To President of the Republic of Latvia Mr. Edgars Rinkēvičs
To the Ombudsman of the Republic of Latvia Mr. Juris Jansons
To the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia Mr. Juris Stukāns
To the Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia Ms. Daiga Mieriņa
To the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia Mr. Aigars Strupišs
To the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Latvia Ms. Inese Lībiņa-Egnere
To the Members of the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia
From Ms. Naila Khalilova (the Republic of Azerbaijan,
Baku city, 130th Bakikhanov Street, ap. 32; tel: + 994-55-600-90-25)
Dear Mr. President!
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen!
I request an urgent intervention in order to stop the arbitrariness in the case concerning my son Ali Khalilov on side of the employees of the Northern Prosecutor’s Office of Riga.
It turns out that the law is applied selectively in Latvia, and nobody reacts to violations.
Ali Khalilov is a young man who has no life experience, an excellent student at the Riga University, in order to support his family and continue his study, following the advice of the US President Mr. Donald Trump, made a number of commercial transactions, and instead of fighting real criminals the State Security Service and the Prosecutor’s Office of Latvia through falsification have inflated my son’s case to imitate the fight against sanctions violators.
Please look into the case and evaluate the following facts of the arbitrariness.
1) According to the decision of the investigative judge of 16.04.2025 the period of detention of Ali Khalilov on the criminal case No. 18400003324 was established until 16th June 2025.
According to the data of informational system the indicated criminal case was in the prosecutor’s office until 17th June 2025, and had not been transferred to the court and it presently is in the prosecutor’s office.
According to Article 279 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Latvia, Ali Khalilov had to be released from custody on the evening of 16th June 2025.
Before the case was transferred to court, Ali Khalilov should have been familiarized with the case materials and should have been given the prosecutor’s resolution on transferring the case.
According to Article 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Latvia, upon completion of the trial, the prosecutor issues copies of the materials of the criminal case submitted to the court to the accused or his defense attorney, and issues a list of the materials submitted to the archive.
According to paragraph 3 of Article 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Latvia, when issuing procedural documents to a person who does not speak the state language, it is provided their translation into a language understandable to the person.
According to paragraph 8 of Article 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Latvia, the prosecutor draws up a report on familiarization of the accused person with the materials of the criminal case or receipt of copies thereof.
According to paragraph 10 of Article 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Latvia, after issuing copies of the materials of the criminal case or familiarization with them, the prosecutor makes a decision to transfer the criminal case to court.
According to paragraph 4 of Article 413 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Latvia, the prosecutor informs the accused or his representative about the adoption of the decision and the referral of the criminal case to the court by sending them copies of the decision in an understandable them language, copies of the list of material evidence and documents, as well as a list of persons whose testimonies are included in the list of evidence.
All the listed requirements of the law in the case of Ali Khalilov were deliberately violated by falsifying materials.
The prosecutor walking around and when he had woke up he saw that the arrest period had expired.
How could he transfer the case to court if no one (neither the defense attorney nor the accused person) was familiar with the materials and did not receive a decision on transferring the case to court.
Instead of making a lawful decision, Riga Court Judge Irena Miller began to cover up the prosecutor’s mistakes, although she saw that there was no familiarization, the protocols, and the decision to transfer the case to court were missing.
Is not this arbitrary?
2.) Until the end of the day (24:00) on 16th June 2025, criminal case No. 18400003324 in respect of Ali Khalilov and others was in the prosecutor’s office.
This is confirmed by a scan from the website, a statement and complaint of Ali Khalilov’s defense attorney – lawyer Ainars Lezdins and other facts.
In May 2025 Ali Khalilov submitted the petition to a prosecutor of the Northern Prosecutor’s Office of Riga Mr. Roberts Urdzins for the desire to become familiar with the materials of criminal and archival cases, providing of all their copies in proper translation into the Russian, issuing a decision on transferring of the criminal case to court.
According to the petition, Ali Khalilov emphasized the request for a proper (high-quality) translation, since the translation of the decision he had received on bringing him as an accused person and other documents had contained hundreds of alogisms, contradictions, logical, semantic, lexical, grammatical, stylistic, spelling and other errors, excluding their use for defense.
In addition, it was brought to the attention of the prosecutor that, besides the stylistic, grammatical and other errors, the decision to bring Ali Khalilov to criminal liability contradicts to the requirements of Article 405 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Latvia, since most part of it is encrypted (coded), including factual circumstances, data on accomplices, etc., which also excludes the use of this document for defense and other purposes of justice, defines it as worthless.
The prosecutor had no right to transfer the case to court without familiarization, drawing up protocols and a resolution. He simply overslept and skipped the whole time.
3.) In order to deliberately hinder the defense, the prosecutor transferred Ali Khalilov to Liepaja and had deprived him of an opportunity to meet with a lawyer.
Which Latvia’s law is allowed this?
4.) Complaints about the torture of Ali Khalilov also remained hushed up.
I request an urgent response.
Yours faithfully,
Naila Khalilova
“19” June 2025