Election Judgments - IFES

Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, 8 April 2010, para. 81. 148 Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, 8 April 2010, para. 88. 149 Gahramanli and others v. Azerbaijan, 8 October

v. Ukraine, 2008, §§ 55 et seq.; Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, 2010, § 81; Kerimova v. Azerbaijan, 2010, § 54; Davydov and Others v. Russia, 2017;

17 Azerbaijan analyzing evidence (Atakishi v. Azerbaijan), 78–79 investigation mandate (Aliyev v. Azerbaijan), 95–96 substantiating evidence (Hajili v. Azerbaijan), 59–60

acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In Namat Alieyev v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR held that the “object and purpose” of the European Convention for

from Moldova, three countries (Azerbaijan, Bulgaria and Lithuania) clearly ban dual nationals from being elected to Parliament. In Azerbaijan and Lithuania, it is in

of substantiated evidence in several recent election-related cases. In Akatishi v. Azerbaijan, the applicant submitted that the decision by the Constituency Electoral Commission

challenging for respondents to properly prepare a defense. In Namat Alieyev v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR acknowledged the tension between a fair process and a fast

available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident.”3 In Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR emphasized that the need for the timely resolution of electoral disputes

for Electoral Systems complaints are heard and addressed. In Namat Alieyev v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR charged domestic courts with the responsibility of taking reasonable

for Electoral Systems complaints are heard and addressed. In Namat Alieyev v. Azerbaijan, the ECtHR charged domestic courts with the responsibility of taking reasonable

administrative courts and courts of appeal, as in the following countries: Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia (Tbilisi Court and Court of Appeal), Hungary,

their political affiliation or other status (Ždanoka, cited above; Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan, no. 37700/05, 3 December 2009), compositions of electoral commissions (The Georgian

routinely harms, intimidates or influences participants in the electoral process (e.g., Azerbaijan and Zimbabwe). This range of conflict triggers means facilitating a credible, peaceful

significant restrictions on it 38. Eight member States – Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Malta, Montenegro and San Marino – do not allow voting from

Guatemala Hungary Chile Honduras Russia Canada Cyprus Guyana Iceland Australia Azerbaijan Nepal Pakistan Source: International IDEA Electoral Justice database, 17 May

judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Namat Alieyev v. Azerbaijan, which charged domestic courts with the responsibility of “taking reasonable measures

in UN doc. GAOR, A/55/44, p. 15, para. 60; and, as to Azerbaijan, see ibid., p. 17, para. 69(d). 7 See as to Kyrgyzstan, ibid