 126.3 of the Criminal Code (intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm - causing the death of the victim through negligence) in connection with the incident.

The death of the youngster has caused heated discussions on social media and other information resources. The investigation of the death has been accompanied by contradictory versions from the very start. Initially, the statements spread that the deceased was beaten to death. Afterwards, news about the possible suicide circulated, but after a short break, denials from the deceased's family began to circulate. Not long after, the Prosecutor General's Office issued a press-release inviting people with information about the incident to cooperate.

The latest official information regarding the death of E.Ibrahimov is a joint statement issued by the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Security Service on May 29. Prior to the statement, the reactions to the incident in society should be mentioned. One of the initial responses was the launch of a public advocacy campaign for a fair investigation into the death. An attempted rally planned to be held in the city center as part of the campaign was met with police intervention and resulted in the detention of 63 people. Participants reported that they faced insults, ill treatment and sexual harassment from the police.

The joint statement titled “The investigation into the death of Elgun Ibrahimov is ongoing” proclaims that “intensive investigative and operational search measures have been carried out, and all hypotheses have been examined, including the possibility that the deceased committed suicide, fell carelessly, or died as a result of serious physical injury.” Nevertheless, the following part of the statement states that Ibrahimov fell from a balcony without railings on the 5th floor of an unused dormitory of a university in Ganja, received numerous injuries, was evacuated to the hospital in a wounded condition, and passed away.

In other words, although the introduction of the press-release announces while the investigation is ongoing, the impression created in the subsequent part that it is already over. Namely, the official statement announces that the investigation has already reached a final conclusion and that the youngster died as a result of injuries sustained after falling from a high floor.

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CCP), the criminal case initiated on the fact of the death of Elgun Ibrahimov is currently at the stage of preliminary investigation. The criminal case initiated under Article 126.3 of Criminal Code is considered a grave crime under Article 15 of the same Code. According to Article 218 of the Code, the preliminary investigation of grave crimes must be concluded no later than 4 months after the initiation of the criminal case. Corresponding to other paragraphs of the same article, this period may be extended several times upon a reasoned application for a period not exceeding 13 months.

In relation to this period, the CCP lists several obligations of the officials of the body carrying out the criminal prosecution regarding the investigation. Article 8 of the Code states that one of the main duties of the criminal prosecution is to “thoroughly, fully and objectively investigate all circumstances related to the criminal prosecution”. Via the requirements of Articles 84, 85 and 86 of the CCP, the investigation must be carried out “thoroughly, fully and objectively” and must serve to “the discovery of the crime”. Although the listed articles emphasize the “internal conviction” of the officials, the investigation must not be carried out in contradiction to these goals.

Despite the fact that half a month has passed since the criminal case on the fact of Ibrahimov's death was initiated, the publication of a statement that allows drawing a definitive conclusion contradicts the stated investigative standards of the CCP. Even though the statement emphasizes that “all hypotheses are being checked”, it is clearly noticeable that the investigation prefers the inclination that the deceased died from a fall from a height. This unambiguous conclusion casts doubt on the thoroughness and objectivity of the investigation, and raises important questions about whether it serves the purpose of solving the crime.

While Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights refers to the right to a “fair trial”, the requirements of this article also apply to pre-trial proceedings, as the failure of the investigation to comply with the requirements may also affect an individual’s right to a fair trial (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, § 36).

Another issue is the conformity of dissemination of information by joint statement of three law-enforcement bodies with the requirements of legislation.

Article 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a rule, considers the dissemination of preliminary investigation information to be inadmissible, aside from two exceptions:

1. Dissemination of preliminary investigation information by participants in criminal proceedings and journalists;
2. Dissemination by the body conducting the preliminary investigation or directly or through the media in connection with public interest, prevention of the dissemination of false information, or demonstration of the inevitability of criminal liability.

There are also requirements for the dissemination of information in these exceptional cases. In the first occasion, permission to disseminate information must be granted by the detective, investigator, prosecutor or court, and the information must not contradict the interests of the preliminary investigation and must not violate the rights and legitimate interests of other participants in the criminal proceedings.

In relation to the second instance, no permission is required, the information is disclosed directly or through the media by the body that carries out the procedural management of the preliminary investigation or conducts the preliminary investigation. The information disseminated must consist of the results of the preliminary investigation, be to the extent that does not contradict the interests of the ongoing preliminary investigation, the right to privacy of other participants in the criminal proceedings, and, in accordance with the presumption of innocence, must not exceed the limit of suspicion of the suspect or accused in the part related to involvement in the crime.

The statement regarding the death of an 18-year-old youngster belongs to the second case, that is, it was directly announced by the body conducting the procedural management of the preliminary investigation. Even though the statement should have been announced only by the Prosecutor General's Office in accordance with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation, it was announced as a joint statement, in addition with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Security Service. However, a joint investigation group was not formed involving the employees of the other two law enforcement agencies mentioned in connection with the death of E. Ibrahimov, and it is clear from the statement itself that the investigation of the criminal case is being conducted by the Ganja City Prosecutor's Office. Article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which regulates the investigative jurisdiction, also attributes the investigative jurisdiction of Article 126.3 of the Criminal Code to the prosecutor's office. In this case, the collective announcement of the statement by three law enforcement agencies can be explained by the subtle threatening tone at the end. Bearing in mind the robust response to the mysterious death of E. Ibrahimov on social media and the public advocacy campaign for an impartial investigation of the death, the release of the statement by three law enforcement agencies serves to dampen public discussions and the advocacy campaign (even if it does not happen and is not successful) and, so to speak, to “calm it down”.  The statement at the end of the release proclaiming that “during the investigation, the dissemination of information on criminal cases should be carried out only on the basis of information confirmed by official state bodies, and especially on issues that are socially sensitive, one should act responsibly and legally. The media, social network users and public activists are asked to show high level of thoughtfulness in this matter and not disseminate information that may hinder the progress of the investigation and cause confusion in society.” is to interpret the message in this context.

This possibility is directly reinforced by the facts highlighted above, namely, exposure to individuals demanding a fair investigation into Elgun's death.

As to the overall content of the statement, presenting a position that supports only one of the hypotheses as a definitive conclusion at the initial stage of the investigation harms the interests of the ongoing preliminary investigation. Explicitly, at the very beginning of the investigation, the investigation loses the criteria of thoroughness, completeness and objectivity and creates a strong conviction in all interested parties regarding one hypothesis.

On the other hand, it is also possible to observe a breach of the legally protected interests of the deceased in the information. It is not clear how a detailed description of Elgun Ibrahimov's last hours could be useful for the purposes of the preliminary investigation, and what purpose is served by including some points concerning his reputation (being in debt, selling his mobile phone to pay off, drinking alcohol, smoking, regularly spending time in an unused dormitory, etc.)

The details mentioned in the statement, in light of the investigation's assumptions, do not provide any new information in relation to the investigation of the criminal case, nor do they give the public any "clues" as to how the incident actually occurred. Considering these details and the initial suicide hypothesis following the incident, it seems as if the mentioning these details was presented as additional and convincing details to more reliably link E.Ibrahimov's mysterious suicide. Although the statement mentions both a careless fall and verification of the suicide hypothesis, the statement ultimately consists of a mere statement of fact; the statement does not mention incident’s reason.

Granting the information emphasizes investigative actions such as “witness statements, examination of the crime scene, surveillance cameras, external and internal examination of the body, telephone records, forensic genetic, forensic medical and other expert opinions”, there is no compatibility between the initial evidence obtained from these investigative actions and the final conclusion reached by the investigation. It is not explained which evidence supports or refutes the conclusion reached at the current stage of the investigation and the like,

Whereas at first glance, the dissemination of joint information seems necessary due to the public importance of the criminal case and the prevention of misinformation, its content violates the standards of preliminary investigation of criminal procedural legislation. By confirming only one possibility of the event, the information raises serious doubts from the very beginning that the criminal case will be thoroughly investigated. Sharing details about the reputation of the deceased, which do not clearly serve the objectives of the preliminary investigation, infringes on his legally protected interests.

According to the Law “On Access to Information”, one of the main principles of access to information is that it does not contradict the duty of state bodies to disclose information and the objectives of ensuring the rights and freedoms of other persons, as well as the normal course of preliminary investigations in criminal cases.

“Tribunat” concludes that the joint information of three law enforcement agencies on the death of Elgun Ibrahimov not only violates the standards of preliminary investigation, but also undermines the procedure for dissemination of preliminary investigation information. The information presents only one version of the mysterious death that is in the public eye as a definitive conclusion, which, as a result, significantly undermines the interests of the ongoing preliminary investigation. Then again, the dissemination of information related to the reputation of the deceased violates his legitimate interests. In general, while the disclosure should have been made only by the Prosecutor General’s Office, which is conducting the procedural management of the preliminary investigation, the fact that the other two law enforcement agencies (the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Security Service) acted as co-authors of the information and the deterrent effect of the disclosure are directed towards discouraging alternative discussions regarding the death of Elgun Ibrahimov.