Azerbaijani Government, European Court starts new communication

Society Materials 4 March 2010 11:54 (UTC +04:00)
New communication on human rights has begun between Azerbaijani Government and European Court.

Azerbaijan, Baku, March 4/ Trend , K. Zarbaliyeva /

New communication on human rights has begun between Azerbaijani Government and the European Court.

Azerbaijani citizen M.Rasulov, who married Sep.1, 2000, after three months of family life appealed to the court to annual marriage, when it became known that his wife is pregnant. Rasul said his wife betrayed him, and that the child is not his child. He appealed to Azizbeyov District Court to dispute his fatherhood and annul the marriage, Legal Education Society told Trend .

June 21, 2001, when there was a trial, the son of Rasulov's wife was born, and this child was registered as a child of the complainant. As a result of biological examination, envisaged for the purpose of establishing fatherhood, the Ministry of Health inferred that the complainant is the biological father of the child.

After this examination the court decided to conduct DNA test to get final results. The Health  Ministry's expert's opinion based on the DNA test says that Rasulov is not the child's biological father . As a result of additional examination, envisaged to resolve the variance between the biological examination and a DNA test, it was found that the results of DNA test are more accurate and grounded, they have advantages compared with the results of biological examination.

May 11, 2006 Azizbeyov District Court satisfied the suit of the applicant in connection with his fatherhood and passed a resolution that Rasulov is not the child's biological father.
Both sides filed a complaint to Baku Court of Appeal toward Azizbeyov District Court's decision. In his complaint Rasulov made demand for divorce, and the defendant disagreed with the results of litigation of fatherhood.

Sept.4, 2007 Baku Court of Appeal annulled Azizbeyov District Court's decision and adopted a new resolution on the case. The Court based its decision on the fact that Rasulov and defendant lived together during pregnancy, and this gives grounds for believing that the child's father is the complainant. The Court did not take into account the opinions of experts and grounded this with the fact that these conclusions are in contradiction with the other circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court rejected Rasulov's appeal toward Appeal Court's decision Nov.20, 2007.

Rasulov sent a complaint to the European Court in connection with violation of the right of fair judicial investigation under the the European Convention's sixth article. The unjust conduction of judicial investigation in connection with the establishment of paternity in this case is disputed.