Legal analysis by Elvin Balajanov

Provide a legal analysis of the case using the “IRAC” method (use the structure below)

ebalajanovedu — 2020-05-16 06:07:12 UTC

A. Identify key facts (as to the case) (+are there background and irrelevant facts as well?):

Step 1 –
Step 2 -
Step 3 –
Part I -
Part II -
Part III -
Step 4 –

(Note: give a short explanation (in one sentence) of what is needed to be done at each “Step” (and “Part”) and then proceed further to the main part by providing your analysis of the case)

Case 1 (for st. 1-14)

ebalajanovedu — 2020-05-16 06:14:30 UTC

Sources to be considered (however, you have to identify the (applicable) rule(s) (and the reason for its application)to the case yourself):

Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan - http://www.e-qanun.az/code/11

Articles: 16, 17, 25, 26, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 129, 131, 134, 296, 297, 298, 308, 309, 314.

Case 2 (for st. 15-29)

ebalajanovedu — 2020-05-16 06:15:47 UTC

Sources to be considered (however, you have to identify the (applicable) rule(s) (and the reason for its application) to the case yourself):

Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan -

1. http://www.e-qanun.az/code/11 Articles: 16, 17, 25, 26, 29, 31, 38, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183.

2.http://supremecourt.gov.az/post/view/159 - para. 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 19.

jalenastakalova — 2020-05-16 16:11:48 UTC

Nastakalova Jale Case 2
A. Identify key facts (as to the case) (+are there background and irrelevant facts as well?): The key facts are the facts that are considered critical for the case and are of special importance in solving the case. In our case, key facts are the intentional nature of both acts committed on the same bus and the value of the stolen items that could lead to responsibility.

Step 1 – Issue: the identification of legal problem or problems in the case. The main issue is the theft of two different people on the same bus

Step 2 – Rule: we must identify what rule of law applies to the problem raised by the facts. In this case I can use enacted law. These are Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Article 20,25,177) , Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Pillage and Robbery (para.2)

Step 3 – Analysis/Application: we should determine how the rule of law applies to the issue.

Part I – The identification of elements of the rule of law

Pursuant to Article 20 of the Criminal Code, the person who has reached age of 16, to time of committing a crime shall be subjected to the criminal liability. Article 25 states that crime accomplished deliberately, shall be acts (action or inaction), accomplished with direct or indirect intention admits. Article 177, the most important article in this case, states that theft is secret plunders of another's property. Paragraph 2 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court states that a person who illegally takes property in the absence of the owner or other owner of the property or third parties, or in the absence of such persons, should be classified as secretly looting (theft).

Part II – The application of elements of the law to the facts

Article 20 of the Criminal Code can be applied to Zaur's case. If Zaur is 16 or older, he will be prosecuted. He is also criminally liable if he is 14 years old and has committed intentional theft. But it is understood logically that Akif is a adult person in the case. The reason for the application of Article 25 to the case is that both persons commit the crime knowingly. They deliberately try to hide the consequences of their actions. Article 177 also states that persons will be held criminally liable for theft. According to the second part of the decision of the Plenum, Zaur and Akif tried to take the items secretly, which is considered a secret theft.

Part III – The determination of counter-arguments to the analysis of the issue

If Zaur took the pen without knowing its value, it cannot be criminally prosecuted. Because according to Article 177 of the Criminal Code, liability for theft applies to items worth more than a hundred manats. And in this case, if Zaur is under 14, he cannot bear criminal responsibility.

Step 4 – Conclusion: summarizing of the results of legal analysis

First of all, let's look at Akif's case. Akif deliberately steals a gold watch for a certain profit. The cost of the watch is unknown. However, considering that the watch is of high value, he must be held criminally liable under Article 177, paragraph 1. Zaur should be prosecuted under Article 177.2.5 of the Criminal Code if he knowingly took the value of the pen and is over 14 years old.

shovkatrasulova — 2020-05-16 17:02:18 UTC

A. Identify key facts (as to the case) (+are there background and irrelevant facts as well?):
Inspector guessed explicitly that the person whom he had interrogated as a witness on criminal case told a lie. He invited him to tell the truth. However, witness continued to distort the situation. Getting nerves, the inspector slammed ashtray on the head of witness. As a result of harm to his health, he died.
Step 1 – Identifying issue is determining the situation, questions raised by client’s case.
Is killing witness by inspector while he was giving false statement murder or manslaughter?
Step 2 – Rule- determining appropriate law that governs the current issue.
1.Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan about Prosecutor's Office, Article 33. Responsibility of a prosecutor;
2.Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Article 309. Exceeding official powers;
3.Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Article 26. Committing a crime through negligence;
4.Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Article 124 Murder by negligence.
Step 3 – Analysis/application- To apply the rule of law which governs the case presented by client.
Part I - Determination of elements or components of the rule of law
1.Firstly, Article 33: Responsibility of a prosecutor in the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan about Prosecutor’s Office. This article states that a prosecutor regardless of his position, if he commits a crime, he’s liable for his actions. Neither his position, nor his reputation can release him from legal responsibility.
2.CC, Article 309: Exceeding official powers
Physical or mental harm by inspector are not allowed, even if witness doesn’t want to give any information about the case or when witness presents false statement.
An official's actions that clearly go beyond the scope of his / her official powers by violating other individual’s rights, he is considered as commiting crime.Aggracating factors are applying force using weapons or other special equipments.
3.CC, Article 26: Committing a crime through negligence
If a person should have foreseen the possibility that his action (action or inaction) may have socially dangerous consequences, and if he has not seen them, he shall be deemed to have committed the act (action or omission) as a result of criminal negligence.
4.CC, Article 124. Murder by negligence.
The possibility of causing death by harming or damaging wasn’t taken into account.
5. CC, Article 297. Deliberately giving false testimony, giving false opinion or misinterpreting. Witness of criminal or other case, it doesn’t matter, should be honest, truthful while being questioned and should inform investigator thoroughly. Otherwise, s/he will undergo legal liability.
Part II – Application of these elements to the facts of case;
CC, Article 309: Exceeding official powers – Inspector’s duty is to question the witness or injured person while researching. Any pysical or mental harm is not allowed.
CC, Article 26: Inspector had no intention to kill the witness, but he was aware of his deeds. Also, he didn’t know that it will result like this. As mentioned below, as a person who has legal position, he had to consider all of them beforehand.
CC, Article 297: Its application is impossible, because witness is dead.
Part III – Considering counter arguments to the case;
Article 59. Circumstances mitigating punishment
Commission of crime under the influence of illegal behaviours of witness or in a state of mental excitement inspector committed crime. (Article 122 of CC)
Reply to the counter argument: The most important thing should be taken into account is while investigating researcher has to be more patient. S/he mustn’t let his/her personal beliefs or feelings interfere the situation.
Witness of criminal or other case, it doesn’t matter, should be honest, truthful while being questioned and should inform investigator thoroughly.
Step 4 – Conclusion
The inspector is liable under Article 124 and 309. It's not intentional act, just commited by negligence.

Cavid İsmayil

2020-05-16 17:04:03 UTC

Key Points:

1. Witness knowingly giving false testimony

2. Inspector hitting him with something

Step 1 – Issue: The issue is the precise legal question raised by the facts of the case and identifying the issue is the most important step in the analytical process. We need to identify the issue to solve the dispute. Is investigator's deed murder or manslaughter?

Step 2 - Rule: The next step in the IRAC analytical process is to identify the law that governs the issue. This is the legal research component of legal analysis. I think that we need to use Articles 26 and 124 of Criminal Code.

Step 3 – Analysis/Application: In this step we define how the law applies to the issue. Once the law is located, you analyze the law to determine how it applies to the facts of the client’s case. This is a three-part process:

Part 1 - Identify the component parts (elements) of the law:

We will use Article 26.3 of Criminal Code in this case.

Part 2 - Apply the elements of the law to the facts of the client’s case.

Investigator's deed will be punished under Article 26.3 of Criminal Code, because his deed was murder. The investigator had to and could have foreseen, with due care and caution, the possibility that his action might have socially dangerous consequences. But he did not. Therefore this act is considered a crime commited as a result of criminal negligence.

Part 3 - Consider the possible counter-arguments to the analysis of the issue; that is,

conduct a counter-analysis of the analysis.

The investigator did carelessly. An investigator could prosecute a witness under Article 297.1 of the Criminal Code for knowingly giving false testimony.

The witness did not do enough to bring the investigator into a state of affect. It was just a sudden nervousness. Therefore, Article 122(122.1) of the Criminal Code cannot be used in this process.

Articles 308 and 309 of the Criminal Code also become invalid due to the fact that the investigator has no financial interest in this process or does not intend to give preference to himself and a third party.

Step 4 – Conclusion: Summarize the results of the legal analysis.

The court will punish the accused under Article 124.1 of the Criminal Code (negligent homicide) with correctional labor for up to two years or restriction of liberty for up to three years or imprisonment for up to three years.

Mustafa Safarov. “IRAC” method: Case2 A. In the Akif’s deed, key fact is Akif takes a gold watch which doesn’t belong, him and goes on to the destination without revealing. In the Zaur’s deed, the key fact is , he misuses the sleep of passengers and steal passenger’s pen which is cost of pen is 200(manat). Step 1- Issue: The issue is the precise legal question raised by the facts of the dispute. The first and probably most important step in the analytical process is to identify the issue. You must identify the problem before you can solve it. There are two issues that can be brought up in these cases; they are theft, we evaluate this act , we must consider the cost of thingStep 2- Rule: The next step in the IRAC analytical process is to identify the rule of law that governs the issue. This is the legal research component of legal analysis. We must use Article 177.1 of Criminal Code and Decision 2 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and burglary, Decision 9 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on judicial practice in cases of theft, Looting and Brindage and Article 227 of Code of Administrative Offences in these cases Step 3: Analysis/Application: We determine how the rule of law applies to the issue. Once the rule of law is located, we must analyze the law to determine how it applies to the facts of the client’s case. This is a three-part process: Part l - Identify the component parts (elements) of the rule of law: Article177.1. Theft that is, stealing another's property secretly. Article 177.2.5- when removed from the victim's pocket, purse or other hand luggage Decision 2: In the absence of the owner or other owner of the property or third parties, or in the absence of such persons, the person who illegally took the property shall be classified as secretly looting (theft) of the property. If the perpetrator suspects that he acted secretly in the specific circumstances, the act of the perpetrator should be considered a covert robbery, even if those persons have witnessed the robbery. Decision 19 is about illegal access to some places for example living area, warehouse. Since the cabin of a car or other vehicle does not belong to the storage area, the secret removal of any item from it cannot be considered as access to the storage space. Part II – Apply the elements of the law to the facts of the client’s case We would punish Akif's deed under Article 177.1 of the Criminal Code and paragraph 2 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on judicial practice in cases of theft, robbery and burglary, because his deed was theft, he secretly took someone else's property and in doing so he considered the consequences. We will punish Zaur's act under Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, because the value of the stolen item was less than 500 manat, and therefore his action is a small looting. Part III - Consider the possible counter-arguments to the analysis of the issue; that is, conduct a counter-analysis of the analysis.If we used decision 9 in the Akif’s deed, he would not be arrested because the cabin of a car or other vehicle does not belong to the storage area, the secret removal of any item from it cannot be considered as access to the storage space. If we used article 177.2.5, Zaur would arrested, because he stole pen in the passenger’s pocket. Step 4: Conclusion: The final step in the analytical process is the conclusion, the result of the analysis. According to the results of all analyzes, Akif can be both acquitted and prosecuted, because if we judge him under 177.1 and the value of the watch exceeds 500 manat, he should be arrested for 1 to 3 years, but if we look at decision 9, he can be acquitted. can. In Zaur's case, he will be tried under Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offenses if he does not take it out of his pocket, but Zaur takes out of his pocket, Zaur is punishable by restriction of liberty for a term of one to three years or imprisonment for a term of two to five years.

2020-05-16 17:09:10 UTC

smacfrli9 — 2020-05-16 17:09:50 UTC

Jafarli Sama , the first case
Step 1: Issue
We need to identify the issue. Before solving the problem we must know what the problem is. The problem is defined according to the facts of the case. Sometimes issue can be multiple. And in this case, there are two main issues: giving a false testimony, and intentional homicide during a sudden mental state. As there are two main multiple issues, we need to find out them .
Step 2: Rule
In this step, we should identify which rule of law can govern the case according to the facts of the case. There are several options in this step, but according to the case, we should apply the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It is known that as a result of research we must apply to 122nd and 297th articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Step 3: Analysis
In this step, we must find out why and how we apply to a certain rule of law and certain articles.
Part 1: elements of rule of law: in 122nd article, it is showed that the person commits a crime in the state of affect and can not think results of the event. At the same time, it is showed that doing illegal acts of opposite side can cause to the crime,this is relevant to our case exactly.
Part 2: The inspector tries to get information about the case from the witness and the witness gives false testimony and then the inspector requires from the witness to tell the truth, but the witness continues to give false testimony and this makes the inspector angry and the inspector got out of himself and harmed to the witness with the ashtray. İn this article it is showed doing illegal acts can cause the person to commit a crime. Lying of the witness causes to this case. Elements of 122nd articles are relevant to the client's facts completely. That is why we should apply to the 122nd article of the Criminal Code.
Part 3: We must take into account counter-arguments beforehand. Because in the court counter-arguments can be given to us. That is why we must consider the possible counter-arguments. It is known as a result of the research, counter-arguments can be given according to the 25th, 26th, 120th and 124th articles of Criminal Code. Why they are wrong articles that can not govern the case? Let's start with the 25th and the120th articles of the Criminal Code. In these articles, it is said that the perpetrator has understood and knew that it is a socially dangerous act and desire results of the event. But in our case, it is wrong because the inspector has not understood the results of the case and the main thing that he has not desired them. As well as he has not planned it beforehand and when committing this act he was in the state of affect and giving false testimony caused to this crime. This fact is a key fact and must be taken into account but in this article, it is not said anything associated with this fact. That is why they are irrelevant articles. The next articles are 26th and 124th that can be given counter-arguments. These articles are about committing a crime carelessly. In this article, it is said that the person has understood the results of the event, but thought that she or he can prevent it. But in this case, I should note it again that the inspector was in the state of affect and could not think about the results of the event or act beforehand, so the main key fact is not showed in these articles, as well and they are irrelevant for our case.
Conclusion: Taking into account all facts of the case, the offender must be punished with the 122nd article of Criminal Code. The offender is punished with reformatory work for 2 years.(Qeyd: Sanksiya olaraq ən aşağı ona görə seçdim ki, müstəntiq hər hansı bir crime ı araşdıran zaman cinayət törədib,yəni əslində dövlət üçün hər hansı bir iş görürmüş,sadəcə qanunsuz hala dayana bilməyib və cinayət törədib,buna görə də ən aşağı cəza verilməlidi)
Key facts: Giving a false testimony is the main key fact because it caused to this event. Another key fact is criminal means. If the inspector committed a crime deliberately, he could use a gun for example, but he used ashtray and it proves the inspector's aim was not to kill the witness and he has not planned beforehand he was in the state of affect.

Javidan Sevdimli (case 2)

SevdimliJavidan — 2020-05-16 17:13:01 UTC

A. In Akif's case Akif takes another person's prosperty without asking. In Zaur's case Zaur misuses the situation of the sleeping passenger and steals his prescious pen.
Step 1-Issue. In this step we must identify tle precise legal question. In those cases, there is an act of stealing.
Step 2-Rule In this step we are going to identify the rule of law that can be applicable for our case. In my opinion we must use Article177 of Criminal Code, Decision 2 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, and Article 227 of Code of Administrative offenses
Step 3-Analysis/Application We identify how the rule of law applies to the case. It has 3 parts:
Part 1: Article 177.1- It is a case of stealing. Taking somebody's property secretly unlawfully and without permission
Article 177.2.5- when the thing taken from the victim's pocket
Decision 2-In the absence of the owner or other owner of the property or third parties, or in the absence of such persons, the person who illegally took the property shall be classified as secretly looting (theft) of the property. If the perpetrator suspects that he has acted secretly in the specific circumstances, the act of the perpetrator should be considered a covert robbery, even if those persons have witnessed the robbery.
Part 2: Apply the elements of the law to the facts of the client’s case
We must penalize Akif under Article 177.1 of Criminal Code and decision 2 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. Because he secretly took somebody's property and he was able to understand its social consequences and damage. Also, his intention was pure. He left the bus with the clock in his own pocket. And then we shall penalize Zaur under Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Because the price of the thing stolen was not over 500 manats.
Part III - Consider the possible counter-arguments to the analysis of the issue; that is, conduct a counter-analysis of the analysis
If we use Article 177.2.5 of the CC (says that the thing is stolen from the victim's pocket) for Akif's case he can be sentenced to restriction of the liberty for the term from one up to three years or imprisonment for the term from two up to five years.
Step 4: Conclusion: The final step in the analytical process is the conclusion, the result of the analysis. According to the results of all analyzes, Akif can be both acquitted and prosecuted, because if we judge the offender under 177.1 and the value of the watch excels 500 manat, he should be arrested for 1 to 3 years, in Zaur's case, he will be tried under Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offenses if he doesn't take it out of his pocket, but Zaur takes out of his pocket, Zaur can be punished by restriction of liberty for a term of one to three years or imprisonment for a term of two to five years.

Safarli Gultakin, Case 2

seferligultekin2002 — 2020-05-16 17:28:43 UTC

A. Identifying key facts:
1) The gold watch on the bus seat was stolen by Akif. The crime was committed intentionally by him.
2) Zaur stole a pen worth 200 manat. He commits the crime using the proprietor's sleep and being sure no one sees him.
Background facts-
1) The incident took place during a lunch break on the bus.
2) This incident took place on the same bus.
Step 1- İssue. Firstly, we should identify which questions are raised by the facts of the client’s case.
1. Whether is Akif liable for the theft? Is stealing a gold watch on the bus seat sufficient to constitute a charge of theft?
2. Is stealing a pen a crime or administrative offense? If it is a crime, it is theft or robbery?
Step 2- Rule. The next step is to identify the law that governs the issue.
1) The Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan: Article 177; RESOLUTION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery: Article 2, Article 19.
2) The Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan: Article 177, Article 180; RESOLUTION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery: Article 2, Article 3.
Step 3- Analysis/ Application. In this step we determine how the law applies to the issue.
Part I- 1) In the Article 177.1 theft is defined as secret plunders of another persons property. Liability provided for in Articles 177.1, 178.1 and 179.1 of this Code shall arise in case of damage to the owner or other owner of the property in the amount of more than five hundred manats, but not more than five thousand manats. The Article 2 of the RESOLUTION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery defines that “In the absence of the owner or other owner of the property or third parties, or in the absence of such persons, the person who illegally took the property shall be classified as secretly looting (theft) of the property.”
2) Again In the Article 177.1 theft is defined as secret plunders of another persons property. Article 177.2.5 defines that the same act committed when removed from the victim's pocket, purse or other hand luggage shall be punished by restriction of liberty for a period from one to three years or imprisonment for a term of two to five years. Liability provided for in Articles 177.2.1-177.2.3-2, 177.2.5 and 177.3.1 of this Code shall arise in cases where the owner or other owner of the property has suffered damage in the amount of more than one hundred manats. The Article 2 of the RESOLUTION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery defines that “If the perpetrator suspects that he acted secretly in the specific circumstances, the act of the perpetrator should be considered a covert robbery, even if those persons have witnessed the robbery.” Article 180 of the Criminal Code defines robbery as open looting of another's property. Article 3 of the RESOLUTION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery defines that “In the case of open looting of another's property provided for in Article 180 (robbery) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the offender shall rob another's property in the presence of the owner or other property owner or outsiders. In this case, regardless of whether measures are taken by those persons to prevent the perpetrator's actions, the perpetrator consciously understands that those around him understand that his actions are against the law.”
Part II- 1) According to the terms of Article 177, the act is considered theft because the value of the stolen item is more than 500 manats. In addition, the act is classified as theft because it was committed in the absence of the owner. For these reasons, the act committed is considered theft and the person is liable for the committed act.
2) According to Article 180, Zaur's act was not a robbery because he did not openly plunder the property. The act committed under Article 177.2.5 is again theft. A person shall be held liable for damage to the property owner in the amount of more than one hundred manats. According to the Article 2 of the RESOLUTION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery, the act is considered theft, not robbery, because the person committed the act on suspicion of acting in secret.
Part III- 1) If the value of a gold watch is less than 500 manats, then it cannot be considered a practical crime. This is an administrative error, it is petty looting. And according to Article 19 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery, the cabin of a car or other vehicle does not belong to the storage area, the secret removal of any item from it cannot be considered as access to the storage space. Therefore, this act is not considered theft.
2) If at the time of the act the person did not suspect that he was acting in secret, and if outsiders took measures to prevent the act, it would be considered robbery, not theft.
Step 4- Conclusion. In this step we summarize all the results of legal analysis
1) A person shall be punished by three hundred sixty to four hundred and eighty hours of public works or correctional labor for a period of up to two years for causing damage to the owner in the amount of more than 500 manats.
2) A person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years for committing a crime by removing it from the victim's pocket, purse or other hand luggage.

Shebnem Quliyeva Case №1 In this situation, the investigator first warns the witness who gave a false statement, and then angrily injures him with a certain means (ashtray) and causes his death. Step1 - The Issue is the starting point, the first and most important step in the legal analysis process. You must identify issues and problems before you can solve it. If it is misidentified, other steps of the analytical process are in the wrong direction, and it causes a waste of time.The accused - the nervous investigator exceeds his authority and causes the death of the person. But under what law should the accused be tried? Step2 - Rule. in this step, you determine which law governs issue or question. You can address to enacted law, case law or both of them for determining rule.Applicable articles of Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan: 123. Murder exceeding the necessary level of protection or the level necessary to apprehend the perpetrator; 309 Exceeding official authority. Step3 - Analysis/Application. Determine how the law applies to the issue. It can’t take place without the facts. This step consists of 3 parts: Part 1 - Identify component parts of the law. You must identify the requirements of the law before the rule can be applied to a certain issue. 123.2. Intentional homicide over the limits necessary to apprehend the perpetrator…309.1. When an official’s acts in a way that is clearly beyond the scope of his / her official powers, causing significant damage to the rights and legitimate interests of individuals or legal entities…309.2. … committed with the use of weapons and other special means of causing serious consequences… Part 2 - After you identified elements of law, match or apply the facts of the case and determine how the rule applies.In this case, the investigator exceeds the necessary limits during the interrogation to find the offender and seriously injures the witness. According to article 123.2. sanction of this case is correctional labor for up to two years or restriction of liberty for up to three years or imprisonment for up to three years. Also, the investigator did not have the authority to inflict bodily harm on the interrogated but the accused exceeded his authority. He used a certain means (ashtray) as well. According to article 309.2. he is punished by imprisonment for the term from three up to eight years with deprivation of the right to hold certain position or to be engaged in certain activity for the term up to three years. If he did not use a special tool, he can be punished by article 309.1.- is punished by the penalty at a rate of two thousand to four thousand manats or correctional labor for the term up to two years, or imprisonment for the term up to three years with deprivation of the right to hold certain position or engage in certain activity for up to three years. Part 3 - Then you should consider the possible counter-arguments to the analysis of the issue. In this way, you are prepared for any argument of the opponent against the analysis.Counter-argument for this case may be article 122. In the article 122.1. reflect that deliberately in a state of sudden strong emotional arousal as a result of violence, severe insults or other illegal or immoral actions (inaction) committed by the victim, as well as a result of prolonged intolerable mental conditions caused by the victim's regular illegal or immoral behavior kill people shall be punished by correctional labor for up to 2 years, or restriction of liberty for up to 3 years, or imprisonment for up to 3 years. However, it is unknown whether the statement will last long. This can happen not only in a state of effect but also in a normal nervous state. Step4 - As a result, the results of the legal analysis are summarized, and a specific result is noted. As a result, the judge may decide to arrest or dismiss the offender involving in correctional labor. However, mitigating circumstances will also be taken into account, for instance, whether there has been a previous crime, marital status, the current state of mind during the crime, etc.

shebnemglyva20 — 2020-05-16 17:35:46 UTC

Case 1 “IRAC” method Key facts- 1) offender who committed the crime is official. And at the time of the incident, he was in office. 2) The incident resulted in death.3) The incident happened accidentally. Irrelevant fact- Obviously false testimonies of witness is an irrelevant fact to this case. Background fact- it can be the mental state of the official at the time of the incident or the state of health of witness. Step 1 – Issue- identification the issue, problem. In this case, the issue is committing a crime by officials accidentally. The legal question can be: is it a crime to kill somebody due to false testimonials? Step 2 - Rule- determination of the rule of law that governs the issue (problem). We need to consult the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Article 26, 124, 309,314 can help us with this issue. Step 3 – Analysis/ Application- determination of how the rule of law applies to the issue. Part I - Defining elements of the rule of law. 1) According to Article 26.3 of Criminal Code, the crime shall be admitted as committed on criminal negligence, if the person did not expect an opportunity of the approach of the socially dangerous consequence of the acts (action or inaction) though at necessary attentiveness and foresight should and could expect these consequences. 2) According to the Article 124.1, the murder accomplished on imprudence shall be punishable by corrective works for the term up to two years or restraint of freedom for the term up to three years or imprisonment for the term up to three years. 3) According to article 309.2 if the crime is committed with the application of violence or with the threat of its application, or with the application of weapon or other special means, or have caused grave consequences shall be punishable by imprisonment for the term of three to eight years with deprivation of the right to hold certain posts or to engage in certain activities for the term of up to three years. Part II - Application of elements to the facts. In this case, official couldn’t see the consequences of this act. He was angry and his aim wasn’t to kill the witness. And also he committed the crime with asthary. And we can say this crime isn’t deliberate action. Part III - Conducting a counter analysis. Counter analysis: This crime was committed deliberately. No one can be forced to say right testimonials. And also according to Criminal Code the person, given obviously a false testimony against wives (husband), children, parents and other close relatives which circle is determined by the legislation if he was forced to testify against the specified persons shall be not subject to the criminal liability. Step 4 - Conclusion- a recap of step 3 and a summary of the results of the analysis. As conclusion crime committed by an official isn’t deliberate action. He was angry and couldn’t see the outcome of this action. But he must be punished due to excess official powers.

huseynovasb — 2020-05-16 17:38:49 UTC

anarmamedoff410a — 2020-05-16 17:40:38 UTC

Step 1 - The correct legal question should be asked according to case.
What is the punishment for the guilty?
Step 2 - The rule governing the issue must be defined.
Rules to be considered in this event:
Article 122.1
Article 314.2
Step 3 - Determine how the rule of law is applied to the issue.
Part 1.
Elements of the rule of law are defined.
Article 122.1 – Zərərçəkmiş şəxs tərəfindən edilən zorakılıq, ağır təhqir və ya digər qanunsuz və əxlaqsız hərəkətlər nəticəsində, habelə zərərçəkmiş şəxsin mütəmadi qanunsuz və ya əxlaqsız davranışı ilə əlaqədar yaranmış uzun sürən dözülməz psixi şərait nəticəsində qəflətən baş vermiş güclü ruhi həyəcan vəziyyətində qəsdən adam öldürmə.
Article 314.2 – Eyni əməllər ( yəni səhlənkarlıq, vəzifəli şəxsin işə vicdansız və ya laqeyd münasibəti nəticəsində öz xidməti vəzifəsini yerinə yetirməməsi və ya lazımi qaydada yerinə yetirməməsi ) ehtiyatsızlıqdan zərərçəkmiş şəxsin ölümünə və ya digər ağır nəticələrə səbəb olması.
Part 2.
In this section, the elements of the law must be adapted to the issue. It is also necessary to adapt the facts to those elements.
The testimony of a witness angers the accused. This fact is in line with the first law.
The inspector wants to stop the witness from lying illegally. This fact corresponds to the second law.
Part 3.
A counter-argument should be made in this part. There is a counter-argument for both sides in this part.
The investigator should not make this mistake in his case. Because he is a person who solves such issues. The witness must not give false testimony. Because, if he had survived, he would have been punished for this (if he was not a close relative of the first accused).
Step 4 - The results of the legal analysis are summarized.
As a result, it is clear that the investigator will be arrested. Because there is a death in the case. However, the first law mitigates the consequences of the second law. As a result, a sentence of up to 3 years in prison may be imposed.
The key fact in this case is that the witness gave a false statement. Because this fact eliminates the suspicion that the investigator was involved in the previous crime, and proves that he was really nervous and tense during the crime, mitigates his sentence.

nezrin02nezrin — 2020-05-16 17:43:41 UTC

Case 2

Facts: Akif found a golden watch, stole it, and took home. Zaur stole a writing pen worth 200 manats secretly when nobody sees him.

Issue - the issue is written as a question and needs to address the main aspects of a legal problem. What is the main legal question, legal problem here? - Should offenders' acts be considered theft or robbery? Can we apply the article 177 of the Criminal code of the Azerbaijan in these cases? Can some facts in the cases mitigate or aggravate the punishment?

Rule - this step is to find and list the legal rules that apply to each issue. These rules can be Federal & State Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations, Case Law

In our case:

Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery and Robbery – article 2, 5

The Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan – article 177, 180, 25.2, 26.3, 59

Analysis – In this step, the law is applied to the facts to resolve the issue.

Elements – 1) secret plunder of property, 2) damaging property in excess of one hundred manats, 3) direct intention, 4) criminal negligence 5) mitigating circumstances
In both cases, acts must be considered as a theft. Theft is secret plunders of another persons property according to the article 177.1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It is same in our case. The acts of the offenders cannot be considered a robbery according to the article 180 of Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In the case of open looting of another's property provided for in Article 180 (robbery) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the offender shall rob another's property in the presence of the owner or other property owner or outsiders.

According to the article 2 of resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery and Burglary, the act of a person who illegally takes property in the absence of the owner or other owner of the property or third parties, or in the absence of such persons, shall be classified as covert larceny (theft) of the property. If the perpetrator suspects that he has acted secretly in the specific circumstances, the act of the perpetrator should be considered a covert robbery, even if those persons have witnessed the robbery.

According to the article 177.2.5, the same act committed from clothes, pocket, handbag or other hand luggage of injured is considered theft. The liability provided for in Articles 177.2.5 of this Code arises in the event of damage to the owner or other owner of property in excess of one hundred manats. This situation is suitable for our case.

According to the article 25.2, the crime shall be admitted as committed with direct intention, if the person realized public danger of the acts, expected their publicly dangerous consequences and wished their approach. In the first case, offender committed crime with direct intention, and took the watch home. In the second case, maybe offender did not know the value of the pen and so he did not know the consequences of his act. It means crime is accomplished on imprudence. The crime shall be admitted as committed on criminal self-confidence, if the person expected an opportunity of approach of socially dangerous consequences of the acts, but without the sufficient grounds to that, expected prevention of these consequences according to the article 26.3 of the Criminal Code.

We did not have the enough information about the condition of offenders. Maybe offender committed the crime by virtue of confluence at heavy vital circumstances, the person, committed a crime has a dependent minor child. Circumstances like these can mitigate the punishment according to the article 59 of the Criminal Code.
3. Counter-arguments - 1.Offender says in his report that no one saw him, but maybe there was somebody that saw him, but did not interfere the situation, and offender also did not mention it. According to the article 5 of resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery and Burglary, If, during the theft, the perpetrator's actions are discovered by the owner or other owner of the property or another person, the perpetrator realizes this, but continues to act illegally or seizes the property, then such actions must be classified as robbery.

2.In the second case the value of the property is clear ( 200 manats). But in the first case the value of the property is unknown. It can be more expensive than 500 manats. In this situation, we have to apply another sentence according to the article 171.1. Because it is mentioned that the liability provided for in Articles 177.1, 178.1 and 179.1 of the Criminal Code arises in the event of damage to the owner or other owner of property in excess of five hundred manats, but not more than five thousand manats.

3.It is clear that first offender committed crime with direct intention. There is also not any proof that second offender did not know the value of the pen. It means that both offences are committed deliberately according to the article 25 of the Criminal Code.

Conclusion - summary of the results of the analysis. - According to the article 177 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan the acts of offenders must be considered as a theft. Act of the second offender must be punishable by restraint of freedom for a period of one to three years, or imprisonment for a term of two to five years according to the value of property. Sentence must be applied after the value of property is determined in the first case, too. Some facts that were not given us must be taken into consideration, if they mitigate the situation in both cases. It is also must be taken into consideration that offenses are committed deliberately or not.

gunaygarakhova07 — 2020-05-16 17:44:09 UTC

Case1
1) Step1-Identifying the issue. In this step, we should identify the legal issue, legal problem. It is the first and important level for to solve the problem.
Issue in this case-A person-(Akif) profitably took someone’s watch by using his/her absence without permission. Is there a criminal content in his action and what would be his punishment if, it is a crime?
2) Step2-Rule. In this step, we should identify laws and articles, which are applicable for this case. Criminal Code.
Article 17- Aggregate crimes
Article 25-intentional commission of a crime.
Article 177-Theft
Article 183-Looting items of special value
“RESOLUTION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery and Robbery” only part 2 can be applicable for this case

3) Step3- Analysis/Application.
-We identify that, how we can apply the law to the case.
Part1-Article 25-says that, it is intentional commission of a crime, if a person deliberately and knowingly commits a crime.
Article 177-Theft. It is a theft, if a person is secretly plundering another's property
Article 183- Looting especially valuable properties
Part2 says that “. The act of a person who illegally takes property in the absence of the owner or other owner of the property or third parties, or in the absence of such persons, shall be classified as covert looting (theft) of the property. If the perpetrator suspects that he has acted secretly in the specific circumstances, the act of the perpetrator should be considered a covert robbery, even if those persons have witnessed the robbery.” It looks like Articles which we have already mentioned.

Part2- As we saw in the articles, a person deliberately stole someone’s valuable watch. It is theft and crime. He has done it secretly and this conditions overlap with the facts and situation. That’s why we can say that he can be punished according to the legislation
Part3- I couldn’t find counter-argument
4) Conclusion: According to the Article 25, 177,183, a person ( Akif) committed a crime .This crimes are theft and looting. That’s why, he can be punished from 5 to 10 years imprisonment.

Case2
1) Step1-Identifying the issue; A person-(Zaur) took someone’s pen worth 200 manats without permission when a man was sleeping. Is there a criminal content in his action and what would be his punishment if, it is a crime?
2) Step2-Rule; The same as first. Criminal Code-
Article 17- Aggregate crimes
Article 25-intentional commission of a crime.
Article 177-Theft
Article 183-Looting items of special value
“RESOLUTION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery and Robbery” part 2 can be applicable also for this case
3) Step3-
Part1-Article 25-says that, it is intentional commission of a crime, if a person deliberately and knowingly commits a crime.
Article 177-Theft. It is a theft, if a person is secretly plundering another's property
Article 183- Looting especially valuable properties
Part2- According to the articles if a person steals someone’s property without permission, property is especially valuable it specially creates criminal content. That’s why we can say that accused person (Zaur) stole other person’s property and committed a crime.
Part3- I couldn’t find counter-argument
Conclusion-Accused person (Zaur) really committed a crime with stealing someone’s pen and he can be punished from 5 to 10 years imprisonment

Hasanli Sevil. “IRAC” method: Case 2 A. In the Akif’s deed, the key fact is that Akif took a gold watch that belonged to other passenger from the bus seat. In order to know whether the incident was committed secretly or openly, it must be clarified whether there was a person on the bus at that time. In the Zaur’s issue, the key fact is the cost of the pen (200 manats) and he did secretly this act. He misused the sleep of passengers and committed the crime in secret.Step 1 – Issue: This is the first and most important step in legal research. Because the precise legal question is identified in this step by the fact of the client’s case. If this step would be wrong, other steps will fail and we will lose time.In the first case, Legal question is “Was Akif’s act committed intentionally? Which punishment is applied in this case?”In the second case, Legal question is “Is Zaur punished for the value of the stolen thing? Which conditions would be cause for punishment?” Akif deliberately seized someone’s gold watch without his or her permission. Because, he knew that this thing doesn’t belong to him. So his act is theft which has been deliberately committed. In the Zaur’s deed, he deliberately and secretly took the passenger's pen. This act would be also evaluated as theft or not. But the cost of the thing must be taken account and it must be identified.Step 2 – Rule: It is the identification of the rule of law that governs the issue. Rules - Article: 177.1 of the Criminal Code; Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Republic of Azerbaijan; Decisions 2 and 19 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery and Stealing. Step 3 – Analysis: This step is applying the law to the legal issue. We must analyse the rule and determine how it applies to the facts.Part I – Identification of the requirements of the rule of law before applying to issue.Articles of the Criminal CodeArticle 177.1 is about Theft, that is, larceny another's property secretly and also includes their types of punishment for it.Articles of the Code of Administrative offencesArticle 227 is about petty larceny means theft, embezzlement, waste, abuse of office or fraud, larceny of another's property and punishments for it. Decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery and Stealing:Decision 2 is about secret larceny. If the perpetrator suspects that he acted secretly in the specific circumstances, the act of the perpetrator should be considered a covert robbery, even if those persons have witnessed the robbery.Decision 19 is about illegal access to storage places such as living area, as well as to the building, warehouse. Since the cabin of a car or other vehicle does not belong to the storage area, the secret removal of any item from it cannot be considered as access to the storage space. Part II – This step requires to match the facts of the client’s case and determines how the rule applies in the client’s case.Article 177.1 is appropriate for case 1 if the cost of a gold watch is more than 500 manat and not more than 5 thousand manats. But it doesn’t match to Case 2. Because the value of pen is less than 500 manats. Stealing of the pen can be evaluated as petty larceny due to Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offences. This article reveals the meaning of the petty larceny and punishments for it. According to Decission 2, these 2 types of the act are secret larceny. Because Decision 2 reveals when the act is committed in the absence of the owner or other owner of the property or third parties, or in the absence of such persons, this act is secret larceny. So in two cases, acts was committed in secret. According to Decision 19 , case 1 cannot be evaluated as illegally access to storage places. Because the gold watch was on the seat of the bus. But Case 2 can be controversial. Because there isn’t any fact about this.Part III - Counter-analysis is useful for lawyers. Because it helps for the anticipation of events. So we can make an answer for it in advance. First counter-argument would be related to Article 183 of the Criminal Code. It considers robbery of items or documents of special historical, scientific, literary or cultural value, regardless of the method. If gold watch and pen have these type of value, perpetrator is punished by imprisonment for the term from five up to seven years. We must take into account other conditions of this Article and also others. Because, if it was repeatedly committed or thing was damaged or destroyed punishment will change. If the victim demands the most serious and heavy punishment due to Article 177.1 of the Criminal Code, we will investigate mitigating circumstances due to Articles 59 and 60 of the Criminal Code if there isn’t any aggravating circumstance. An Aggravating circumstance can appear when the act was repeatedly committed (Article 177.2.2 of the Criminal Code) and this circumstance can appear both of Cases. But the act was committed when removed from the victim's pocket, purse (Article 177.2.5) can also appear in Case 2. Because there isn’t any fact that “Where Zaur get pen?” it can be pocket of the passenger or seat of the bus. I justified this condition for Case 1 in Part 2 due to Decision 19. Step 4 – Conclusion is the summary of the results of the legal research. Commentary and decision for the issue may include. We can show how the court may rule on the issue in this step.The decision for Case 1 depends on the cost of the gold watch. If there aren’t any aggravating circumstances and the cost of a gold watch is more than 500 manats and less than 5 thousand manats, Article 177.1 will be applied. Degree of the severity of the punishment will depend on mitigating and aggravating circumstances.The decision for Case 2 will be appropriate to Article 177.2.5 and Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offences. If Zaur took a pen from victim’s pocket or other hand luggage, he will be punished by restriction of liberty for the term from one up to three years or imprisonment for the term from two up to five years. The cost of the pen is relevant for this Article in this case. The cost of a thing must be more than 100 manats. But if he took a pen from the seat of the bus he can be only punished due to Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offences. Because secret entry to these type of shortage places isn’t evaluated as illegal access. So the accused will be punished one hundred and sixty to two hundred and forty hours of community service or up to three months of administrative detention.

hasanlisevil11 — 2020-05-16 17:45:14 UTC

Case 1.

ibayevanesrin — 2020-05-16 17:49:21 UTC

A. Facts. Key facts: The perpetrator is an investigator, and the person who was killed is a witness, but he/she didn’t answer questions correctly. Wrong answers are the reason of the crime. Irrelevant fact: The investigator used an ashtray. This fact doesn’t mean he didn’t commit the crime, simply he had an ashtray at that moment and used it, if he had any other thing, he could also use(this is my thought). Background fact: The investigator said to the witness that he/she must testify in a right way and the witness didn’t. This is a background fact from my point of view, because this can lead to strong emotional excitement (affect), but also it can’t be. This must be clarified by a medical expert. If it caused affect, then this fact may be a key fact. Because it will be directly an effect on the verdict. On the other hand, if it didn’t cause affect, this fact will be not a key fact, and still will be a background fact. The background fact helps to understood if there is an intention or not.
Step 1–Issue. At the first step, we identify the problem and the case. This is the most important step, on the grounds that it is the starting point. In this case, it is clear there is a murder. But is it committed unintentionally, in an affect or deliberately? Does the investigator want to kill the witness or to harm and ensure that the witness testifies correctly? In my opinion, this is a deliberate murder. There is an intention, but not direct intention.
Step 2–Rule. In criminal cases, it is referring to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In this case, I refer to the 17, 25,120 and 309 articles of Criminal Code.
Step 3–Analysis/Application. The essence of this step is determining how the laws apply to the issue. There are three parts:
Part I–Identify the component parts (elements) of the law.
Article 17, it is about set of crimes. It is possible when someone commits two or more crimes and was not condemned or released from the criminal liability on the lawful grounds for committed crimes.
Article 25.3.: “The crime shall be admitted as committed with indirect intention, if the person realized public danger of the acts (action or inaction), expected their socially dangerous consequences, did not wish, but meaningfully supposed these consequences.” There must be an indirect intention, understanding the consequences of the act, and especially the perpetrator didn’t want (this is the main difference of 25.2 and 25.3).
Article 120.1.:“Deliberate murder, is deliberate deprivation of life of other person—shall be punishable by imprisonment for the term from nine up to fourteen years.” This article is for deciding. But there is also need to consider the circumstances mitigating the punishment. (Article 59)
One other applicable article is 309: Excess of official powers. The key point is offence must be committed by an official.
Part ǁ ̶ Apply the elements of the law to the facts of the client’s case.
1. Article 17. The investigator killed somebody and exceed his official powers and “it has caused essential harm to the rights and legitimate interests of physical or legal persons”. It means these acts are considering the set of crimes.
2. Article 25. The investigator understands the consequences and with an intention, he committed the crime. It is seems to me this is an indirect intention, due to that fact he only wants to gain true answers to his questions. He didn’t want to kill the witness.
3. Article 120. I use this article, because it is also related to the deliberate crime and shows sanction.
4. Article 309. The guilty is an official (investigator).
5. Article 59. The fact which is mitigating punishment is commitment of the crime for the first time.
Part III ̶ Consider the possible counter-arguments to the analysis of the issue.
The facts are uncompleted; because of this I have also some contradictory thoughts about case. There is a need for expert’s examination in order to identify the investigator’s mental position. For me, he could understand the situation, because he said to the witness again that witness should testify correctly. Other question on my mind is “Did the witness die at the moment of murder, or not?” It is important for determining the harm to person and judgment.
Step 4 ̶ Conclusion. So, to sum it up these, my decision is the investigator will be punishable by imprisonment for 15 years with deprivation of the right to hold certain post according to Article 17, 66, 120.1 and 309.2. It can change because of some other mitigating facts which I don’t know(his mental position).

narminhuseynova — 2020-05-16 17:54:04 UTC

Narmin Huseynova

Provide a legal analysis of the case using the “IRAC” method

A. Identify key facts (as to the case) (+are there background and irrelevant facts as well?):

1. A witness lied while investigating the criminal case.

2. The witness continued to lie despite the investigator's warning.

3. The investigator became angry, because the witness continued to lie.

4. The investigator hit the ashtray on the witness's head.

5. The witness died as a result of damage to health.

Step 1 – Identification of the issues:

1 . Does repeated lying of the witness constitute obviously false testimony?

What was the nature of the crime he witnessed? Was it minor or serious?

2. Did the investigator deliberately kill the witness? Is this act deliberate murder committed in a condition of suddenly arisen strong emotional excitement? Is his act excess of official powers?

Step 2 - Identification of the rule of law that governs the issue:

1. For the witness, Article 16.1 and Article 297, Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

2. For the investigator, Article 122.1 and Article 309.2, Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Step 3 – Application of the law to the case:

Part I - Identification of the component parts (elements) of the rule of law:

1. According to Article 297, Obviously false testimonies of witness.

2. According to Article 16.1 , Repeatedly committed crimes shall be two or more crimes provided by one article of the Criminal Code.

3. According to Article 122.1, Deliberate murder committed in a condition of suddenly arisen strong emotional excitement. ( for investigator)

4.According to Article 309.2, Excess of official powers by using special means.

Part II - Application of the elements of the law to the facts of the case:

1. A witness lied while investigating the criminal case. According to article 297, the witness gave false testimonies.

2. According to article 16.1, he repeatedly committed this crime, and continued his action despite the investigator’s warning

3. The witness's regular illegal behavior caused the investigator 's condition of suddenly arisen strong emotional excitement

4. The investigator hit the ashtray on the witness's head. So, the investigator exceeded this official powers by using special means (ashtray) and it caused the witness's death.

Part III - Possible counter-arguments:

1.In this case we don't know the witness did it in commitment of minor serious or serious crime or not.

2. We don't know how much time the investigation lasted.

Step 4 – Conclusion, results of the analysis:

The witness violated the law, according to article 16.1 and according to article 297.1, the witness could be punished by the penalty at a rate from one thousand to two thousand manats, or public works for the term from three hundred twenty to four hundred hours, or corrective works for the term from one year up to two years, or restraint of freedom for the term up to one year, or imprisonment for the term about six months. But we don't know the nature of the crime he witnessed. If the crime was minor or serious crime, according to 297.2, the witness could be punished by imprisonment for the term from two up to six years.

The investigator violated the law, according to article 122.1, the investigator could be punished by corrective works for the term up to two years, or restraint of freedom for the term up to three years , or imprisonment for the term up to three years. And according to article 309.2, he could be punished by imprisonment for the term of three to eight years with deprivation of the right to hold certain posts or to engage in certain activities for the term of up to three years.

Nigarr — 2020-05-16 17:54:17 UTC

Nigar Aliyeva
Case 1
A. İdentify key facts: The investigator invited the witness to tell the truth. But the witness ignored him. And this made the investigator angry. Then he threw the ashtray at the witness's head. The witness was dead.
Step 1
İssue - The issue is stated in the first paragraph at the beginning of the sub-section: What is the legal question you will need to analyze? Why do you need to analyze this issue?
The first section should give your reader an understanding of what you intend to discuss and why you must discuss it.
- İs the investigator liable for the death of the witness when he didn't intend to kill him?
Step 2
Rule - The law or laws which govern the outcome of a case. Rules can be in the form of statutes, regulations, case opinions, and other guidelines. İn this section, you must simply state the rule or rules to be applied to the facts of the case.
- 1) Article 129 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Deliberate causing of serious or minor serious harm to health in a condition of suddenly arisen strong emotional excitement.
2) Article 309 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Excess of official powers.
Step 3
Analysis\Application - This section applies the rules to the spesific facts of the case. You will apply the rules to the facts of the case and explain or argue why a particular rule applies or doesn't apply in the case presented. This section is the most important part of an İRAC. Because it developes the answer to the issue.
1. İdentify the elements of the law - İn this part the requirements of the law must be identified before the rule can be applied to the issue raised by the facts of the case.
1. Affective state
2. accidental
3. harmful or offensive
4. offical power
2. Apply the elements of the law to the facts of the case - Once facts have been matched to the elements of the law, you may determine how the rule applies to the case.
The investigator's action towards the witness was accidental and harmful. And he was in an affective state. While the questioning he got angry and harmed the witness with the ashtray. And then the witness died. And Article 129 is available. Because his intention wasn't to kill the witness. But he wanted to harm him because of his lies under the affect state.
And in this case the powers of the official (investigator) aren't considered directly. Because he was in an affective state. He wouldn't think about these powers. His thoughts were about only lies which were told by the witness. And in this case Article 309 is available. Because his action wasn't directly connected with the powers. İt was an excess.
And his action was made with the help of ashtray.
3. Consider the possible counter-arguments to the analysis of the issue - This involves anticipatian and consideration of any argument an opponent is likely to raise in response to the analysis.
Article 122 - The investigator killed the witness. But he was in an affective state. This means, he didn't kill the witness deliberatly. But his intention wasn't to kill the witness. Although he was in an affective state , he wanted to harm the witness, not to kill him. And after the harm the wintess died.
That's why i wrote Article 129. Because his intention was to harm witness even he was in an affective state. But not to kill him. The witness died after the harm, which made with the harm intention.
Article 308 - The death of witness isn't regarded to the powers of the official (investigator) directly. İn article 308 is about abusing official powers.
And Article 314 is about neglicence. The negligence, that is default or inadequate performance by official of the duties owing to unfair or negligent attitude(relation) to the service, entailed essential harm to rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or to interests protected by law of state or a society.
And this article is related with the power of officals directly.
That's why i wrote Article 309. Excess of official powers. Because, his action was the excess. And 309.2
The act provided by article 309.1 of the present Code, committed with application of violence or with threat of its application, or with application of weapon or other special means, or entailed heavy consequences.
And it was comitted with the help of ashtray.
Step 4
Conclusion - This section restates the issue and provides the final answer.
Based on the preciding analysis the court will probably find the investigator guilty under the Article 129 and Article 309.
And according to the Article 17 (Set of crimes) the investigator is liable for the each Article seperately.

sevinchuseyxanova — 2020-05-16 17:56:27 UTC

Sevinj Huseykhanova . Case 1 ( for st.1-14)
A. Key facts : We know facts play important role in the analytical process . And the facts play a major role in each of 4 steps .
The key facts in this case may be:
*The incident took place during the interrogation.
*It happened between an investigator and a witness.
*The witness provided false information.
*The investigator invited him to give the correct testimony. However, the witness was still telling the incident wrong.
*The enraged investigator used an ashtray to injure the witness and cause his death.
*The object (ashtray) was struck on the head of the corpse .
Step 1: Issue.
The most important step in the analytical process is to identify the issue . Identify the issue raised by the facts of the client's case. The issue is the starting point .And if it is misidentified , other steps will also be wrong.
The main issues in this case are related to crime. The first one is related to the witness. The witness continued to give false testimony, disobeying the investigator.Despite the fact that the investigator warned him. This can be described as two or more repetitions of the same crime. The second one is related to the inspector. Here we clearly see that he committed a crime. He harms the health of the witness with an object and causes his death.
Step 2: Rule.
This step is the identification of the law that governs the issue. This is the legal research component of legal analysis. We must find what law applies to the question raised by the facts of the case. The issues may be governed by enacted law ( statutes , laws , regulations , constitutions ) or case law ( rules or principles established by courts ) and also may be governed by combination of enacted law and case law.
Relevant articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan can also be used for the events in this case. *Articles for the act committed by the witness : 16 (esp 16.1 ) , 297 (esp 297.1)
*Articles for the act commited by the investigator : 122 (esp 122.1) , 129 (esp.129.1 ) , 309 .
Step 3: Analysis/Application.
Determine how the rule of law applies to the issues. It cannot take place without the facts. And this is a three-part process .
Part1: Identify the component parts of the rule of law. I used article 16 (16.1 ) and 297 ( 297.1) for the deed of the witness. Article 16 deals with recidivism. According to this article, a crime committed twice or more than twice is considered a recidivism. Article 297 deals with knowingly giving false testimony, giving a false opinion or misinterpreting. This includes giving false testimony by a witness or victim in court or in a preliminary investigation, or knowingly giving a false opinion by an expert, as well as knowingly misinterpreting by an interpreter. I used article 122(122.1) , 129 (129.1) and 309 for the deed of the investigator. Article 122 deals with premeditated murder in a state of sudden strong emotional distress.Deliberately in a state of sudden strong emotional arousal as a result of violence, severe insults or other illegal or immoral actions (inaction) committed by the victim, as well as as a result of prolonged intolerable mental conditions caused by the victim's regular illegal or immoral behavior related to murder.Article 129 deals with the intentional infliction of grievous or less serious harm to health in a state of sudden strong mental agitation. And article 309 deals with abuse of office. Part 2: Apply the elements of the law to the facts of the client's case.
Article 16: Giving false testimony is a crime. And the witness in the case repeated it several times. That is, this punishment could be applied to a witness.Especially , Article 16.1.
Article 297: There is also a penalty for knowingly giving false testimony . The witness in the case also gave false information to the investigator.This punishment could also be applied to him.
Article 122: The investigator here appears to be angry at the wrong representation of the witness.It can be said that he deliberately killed in a state of sudden strong emotional arousal as a result of prolonged intolerable mental conditions.
Article 129: I can also say that this is a deliberate infliction of serious harm to health in a state of sudden strong mental excitement. That is, it still does not justify him committing a crime.
Article 309: It clearly shows that the investigator, that is, the official, is clearly exceeding the limits of his official powers and committing murder. And therefore he can be punished .
Part 3: The other party may bring counter arguments based on other articles or case. But you should always be prepared for that.For example, under Article 129, they may say that the state of mind does not last long. They cannot see this as a valid reason for a crime.However, it can be said that the witness gave false information several times.And this may give grounds to say that it is long-term.
Step 4: Conclusion.
It is a summary of the results of the legal analysis .The final step in the analytical process.
In this case, it seems that both sides made a mistake.Both should be punished under the relevant articles. But the witness was dead.İf the witness lived, a fine in the amount of one thousand to two thousand manats under Article 297.1 or three hundred twenty to four hundred hours of community service or correctional labor for one to two years or restriction of liberty for up to one year or imprisonment for up to six months. could be punished with.Of course, Article 16 would be added here. The investigator must also be punished.Under Article 122, it can be punished by correctional labor for up to two years, or by restriction of liberty for up to three years, or by imprisonment for up to three years.
According to Article 129, a fine of 1,500 to 2,500 manat may be imposed, or correctional labor for up to two years, or restriction of liberty for up to two years, or imprisonment for up to two years.According to Article 309, a fine of 2,000 to 4,000 manat may be imposed, or correctional labor for up to two years, or imprisonment for up to three years, with deprivation of the right to hold a certain position or engage in certain activities for up to three years.The court itself will make a joint decision on these articles.

sefereliyevajale — 2020-05-16 17:56:31 UTC

Jalə Səfərəliyeva, case 2
Facts. İt is information concerning action, event, or circumstance and play the crucial role in the analytical process.
1. Akif took the gold watch he saw on the seat and put it in his pocket. He went to dinner with the other passengers and soon returned to the bus, meaning that no one could see him or he thought that no one had seen him. He got off the bus in Yevlakh and went home.
2. Zaur saw that the passenger next to him was asleep and took his pen. When he was sure that no one was looking at him, Zaur took the pen and put it in his pocket. The pen was worth 200 manats.
İssue. The precise legal question raised by the facts of the dispute.
1. Is it enough to say that it is a crime to take a gold watch from a bus seat?
2. Is it a crime to take a pen worth 200 manat after making sure that no one sees him?
Rule. The identification of the law that governs the issue.
• RESOLUTION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery- Article 2, Criminal Code- Article 177
• RESOLUTION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery, Criminal Code- Article 177.2.5.
Analysis. The next step is identification of the law that governs the issue.
Part 1. İt is determination that how a law applies to a fact situation, certain conditions established by the rule must be met.
1. RESOLUTION of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Judicial Practice in Cases of Theft, Robbery- Article 2-In the absence of the owner or other owner of the property or third parties or the fact that the person who illegally took the property, even if they are not aware of it, should be classified as a secret larceny (theft) of the property. If the accused suspects that he has acted secretly in the specific circumstances, the act of the accused should be considered a covert larceny, even if those persons have witnessed the theft.
• Criminal Court- Article 177- Theft, ie secret looting of another's property -shall be punished by three hundred sixty hours to four hundred and eighty hours of community service or correctional labor for up to two years, or restriction of liberty for up to two years, or imprisonment for up to two years-. Liability provided for in Articles 177.1, 178.1 and 179.1 of this Code shall arise in case of damage to the owner or other owner of the property in the amount of more than five hundred manats, but not more than five thousand manats.
2. 177.2.5. when it is committed by removing it from the victim's pocket, bag or other hand luggage, it is punished by restriction of the liberty for the term from one up to three years or imprisonment for the term from two up to five years- Liability provided for in Articles 177.2.1-177.2.3-2, 177.2.5 and 177.3.1 of this Code shall arise in case of damage to the property owner or other owner in the amount of more than one hundred manats.
Part 2. This is the process of application of the elements of the law to the facts of the client’s case.
If we take into account that the watch stolen by Akif is gold, it will most likely be more than 500 manats. The Criminal Code stipulates that a person is criminally liable if the value of the property exceeds 500 manat. The decision of the plenum states that if the owner is not there, no one sees him, or even if a third person sees him, but the perpetrator assumes that no one sees him, it is considered a secret larceny. Akif did this after returning from the canteen. That is, when there were no people, or he could assume that no one saw him. Therefore, it is considered theft.
After seeing that the passenger next to Zaur was asleep and making sure that no one was looking at him, he took the pen worth 200 manats, that is, he carried out the deed secretly, so the deed is a secret larceny. The Criminal Code stipulates that a person will be prosecuted if he takes more than 500 manat. On the other hand, according to item 177.2.5, if a person took from another person's pocket, bag, etc., it is emphasized that this amount is more than 100 manats. Zaur had probably taken it from the passenger's bag or pocket on the bus. Therefore, even if the amount is 200 manats, it is considered theft.
Part 3. This is the determination of counter-analysis of the analysis.
Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offenses states that petty robbery, ie theft, embezzlement, waste, abuse of office or fraud, robbery of another's property -one hundred and sixty to two hundred and forty hours of public work or administrative detention for a period of up to three months if the application of these measures is not sufficient, taking into account the identity of the offender, depending on the circumstances of the case. But article 227 of the Code shall apply if the acts specified in that article do not give rise to criminal liability in accordance with the relevant articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. These acts are considered an offense, not an administrative offense, as they are punishable under the Criminal Code.
The act is not considered robbery under Article 3 of the plenum, as it was committed in secret.
Conclusion. İt is the last step of İRAC. This step is summarization of the results of the legal analysis.
• Assuming that the person caused damage in the amount of more than 500 manat, on the other hand, taking into account that the stolen item is just a watch I consider it appropriate to punish person with 360 hours of community service.
• According to 177.2.5 and considering that the stolen item is just a pen, it should be restricted from 1 year of imprisonment.

efreddinmustafayev2002 — 2020-05-16 17:58:19 UTC

Afraddin Mustafayev, Case 2( for st. 15-29)
Provide a legal analysis of the case using the “IRAC” method
A. Identify key facts : First of all, i can say that the facts(especially key facts) are very important in legal analysis process. Facts can affect to the case. İn our case, taking the gold watch or the pen secretly by the offender is a key fact, it means that it is a theft, because there is no violence, threat, to the victim. İf there are violence, threat to the victim it is robbery.
Step 1: Issue- It is the precise legal question raised by the facts of the dispute.
İs acts crime that are committed by 2 people in the bus?
To take somebody’s own property without permission is a crime. These crime are commited deliberately also. The name of the crime is theft. It is main isssue for me.
Step 2: Rule- In this step you identify that what rule of law applies to the question raised by the facts of the case. For our case, it can be Criminal Code of Republic of Azerbaijan(especially, Article 177 about theft), Decision of Plenum of Supreme Court of Republic of Azerbaijan on judicial practice on works related to theft, robbery and brigandage.
Step 3: Analysis/Application- This step is for how the rule of law applies to the issue. This step consists of 3 parts.
Part I – identification of the component parts(elements) of rule of law. You must identify the requirements of the rule of law before the rule can be applied to the issue.
It was written in 177th article of Criminal Code of Republic of Azerbaijan: “177.1. Theft that is secret plunders of another person’s property “is punished by the penalty at a rate from hundred up to seven hundreds of nominal financial unit, or public works for the term from hundred eighty till two hundred forty hours, or corrective works for the term up to two years, or imprisonment for the term up to two years.” If the price of the property is less than 100 manats, people will not have criminal responsibility.
177.3.3. By person, who have been sentenced two or more times for plunder or extortion “is punished by imprisonment for the term from six up to twelve years with confiscation of property or without it. it is aggravating statement for the offenders.
Part II – Apply the elements of the law to the facts of the client’s case. In this part you match facts to the elements of the rule of law, you may determine how the rule applies in the client’s case.
In our cases these crimes are theft and relevant to 177th article. I want to try match the statements below with the crimes. According to 1. Paragraph of the Article 177 of Criminal Code if the prices of stolen things are higher than 100 manats and according to Article 20 of Criminal Code of Republic of Azerbaijan if they are not under 16 they will have criminal responsibility. And according to Article 177.3.3 of Criminal Code if they have done plunder or extortion 2 or more times, their responsibility will be aggravated.
Part III – in this part we should consider the possible counter-arguments to the analysis of the issue. This part is conducting a counter-analysis of the analysis.
In Akif’s case, if the price of the watch is more than 100 manats ( this was gold watch and probably, it was expensive than 100 manats) Akif will have criminal legal responsibility according to Article 177 of the Criminal Code.But in our case if watch's price was under 100 manats, he would not have criminal legal responsibility according to Article 177 of the Criminal Code. And with regard to Article 20 of Criminal Code if their age is under 16, in that case they will not have criminal responsibility.
Step 4: Conclusion- In this step you summerize the results of your legal analysis. First of all, each action is theft and they must be prosecuted under the Article 177 of Criminal Code, if their ages are not under 16. And, of course, if the value of crime is more than 100 manats, they must be involved in criminal responsibility.

Case 2

lalanabiyeva12 — 2020-05-16 17:59:20 UTC

A. Identify key facts (as to the case) (+are there background and irrelevant facts as well?):

1. Akif took the golden watch from the seat.

2. He took the watch after he sat.

3. Zaur took the pen of the person sitting next to him while he was sleeping and put it in his own pocket.

4. This pen is worth two hundred manats.

5. Zaur was sure that nobody saw him.
Step 1 – Identification of the issues: Is it a theft? Is this act seen by anyone or not?
Step 2 - Rule, law that is related to the issue: Akif’s case: Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Article 177.1 and Article 180.1
Zaur’s case: Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Article 177.2.5
Step 3 – Application of the law to the case
Part I – Identifying the component parts of the law: Akif’s case: According to the Article 177.1 of CC of Azerbaijan, if the property is taken secretly, it is a theft. According to the Article 183.1 of CC of Azerbaijan, if the property is not taken secretly, then it is a robbery.
Zaur’s case: According to the Article 177.2.5 of the CC of Azerbaijan, if a property is taken from clothes, pocket, handbag or other hand luggage of injured and its value is above one hundred manats, then it is a theft.
Part II – Applying the elements of the law to the facts of the case: Akif took the watch, but he didn’t know if somebody saw him or not. If this act is seen by anyone in the bus, it’s a robbery, but if this act is accomplished secretly, then it’s a theft.
The pen that Zaur took was value two hundred manats, which means it is a theft.
Part III - Considering the possible counter-arguments:
1. Akif took the lost or abandoned watch from the seat.
2. Akif took the golden watch out of necessity.

3. Zaur didn’t know that the pen was two hundred manats worth.

Step 4 – Conclusion, results of the analysis: In both cases, Akif is guilty; his acts are crime. Zaur’s act is also a crime.

Sevil Haziyeva 2nd Case

ebalajanovedu — 2020-05-16 18:37:20 UTC

Provide a legal analysis of the case using the “IRAC” method
A. Identify key facts (as to the case) (+are there background and irrelevant facts as well?):
For the 1st case, key facts are:
1) The offender’s location was known. (he took off the bus in Yevlax and went home);
2) He left the cafeteria earlier than others and, probably, during the crime there was nobody on the bus.
For the 2nd case, key facts are:
1) The cost of the watch was known (200 manats).
2) The offender thought that he committed crimes secretly.
For both cases, the key facts are:
1) The identity of criminals was known.
2) They commit crimes secretly.
3) There were no assistants of offenders, criminals commit the crime themselves.
4) They are intentionally committed crimes.
Step 1 – Issue (I)- we should identify the exact problem that law applies. There are 2 separate crimes and therefore, 2 main problems, but the contents of crimes were similar: 1) stealing of gold watch from one of the seating of bus; 2) stealing of pencil from the people sitting near the offender.
Step 2 – Rule (R)-Then we should find out which laws apply to the case.
Articles 25, 177, of the Criminal Code, and 2nd part of Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan ( 31.03.2005)

Step 3 – Analysis/application (A)- In this step, we try to show how the law applies to the case.
Part I - The elements of used laws should be identified.
Article 25.1- An act regardless of direct or indirect intent is considered an intentional crime.
Article 25.2- If a person realizes that his act is socially dangerous, foresaw its socially dangerous consequences, and wished for them, then the crime is considered to have been committed with direct intent.
Article 177.1 – Theft is defined as stealing another's property secretly.
Article 177.2.5- when the thief stole from the victim's pocket, purse or other hand luggage (the amount should be more than 100 manats)
2nd part of the Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court- In the absence of the owner or in the absence of such persons, the person who illegally took the property shall be classified as secretly looting (theft) of the property. And If the perpetrator suspects that he acted secretly in the specific circumstances, the act of the perpetrator should be considered secret looting of other people's property, even if those persons have witnessed the robbery.
Part II – In this step, we apply these elements to the facts of our cases.
Firstly, article 25- in both cases, offenders committed crimes intentionally- they understood that their actions are socially dangerous, predicted its results, and committed it.
Secondly, in both cases thought that they committed these crimes secretly, that’s why according to the decision of plenum of the Supreme court, it should be regarded as secret looting of other people's property. And in Criminal Code it is adequate to theft (article 177).
Article 177.2.5- we knew that pen’s price is 200 manats, therefore, this article is firstly applied to the 2nd case.

Part III - Then we clarify possible counter-arguments
1) If there was any assistance to the offenders. If so, then article 177.2.1 (when committed by a group of persons in collusion in advance) of the criminal code also should be applied. But we saw that there was no assistance to perpetrators.
2) The purpose of crime. According to the 8th part of the Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court Unlawful acts aimed at acquiring another's property without the purpose of greed, such as the subsequent return of the property to the owner or the seizure of that property in connection with the alleged right to the property, do not constitute theft or robbery.
3) If offenders were insane. But we saw that both offenders behaved normally and understood the characteristic features of their acts.
4) If the crime committed as illegally entering a residential area, as well as a building, warehouse, or other storage places (177.2.3 of the criminal code). But according to the 19th part of The Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court- the cabin of a car or other vehicle does not belong to the storage area, the secret removal of any item from it cannot be considered as entering the storage space.
5) Also if stolen things have special historical, scientific, literary, or cultural value, article 183 (Looting items of special value) should be applied. And punishment should be aggravated (imprisonment for a term of five to seven years). But it should be investigated.
Step 4 –Conclusion (C)- At last, the legal analysis should be summarized.
In conclusion, both cases should be considered as a crime, more precisely, theft. Also, according to the 25th article of the Criminal Code, these crimes are regarded as an intentional crime. And these crimes should be sentenced according to the 177th article (Theft) of the Criminal Code. For the 1st case, if watch’s value is between 100-500 manats, then a person who commits theft shall be punished according to article 177.2.5 (restriction of liberty for a term of one to three years, or imprisonment for a term of two to five years). But, if this amount is between 500-5000 manats, then article 177.1 should be applied (three hundred sixty hours to four hundred and eighty hours of public work or correctional labor for up to two years, or restriction of liberty for up to two years, or imprisonment for up to two years).
For the 2nd case the price of the pen has been shown(200manats). That’s why article 177.2.5 should be applied (restriction of liberty for a term of one to three years, or imprisonment for a term of two to five years). Some additional facts can also be applied, such as:
1) If the offenders have committed such crimes before, then article 177.2.2(when the theft is repeated) can be applied to the cases.

Memmedova Jasmine

yasminmemmedova04 — 2020-05-16 18:39:26 UTC

Provide a legal analysis of the case using the “IRAC” method
A. Identify key facts (as the to the case) (+are their background and irrelevant facts as well?): Firstly, it should be said that the facts are so important for the legal analysis process. Facts are used in the most necessary steps. Especially key facts are the main facts that affect the case critically. For example, in my case, stealing the watch or the pen secretly by the offenders is a key fact that means it is a theft, not a robbery because there is no violence, threat, or force to the victim. There was such an irrelevant fact here that Akif went to walk and when he returned to the bus he saw the watch and stole it. His going out at first is not a needed fact.

Step 1 – Issue. It is about the identification of issues, consists of 3 parts: 1. Multiple issues (in most of the crimes) 2.Separate the issues, 3.Focusing on the main problem.
Did the 2 certain people in the bus commit a crime? What is the issue here?
To take and use somebody’s property without his/her permission is a crime. They also committed a crime and deliberately too. They broke the law and its name is theft. It is the main issue here.
Step 2 – Rule. Identification of relevant rule of law which is applied to this issue. Its parts are 1.Enacted law, 2.Case law (it is not applicable in Azerbaijan), 3. Combination of Enacted law and Case law. Related enacted law includes the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Decision of Plenum of Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Especially, the 177th Article of Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan is the most appropriate about theft.
Step 3 – Analysis/Application. This step is about how the rule of law applies to issue. 3rd step is divided into 3 parts.
Part I – identification of elements of rule of law. The main point is to determine the requirements of the rule of law. Requirements are the elements of rule of law, requirements also determine whether there is relevance between this law and the facts of the case.
It was written in the 177th article of Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan: “177.1. Theft that is secret plunders of another person’s property “is punished by the Penalty at a rate from hundred up to seven hundreds of nominal financial unit, or public works for the term from hundred eighty till two hundred forty hours, or corrective works for the term up to two years, or imprisonment for the term up to two years.” In here this statement means that if the price of the property under 100 manats, that people will not have criminal responsibilityty.
177.3.3. By person, who have been sentenced two or more times for plunder or extortion “is punished by imprisonment for the term from six up to twelve years with confiscation of property or waggravating it is an aggravating statement for the offenders.

Part II – Application of elements of the rule of law to the facts of the case. In this part it tries to match and apply elements of rule of law to the facts of the case.
In these cases, it is obvious these crimes are considered theft and relevant to the 177th article. I also will try to match the statements below with the crimes. According to 177th article’s 1. Paragraph if the prices of stolen things are higher than 100 manats and according to Article 20 of Criminal Code of Republic of Azerbaijan they are not under 16 they will have criminal responsibility. With regard to Article 177.3.3 if they have done plunder or extortion 2 or more times, their responsibility will be aggravated.
Part III – in this part we should consider counter-arquments to the analysis of the problem.
In both Akif’s case, if the price of the watch more than a hundred ( it was a golden watch and most probably it was expensive than one hundred manats) Akif will have criminal legal responsibility according to the 177th article of Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. İt might be it was not a golden watch and it was a simple watch, in that case if its worth was under 100 manats, he would not have criminal legal responsibility according to 177th article of Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The same requirement also belongs to Zaur. And with regard to Article 20 of the Criminal Code of Republic of Azerbaijan, may be their age is under 16, in that case, they will not have criminal responsibility.
Step 4 – Conclusion. We summarize our analysis and show the last result.
If we have more information about the offenders and the stolen things, we can ensure the exact punishment. Like the exact price of the watch, whether those offenders have ever committed crime like these or not. What are their age and like this. At first, both actions – stolen watch and stolen pen are theft and they must be prosecuted under the 177th Article of Criminal Code of Republic of Azerbaijan if their ages are not under 16. According to the values of theft, if more than 100 manats, they must be involved in criminal responsibility
(Note: give a short explanation (in one sentence) of what is needed to be done at each “Step” (and “Part”) and then proceed further to the main part by including your analysis of the case)

Case 1 (for st. 1-14)

Sources to be consideredd (however, you have to identify the (applicable) rule(s) (and the reason for its application) to the case yourself):
Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan - http://www.e-qanun.az/code/11
Articles: 16, 17, 25, 26, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 129, 131, 134, 296, 297, 298, 308, 309, 314

Case 2 (for st. 15-29)

Sources to be considered (however, you have to identify the (applicable) rule(s) (and the reason for its application) to the case yourself):
Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan -
1. http://www.e-qanun.az/code/11 Articles: 16, 17, 25, 26, 29, 31, 38, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183
2. http://supremecourt.gov.az/post/view/159 - para. 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 19

Mehri

ebalajanovedu — 2020-05-16 19:38:44 UTC

Mehri Guliyeva

Facts:
The witness gives a false statement. The investigator warns. The interrogated person repeats the same action. The investigator angrily threw ash tray on the interrogated's head, killing the witness.

Issue:
If the investigator is found to be in a state of psychological affect, what is the penalty?

Rule:
1-Frequency of committing crimes
2-Deliberate murder committed in a condition of suddenly arisen strong emotional excitement
3-Obviously false testimonies, conclusions of expert or wrong translation
4-Excess of official powers
5-Negligence

Analysis/Application:
Part 1.
1- 16.1. Repeatedly committed crimes shall be two or more crimes provided by one article of the present Code.
The witness repeats the same crime despite being warned.

2-122.1. The deliberate murder committed in a condition of suddenly arisen strong emotional excitement
(affect), caused by violence, serious insult by victim either his other illegal or immoral actions (inaction), as well as long psychological conditions which has arisen in connection with regular illegal or immoral behavior of a victim âl “shall be punished by restriction of freedom for the term up to three years or imprisonment for the term up to four years.
The investigator is upset, which is a sudden emotional excitement. As a result, he threw ash tray at the witness and the witness died from a blow to the head.

3- 297.1. Obviously false testimonies of witness, victim or obviously false conclusion of expert, as well as obviously wrong translation in court or by manufacture of preliminary investigation âl “
is punished by the penalty at a rate from five hundred up to one thousand of nominal financial unit, or public works for the term from hundred sixty till two hundred hours, or corrective works for the term from one year up to two years, or restriction of freedom for the term up to two years, or imprisonment for the
term about six months.

Witness recognized the witness's guilt and repeated it indifferently.

4- 309.1. Commitment by official of actions, which are obviously preternatural powers, entailed causing of essential harm to rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or protected by law interests of a society or state âl “
is punished by the penalty at a rate of from one up to two thousand of nominal financial unit, or correctiveworks for the term up to two years, or with imprisonment for the term up to three years with deprivation of the right to hold the certain posts or to engage in the certain activities for the term up to three years or
without it.

The investigator forgets his duties. When he has to control himself, he gets angry and behaves in a criminal way. This leads to the death of the witness.

5- 314.1. The negligence, that is default or inadequate performance by official of the duties owing to unfair or negligent attitude(relation) to the service, entailed essential harm to rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations or to interests protected by law of state or a society âl “
is punished by the penalty at a rate from five hundred up to one thousand of nominal financial unit, or public works for the term up to two hundred thirty hours, or corrective works for the term up to two years, or imprisonment for the term about six months.
314.2. The same act committed on imprudence and entailed death of the victim or other heavy
consequences âl “
is punished by imprisonment up to five years.

The investigator's actions can also be assessed as negligence.

Part 2-3.

1. We don't know, why witness said lie and what is his/her interest?
The witness may been threatened or seduced.
2.If the investigator knew that the witness had lied, was there any evidence? If so, why did he react so nervously?
The investigator had to restrain himself, this is his duty.
3.How serious was the investigator's warning, and could his behavior have deterred the witness from telling the truth?
It is possible that the witness continued to lie for fear of the investigator's behavior.
4.What is ash tray doing in the interrogation room?
For the safety of the person under control, all harmful tools, including shoelaces, must be removed from him. In this case, the presence of the ashtray is irresponsible.

Conclusion:
According to Article 314.2 of the Criminal Code, the investigator must be sentenced to up to 3 years in prison. According to Article 309 of the Criminal Code, it is punishable by up to 3 years of imprisonment and deprivation of certain activities. The reason why the sentence is 3 years instead of 5 or 8 years is related to Article 122 of the Criminal Code. The sentence should be reduced because he is in a state of psychological affect. At the same time, the possibility of the investigator being the head of the family must be considered.

Mammadli Sama 1st

ebalajanovedu — 2020-05-17 15:37:50 UTC

Mammadli Sama
1. Key facts for 1st case are: the identity of a criminal was known. As indicated in case the offender left the cafeteria before others and we can say that probably there was nobody during the crime, it means that he committed crime secretly and intentionally.
Key facts for 2nd case are: the identity of a criminal was known. The value of the watch was 200 manats and when he committed the crime he thought that nobody saw him. It indicates that he committed crime secretly and intentionally.
Step-1: Issue
Of course, before identifying the issue, we must define the problem according to the facts of the issue. There are two problems: stealing of golden watch from one of the sitting of the bus and stealing of pencil from a passenger that sitting near the offender. So, we must identify them separately.
Step-2: Rule
In this step, we should identify the rule of law that governs the issue. According to the case, I think that we can apply Articles 25, 177 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Also, we can view the decision of the plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Step-3: Analysis
In this step, we determine how the rule of law applies to the issues and how it applies to the facts of the case.
Part I: In this part, we should identify the elements of used law.
25.1. Crime accomplished deliberately, shall be act (action or inaction), accomplished with direct or indirect intention admits.
177.1. Theft is the secret looting of another’s property.
177.2.5. when the thief stole from the victim’s purse, pocket, or other hand luggage. But the value should be more than 100 manats.
Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offences: According to petty robbery, theft, embezzlement, abuse of office or fraud, robbery of another’s property or depending on the circumstances of the case, taking into account the identity of the perpetrator, and if the application of these measures is not sufficient, administrative detention shall be applied.
2nd part of the Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court: In the absence of the owner or in the absence of such persons, the person who illegally took the property shall be classified as secretly looting (theft) of the property.
If the perpetrator suspects that he has acted secretly in the specific circumstances, the act of the perpetrator should be considered a covert robbery, even if those persons have witnessed the robbery.
Part II: In this step, we apply the elements of the law to the facts of the case.
We know that in this case, the perpetrators have secretly looting another’s property. As indicated in the Decision of Supreme Court and Article 177 of the Criminal Code, this act of perpetrators is classified as theft. But in the first problem of this case, we should consider some situations. If the value of the watch is 500-5000 manats, then Article 177.1 of the Criminal Code shall be applied. I think that if the value of the watch is between 100-500 manats then we must take into account some situations. If perpetrators took the gold watch from the purse, pocket, or other hand luggage of any passenger on one of the seating of the bus, then article177.2.5 of Criminal Code shall be applied. Also as indicated in this case, Akif saw the golden watch on the one of the seating of bus (yəni gözü oturacaqlarda olan qızıl saatlardan birinə sataşmışdısa, deməli, bu saat gözə görünən yerdə idi, kiminsə çantasında yox). From this sentence we can conclude that Akif didn’t stole it from the victim’s purse, pocket, or other hand luggage. In which case, we can’t apply Article 177.2.5. If the value of the watch is less than 100 manats then he wouldn’t have criminal responsibility.
Also, in the second problem of this case, again we should consider some situations. If the perpetrator stole the pen by removing it from the victim’s pocket, purse, or other hand luggage then Article 177.2.5 shall be applied to it if not then we can apply Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offences. I think that it shouldn’t take into account whether he knew the amount of pen or not when he stole a pen.
Part III: In this part, we must take into account possible counter-arguments. I think that as the first counter-argument we take into account Article 183 of Criminal Code. According to this article if stolen items have special historical, scientific, literary, or cultural value then the perpetrator is punished by imprisonment for the term from five to seven years. But it should be investigated. According to Article 177.2.2 of the Criminal Code, we must investigate that it was committed repeatedly or not. Also, in the 2nd case, it is not indicated exactly where the perpetrator took the pen and it can be used counter-argument.
In conclusion, firstly, I want to note that some facts about the case are not given to us that confuse me. Maybe, I approach this case in light of some mitigating circumstances. Generally, if we only take into account the facts that are indicated in this case then for the 2nd case, article 177.2.5 shall be applied (restriction of liberty for a term of one to three years, or imprisonment for a term two to five years). Also, as mentioned above we can apply the Code of Administrative Offences. For the 1st case, the punishment depends on some situations. But, the value of the watch is between 500-5000 manats then article 177.1 shall be applied (three hundred sixty hours to four hundred and eighty hours of public work or correctional labor for up to two years, or restriction of liberty for up two years, or imprisonment for up two years). But I think that we must investigate the case in detail then we can apply the Code of Administrative Offenses when we take into account mitigating circumstances as well as other situations.

Case 2 – Tariyel Ali

ebalajanovedu — 2020-05-18 07:13:50 UTC

Facts:

1. Akif finds a gold watch in a bus full of passengers while going to his region. When he noticed that the property is unwatched, he took it. The value of the property and passengers’ awareness of the action is not known.

2. In the same bus, Zaur sees that the person who sits beside him is sleeping. He takes their pen valued 200 manats and puts it in his own pockets. He was sure that no one is aware of his action. It is not known that he knows the value of the pen or not.

Step 1 – Identifying the issue (legal question)

Are these acts committed theft? If these are theft, what kind of theft are they? If they are not theft, then what are they?

Step 2 – Identifying the rule of law concerning the issue

Articles 177, 180, and 183 of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan can be applied, furthermore, article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Azerbaijan can also be applied based on facts. The Decision of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court on Court Experience on Theft, Robbery, and Burglary.

Step 3 – Determining applicability of the rule of law to the issue

Part I – Identifying the elements of the rule of law

Criminal Code:

Article 177 is about theft and disposition of 177.1 states that it is a secret larceny of another person’s property valued five hundred manats, but not more than five thousand manats. 177.2.1 Indicates that preliminary arrangement by group of persons strengthening the sanction. If the same act committed repeatedly (177.2.2) or from clothes, pocket, handbag or another hand luggage of injured (177.2.5), these also strengthen the penalty. In the latter, the value of the object has to be over 100 manats.

Article 180, however, is about larceny of another person’s property openly (180.1). If the same act committed on preliminary arrangement by group of persons (180.2.1) or repeatedly (180.2.2), then the penalty is aggravated.

Article 183 is about larceny of subjects or documents having special historical, scientific, art or cultural value. Again, if the same act committed on preliminary arrangement by an group of persons or by organized group (183.2.1) or repeatedly (183.2.2), then the penalty will be strengthened.

The Decision of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court reveals that if the offender thinks that no one is aware of their larceny, regardless of there’s a witness or not, this is theft. If the offender thinks that he is in stealth but there’s a witness and the witness are not aware of the action’s illegality and therefore do not interfere with the offender, then this is theft. If the witness tries to interfere with them, then this is robbery. If the offender commits larceny in front of everyone, knowing that this is illegal and doesn’t mind them, then this is robbery regardless of the witnesses’ awareness of the legality of the action.

Code of Administrative Offences:

Article 227 is about minor larceny, which is less than 500 manats. Article 227 states that minor larceny is larceny of other`s property by means of steal, appropriation, embezzlement, misuse of service functions or fraud.

Part II – Applying the elements of the law to the issue

In the first action (larceny of the golden watch), we do not know the value of the watch and accused person’s stealthiness. Thus a number of articles can be applied depending on the facts:

1. If the property values more than 500 manats, then according to article 177.1 of CC this is theft.

2. If its value is less than 500 manats, then according to article 227 of CAO this is minor larceny.

3. If the accuser arranged with a group of people beforehand for distracting the injured, then 177.2.1 will be applied.

4. If the accuser committed this action repeatedly, then 177.2.2 will be applied.

5. If the accuser has the knowledge of the other’s witnessing, then this is robbery and 180.1 (alongside with 180.2.1 and/or 180.2.2, if the mentioned conditions are suitable) will be applied.

6. If the property has any special historical, scientific, art or cultural value, then 183.1 (alongside with 183.2.1 and/or 183.2.2, if the mentioned conditions are suitable) will be applied.

In the second action (larceny of the pen) we know the value of the pen and accused’s awareness of the stealthiness. However, we do not know the pen has any special value or not:

1. The property is valued 200 at manats. This is over 100 manats. If the accuser took it from the injured person’s clothes, pocket, handbag or another hand luggage, then 177.2.5 of CC will be applied. (alongside with 177.2.2, if the mentioned conditions are suitable)

2. If the property has any special historical, scientific, art or cultural value, then the 183.1 (alongside with 183.2.2, if the mentioned conditions are suitable) will be applied.

3. The accuser is sure that no one observes him, therefore there’s no sign of robbery and cannot be interpreted as such.

Part III – Anticipating possible counter-arguments

In the first action, the defendant can say he thought the property is abandoned and he found it but he obviously knew that the owner of the property is close, because it was in the bus full of passengers.

In the second act, the defendant can claim that it is not a crime but minor larceny. However, as we already explained, it is not the case. The action is a deliberate theft. He can also defend himself by saying that he did not know the value of the property. In this case, he is still guilty, because he took another person’s property for himself without their consent. Larceny is a crime regardless of the knowledge of the value.

Defendants can claim that they did not know that the action is illegal but not knowing the law doesn’t free the person from penalty.

Both defendants can also claim that they have kleptomania and the action was not deliberate. In this case, they need a medical approval of their disorder.

Step 4 – Summarizing all of the above.

Considering all of the facts and the rules of law mentioned, the judges will probably decide that the accusers are guilty. Their decisions are dependent on many facts we do not know. Hence, both actions need further and much more detailed investigations.