A judge who was a member of all creative unions, handed down harsh sentences, and fought over his pension in retirement…

Blog

“De mortuis aut bene aut nihil.” This Latin phrase translates as “About the dead, either well or nothing” However, the role of a judge is such that even after passing, they are open to public debate. Anvar Seyidov, who served as a judge for 41 years, died on August 2. During his tenure as a judge at the Baku Grave Crimes Court, he came to the spotlight with his rulings in several political cases.

In addition to his role as a judge, Seyidov was also engaged in public and creative activities. Since 1997, he has been a member of the organization labeled as “Noblemen Assembly” the “Union of Azerbaijani Theater Figures”, the “Union of Azerbaijani Journalists”, and the “Union of Azerbaijani Writers”. He has written a number of works of fiction, contributed to cinematography, and received international awards. Although obituaries often include eulogies about the deceased, even pro-government media characterize his activities as “scandalous”.

“Tribunat” analyzed several cases characterizing Anvar Seyidov’s judicial reputation.

According to open sources, his legal career started spontaneous. Via A. Seyidov's interview with local media, he wanted to become a communications technician at the Telecommunications Technical School with the help of his uncle, but since his documents were not found, he studied at the law faculty. Following graduation, he worked in almost every field of ​​the legal world; Justice authorities, judge of the Zagatala and Jalilabad district courts, chairman of the Jalilabad District Court, member of the Central Election Commission's inspection group, judge of the Supreme Court and the Baku Grave Crimes Court...

41 years of this rich career were dedicated solely to the courts.

One of the cases that first brought A. Seyidov to the spotlight was the case of former Defense Minister Rahim Gaziyev. Gaziyev, who served as Defense Minister in 1992-93, was charged in 1993 with grave crimes including high treason, abuse of power, and embezzlement, and his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. In 2001, during the process of Azerbaijan’s accession to the Council of Europe, one of the steps to be taken within the framework of compliance with the requirements was the release of political prisoners; Rahim Gaziyev was included in the list of prisoners identified by the Council's group of independent experts. The former Defense Minister had long accused Anvar Seyidov of malpractice in his case; the latter, in turn, insisted that he had made a decision in this case “without dictation and orders”.

Another politically motivated case that “brought Seyidov to the limelight” is the criminal case known as “Said’s crew.” In January 2007, A. Seyidov, who presided over the case of Said Dadashbeyli, who was detained in Baku Grave Crimes Court, found Dadashbeyli and 14 other individuals guilty of attempting to seize power by force, establish a religious state, and commit terrorist acts in Azerbaijan, and sentenced them to 13-14 years in prison. During the trial, the judge was accused by the defense of a number of extra-procedural actions, including threatening Dadashbeyli’s relatives and writing a letter to the then head of the Ministry of National Security, which was conducting the investigation, requesting that employees be rewarded for their “honest and dignified” activities.

By the way, these are not the first allegations made against Anvar Seyidov. Former investigator of the Baku City Prosecutor's Office Nagiyev was accusing Seyidov of bribery.

Domestic and international human rights organizations recognized the defendants in “Said’s crew” case as political prisoners, citing violations of their rights by the investigation and court and the political motivation of the case. In a decision issued in 2020, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Dadashbeyli's right to a fair trial protected by Article 6 of the Convention (Article 6.1, the lack of a public hearing in the applicant's criminal proceedings) had been violated.

Yet another case bringing Anvar Seyidov's ruling to public debates is the case of Giyas Ibrahimov, one of the so-called “statue prisoners”. Ibrahimov, who was detained in 2016 with another youth activist Bayram Mammadov, was found guilty by a court panel presided by A. Seyidov under Article 234 of the Criminal Code (Illegal preparation, production, acquisition, storage, transportation, shipment or sale of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their precursors) and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Domestic and international organizations recognized G. Ibrahimov as a political prisoner. In 2020, the European Court ruled on the violation of several articles of the Convention in Ibrahimov and Mammadov. One of the factors that made this decision significant was the Court’s finding of a violation of Article 18 of the Convention. According to Article 18 of the Convention, restrictions on the rights and freedoms set out in this document must not be used for purposes other than those for which they were intended. According to the Court, the restriction imposed on the applicants’ rights under Article 5 of the Convention was not for the purposes specified in the Convention, but was to punish them for having written political graffiti on a statue of a former president, that is, politically motivated (§ 157). To date, the applicants’ case is one of 11 cases in which a violation of this Article has been found in relation to Azerbaijan.

The appeal regarding the verdict decision by Anvar Seyidov regarding Giyas Ibrahimov and the upholding of that verdict by higher courts has been communicated to the European Court of Human Rights, and the announcement of the decision is awaited.

Seyidov can be characterized as the “punching arm” of the state prosecution in the domestic judicial system. Examples of this include the fact that the state prosecutor in the Giyas Ibrahimov case sentenced the activist to 10 years of prison instead of 9 years, his threats to Said Dadashbeyli's relatives, his “thank-you” letter to the scandalous and discredited and liquidated body that investigated the case, and his years of accusatory discussions with Rahim Gaziyev.

A rather interesting point is the other hypostasis of Anvar Seyidov's personality; the fact that he informed his relatives that he was merely an “executor” in the investigation of the case in Dadashbeyli's case, his inclination towards literary and artistic activity and even to the point of authoring several novels, and his active participation in public life - add a unique color to his contradictory character.

Anvar Seyidov is one of the most outstanding examples of the profound tragedy of judiciary in Azerbaijan. However, this is a tragedy that goes beyond the personal fate and takes on a socio-political scale.

In a system where the constitutional independence of the judiciary is not ensured, judges simply become subjects of the political will of the executive branch. Here, the judge's personality, hobbies, personal life, and any other aspect not related to the judiciary are no longer important to the public, because that person remains in the eyes of the people with the unjust decisions he has made. Upon your wish, you can compose a song for Flora Karimova to perform, and you will be immortalized in the chronicles as a judge who makes harsh and unjust decisions and has conjugal disputes over his pension following retirement.

Was it a coincidence that after he was sent to retirement due to reaching appropriate age, he mentioned that he would not be bothered anymore and that nothing should be written about him. “I get irritated by journalists and statements. The time for statements and closures has passed. Please do not bother me anymore. I do not want anything written about me. It is not a condition that an article should be published about me in the newspaper, that a film about my 70th birthday be made on television. It is enough for me” he said in an interview with domestic media, as if expressing his desire to be forgotten.

His wish to be forgotten does not stem out from his right to be forgotten … 

Philosopher Hannah Arendt, who reported on the 1963 trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the most important figures in Nazi Germany, made her observations about the “banality of evil.” Via Arendt, actions that lead to great tragedies are not caused by an evil force within an individual, but by following chain of command…

Not only those who gave illegal orders, but also those carrying out those orders wholeheartedly and flawlessly will remain in the ever-living memory of history.