ATAKISHI v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 9 42. In the present case, the applicant was disqualified on two grounds, namely, that he had intended to bribe voters, and that he had insulted his opponent and disrupted his campaign meeting. 43. As to the first ground, the only evidence available was a written statement by H.S. where he noted that the applicant had given him money in exchange for his services as an intermediary in bribing voters. However, the Court notes that H.S. was never heard in person either by the ConEC or the domestic courts, despite the fact that, according to the applicant, he was physically present in the Court of Appeal building during the hearing of 31 October 2005. Moreover, it appears from the material in the case file that, from 28 October 2005, H.S. sent several statements to the relevant courts and other authorities whereby he repeatedly retracted any statements that could be construed as accusations against the applicant. However, these subsequent statements were not taken into account by the domestic courts. The Court considers that hearing H.S. in person and an adequate examination of his subsequent statements were crucial for the assessment of the truthfulness of H.S.’s original written statement. Furthermore, there was no other evidence corroborating the allegation that the applicant had engaged in bribing voters. In such circumstances, the Court considers that the evidence relied on by the courts was insufficient and, in any event, was not assessed in a manner that would remove legitimate doubts as to its reliability. 44. As to the second ground for the applicant’s disqualification, the Court notes that part of the evidence presented by the ConEC in this regard consisted of several short statements and telegrams by various persons accusing the applicant, in general terms, of using insults and offensive language in respect of his opponents (see paragraphs 9-11 above). The Court notes, however, that none of these complaints provided any specific details of inappropriate or illegal behaviour by the applicant (such as examples of any “insulting” statements, descriptions of any other specific unlawful behaviour, or the date and time of the alleged misconduct). Rather, they were all very vaguely worded and essentially contained unsubstantiated allegations. The courts failed to verify the identities of the authors of these complaints, to seek more detailed information from them as to the specific alleged misconduct by the applicant, to corroborate that information with any additional evidence, or to hear any of the complainants in person and thus give the applicant an opportunity to defend himself against their allegations. Thus, these written statements, in themselves, could not be considered as proving any factual circumstance, let alone any illegal conduct by the applicant. In such circumstances, the Court considers that the written complaints and telegrams cannot be considered to be relevant, sufficient or adequately assessed proof of any misconduct on the applicant’s part.