On Friday, August 14, the so-called Bakhchisaray Magistrate Court was supposed to consider the appeal of the lawyer in the interests of the wife of the defendant in the so-called Bakhchisaray Hizb ut-Tahrir case Marlen Asanov – Aishe. The so-called court session was postponed due to the absence of the bailiff, who drew up an administrative protocol. Aishe herself informed the Crimean Tatar Resource Center about this.
“On August 13, 2020, an appeal was held in the case of an administrative offense, which was rendered by the Magistrate Court in the amount of 500 rubles. The court session was postponed, since the bailiff, who drew up the protocol, could not come, and the judge postponed the trial to 08.08.2020. The bailiff will participate in it via video conferencing”,- she said.
Aishe noted that she and her lawyer were delighted with such an outcome of events, since in the so-called Magistrate Court they, on the contrary, petitioned for the presence of a bailiff, but the court refused them.
“Now we are waiting for the trial on August 28, where I still hope that the court will make a fair decision and see that there was no violation on my part”,- she added.
We reimnd that on March 17, in the Southern District Military Court of Rostov-on-Don, after the end of the court session on the so-called second Bakhchisaray Hizb ut-Tahrir case, Aishe Asanova wrote a note with the words “I need you like air” and showed it to her husband. After that, the bailiff Mikhail Chernovol approached the woman and began to demand a passport. Lawyers Alexei Ladin and Aider Azamatov, who witnessed what was happening, explained to the bailiff that his actions were illegal. As a result, the bailiff drew up an administrative protocol on the woman. It says that “Asanova communicated with the defendant Asanov through a poster containing personal information.” On June 25, the so-called Bakhchisaray Magistrate Court fined the wife of the defendant in the so-called Bakhchisaray Hizb ut-Tahrir case Marlen Asanov – Aishe 500 rubles (about 190 hryvnias) for “failure to comply with the bailiff's order”, although she provided evidence of her innocence.