The role of in absentia trials in Azerbaijan: Balancing judicial efficiency and fair trial rights during legal transition

Lala  Mammadova

doi:10.34625/issn.2183-2705(37)2025.ic-20

Authors

Lala Mammadova Baku State University Law Faculty https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3995-3342

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34625/issn.2183-2705(37)2025.ic-20

Keywords:

In absentia trials, European jurisdictions, Fundamental rights, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Comparative analysis

Abstract

The objective of this study is to examine the incorporation of in absentia trials into Azerbaijan's legal framework following the 2023-2024 reforms, with a specific emphasis on the balance between judicial efficiency and the protection of defendants' rights. This issue is of particular importance as Azerbaijan seeks to modernize its legal system in accordance with international standards, particularly within the context of transitional justice.

Theoretical Framework grounded is rooted in fundamental human rights principles, with a particular emphasis on the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The methodology further analyzes the extent to which these safeguards align with the standards set by the ECHR, drawing comparisons with the practices in Italy, Germany, and Turkey. The Results and Discussion reveal that Azerbaijan's legal reforms incorporate procedural safeguards akin to those in Italy and Germany, balancing defendants' rights with judicial efficiency. However, despite its Roman law foundation, Azerbaijan's relatively new legal system lacks the experience to implement advanced concepts such as in absentia trials effectively.

Originality/Value: The research links in absentia trials to global SDG objectives, highlighting their role in advancing fair trials and strengthening justice systems in transitional states like Azerbaijan.

References

Books and Book Chapters

Aybay, R. and Dardağan, E. Uluslararası Düzeyde Yasaların Çatışması. 2nd ed. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2008, p. 305.

Bathe, H. T. ‘Verhandlungsmaxime und Verfahrensbeschleunigung’. In: Baumbach, A., Lauterbach, W., Albers, J. and Hartmann, P. (eds). Zivilprozessordnung. 76th ed. München: C.H. Beck, 2018, p. 3365. ISBN 978-3-406-71084-1.

Kıygı, O. N. and Akgün, T. Hukuk ve ekonomi terimleri sözlüğü. 2nd ed. Munich: Verlag C H Beck, 1999.

Mangiaracina, A. ‘Report on Italy’. In: Quattrocolo, S. and Ruggeri, S. (eds). Personal Participation in Criminal Proceedings: A Comparative Study of Participatory Safeguards and In Absentia Trials in Europe. Cham: Springer, 2019, pp. 229–277.

Prütting, H. In: Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung. Vol. 1. 4th ed. München: C. H. Beck, 2014, § 330, Rn. 10, p. 2226.

Reichold, K. In: Thomas/Putzo Zivilprozessordnung. 36th ed. München: C. H. Beck, 2015, Vor § 330, Rn. 5, p. 643.

Sharma, D. H. Zustellungen im europäischen Binnenmarkt. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2020, p. 192.

Öztürk, B. and Erdem, M. R. Uygulamalı Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku. 9th ed. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık, 2009, p. 1464.

Journal Articles

Altiner, S. ‘Extradition according to the rules of international law and provisions of Turkish criminal code’. Çankaya University Journal of Law, 2011, 8(1), pp. 21–40.

Amsterdam, A. G. ‘Criminal prosecutions affecting federally guaranteed civil rights: Federal removal and habeas corpus jurisdiction to abort state court trial’. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1964, 113, pp. 793–820.

Balcı, M. ‘Ceza Muhakemesi Hukukunda Gaip veya Kaçak Sanığa Güvence Belgesi Verilmesi (CMK m. 246, m. 248/7)’. Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2011, (92), pp. 101–117.

El Zeidy, M. M. ‘Universal jurisdiction in absentia: Is it a legally valid option for repressing heinous crimes?’. International Law, 2003, 37, pp. 835–852.

Ersoy, U. ‘Some thoughts on holding hearings and rendering conviction in absentia in criminal proceedings’. Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Law Journal, 2020, 10(1), p. 52.

Goldstein, A. S. ‘The state and the accused: Balance of advantage in criminal procedure’. Yale Law Journal, 1959, 69, p. 1149.

Hasimova, L. ‘Extradition in international criminal law and human rights in this context’. Baku State University Law Review, 2017, 3(1), pp. 250–263.

Kobe, P. ‘Recht zum Gerichtsverfahren in Anwesenheit als Grundrecht des Menschen’. Zbornik PFZ, 1978, 28, pp. 412–430.

Ömeroğlu, Ö. ‘Ceza muhakemesinde gaip ve kaçak sanığa güvence belgesi verilmesi’. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2013, 17(3), p. 195.

Pollicino, O. and Bassini, M. ‘Personal participation and trials in absentia: A comparative constitutional law perspective’. In: Personal Participation in Criminal Proceedings: A Comparative Study of Participatory Safeguards and In Absentia Trials in Europe. 2019, p. 527.

Papakçı, A. ‘Alman mahkemelerince verilen gıyabi kararların yargılama ve uluslararası tebligat kuralları açısından Türk hukukuna uygunluğu’. Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2016, 22(1), pp. 457–488.

Starkey, J. G. ‘Trial in absentia’. St. John's Law Review, 1978, 53, p. 721.

Vogel, B. ‘Report on Germany’. In: Personal Participation in Criminal Proceedings: A Comparative Study of Participatory Safeguards and In Absentia Trials in Europe. Cham: Springer, 2019, pp. 123–135.

Vonderstein, M. ‘Crime in border areas: Criminal proceedings against foreigners in Poland’. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, 2000, 83(2), p. 121.

Yıldırım, U. ‘Gaiplerin yargılanması (CMK 244. madde)’. Kadim Hukuk, 2024. Available at: https://kadimhukuk.com.tr/makale/gaiplerin-yargilanmasi/ [Accessed 28 Feb. 2025].

Online Sources

Cafaro, V. ‘Trial in absentia and retrial rights in Italy: ECtHR finds a breach of Article 6’. Saccucci & Partners, 19 September 2023. Available at: https://www.saccuccipartners.com/en/2023/09/19/trial-in-absentia-and-retrial-rights-in-italy-ecthr-finds-a-breach-of-article-6 [Accessed 19 Sep. 2023].

Canestrini, N. ‘Italian in absentia trials: an ongoing history of violation of the right to a fair trial’. CanestriniLex, 4 May 2018. Available at: https://canestrinilex.com/en/readings/italian-in-absentia-trial-violates-the-right-to-a-fair-trial [Accessed 28 Feb. 2025].

Legislation and Case Law

European Court of Human Rights. Van Geyseghem v Belgium, App no 26103/95, 9 February 1999. [Accessed 19 Sep. 2023].

European Court of Human Rights. European Convention on Human Rights. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/european-convention-on-human-rights [Accessed 28 Feb. 2025].

European Court of Human Rights. Poitrimol v France, App no 14032/88, 23 November 1993. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-57858"]} [Accessed 28 Feb. 2025].

European Court of Human Rights. Sejdovic v Italy, App no 56581/00, 1 March 2006.

E-Qanun. ‘Amendments to criminal procedure law under Azerbaijani legislation’. 2023. Available at: https://e-qanun.az/framework/46950 [Accessed 19 Sep. 2023].

Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM). ‘Bill Text’. TBMM, 2023. [Accessed 19 Sep. 2023].https://www.meclis.gov.az/news-layihe.php?id=2199&lang=az&par=0 [Accessed 19 Sep. 2023].

HUDOC ECHR Database. European Court of Human Rights Judgments. Available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#%7B%22itemid%22:[%22002-3440%22]%7D [Accessed 19 Sep. 2023].