Elgun Ibrahimov’s Mysterious Death: Gaps, Questions, and the Legality of the Official Narrative

Elgun Ibrahimov

On May 13, 18-year-old Elgun Ibrahimov, a resident of Ganja city, was hospitalized with a traumatic brain injury and later died. The same day, the Ganja City Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal case under Article 126.3 of the Criminal Code — intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in death through negligence.

Since then, Ibrahimov’s death has sparked significant concern and debate in Azerbaijan. His family insists that Elgun was killed and that his body bears signs of violence inconsistent with a fall. Activists and members of the public have rallied for a transparent investigation, but have been met with silence or repression. On May 29, a joint statement from the General Prosecutor’s Office, Ministry of Internal Affairs, and State Security Service declared that Elgun had fallen from an unprotected balcony on the fifth floor of an abandoned university dormitory. While the statement began by claiming that the investigation was ongoing, it went on to describe the events as if a final conclusion had already been reached.

This apparent contradiction, along with procedural inconsistencies and the dissemination of personal details about the deceased, has raised serious concerns among legal experts, rights groups, and the public. A closer examination of the case, the official conduct, and the statement reveals significant departures from the legal standards for preliminary investigations in Azerbaijan.

Legal and Procedural Concerns

According to Azerbaijan’s Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the case against unknown individuals for Elgun Ibrahimov’s death is currently in the preliminary investigation stage. Under Article 218 of the CPC, investigations of serious crimes (such as those under Article 126.3) must be completed within four months, though extensions are permitted under certain conditions. Article 8 of the CPC requires that the investigation be comprehensive, complete, and objective, while Articles 84–86 stress that prosecutors and investigators must base decisions on internal conviction derived from lawfully obtained, corroborated evidence.

Despite these requirements, the joint statement issued just 16 days after the case was opened gave the impression that investigators had reached a definitive conclusion. Although the statement mentioned several possible scenarios — suicide, accidental fall, or inflicted injury — it went on to describe Elgun’s fall as the cause of death, suggesting that alternative hypotheses had already been dismissed.

This undermines the legal principle of a neutral, unbiased investigation. According to procedural norms, investigators must not create public impressions of guilt or conclusions before the collection and analysis of all relevant evidence. The European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Article 6 concerning fair trial rights, also applies to the pre-trial stage, as held in Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, placing further emphasis on procedural integrity.

Violations in Disseminating Preliminary Investigation Information

The manner in which information about the case has been released also raises red flags. Article 222 of the CPC generally prohibits dissemination of information from a preliminary investigation, with two narrow exceptions:

1. Dissemination by participants in the case or journalists with permission from the investigative authority, provided it does not hinder the investigation or violate the rights of others.

2. Direct dissemination by the investigative authority or prosecutor in the public interest or to counter misinformation, provided the information respects the presumption of innocence and does not harm the investigation.

Even under these exceptions, the scope and content of public statements must be carefully limited. In Elgun Ibrahimov’s case, the statement was not issued solely by the General Prosecutor’s Office — the body legally responsible for the investigation — but also included the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Security Service. This raises procedural concerns, as no joint investigative group had been officially formed, and the case jurisdiction falls squarely under the prosecutor’s office as defined by Article 215 of the CPC.

The statement also included personal details about Ibrahimov, such as his debts, sale of a mobile phone, alcohol use, and alleged prior presence in the abandoned dormitory. These details neither contributed to the factual clarification of the death nor helped advance any investigative hypothesis. Instead, they appear intended to bolster the suicide theory and subtly shape public perception — which violates the deceased’s legally protected reputation and runs counter to the aims of a legitimate investigation.

Public Response and State Reaction

In the days following Elgun's death, concerned citizens organized a public advocacy campaign calling for a fair and transparent investigation. An attempted rally in Ganja was met with police repression and the detention of 63 individuals, some of whom reported verbal abuse, mistreatment, and even sexual harassment in custody.

The tone and content of the joint law enforcement statement appear designed not only to present a specific narrative, but also to stifle dissent and discourage further public scrutiny. The concluding section of the statement warns media outlets, social media users, and public figures against sharing information that could “hinder the progress of the investigation or create confusion in society.”

When considered alongside the repression of peaceful demonstrators, this instruction seems intended to delegitimize alternative views and suppress public engagement in the search for truth about Elgun’s death.

The Appearance of a Closed Case

Crucially, the May 29 statement fails to present any supporting evidence for its implied conclusion. While it lists investigative activities such as witness interviews, forensic examinations, and video surveillance analysis, it does not connect these efforts to any concrete findings that would support the fall hypothesis. There is no explanation of why the suicide and foul play hypotheses were deprioritized or rejected, no reference to corroborating expert opinions, and no transparent reasoning that would justify the narrative advanced in the statement.

Without such justification, the statement not only fails to meet basic investigative transparency standards, but also creates a chilling effect on independent inquiry and public discussion. It risks undermining trust in law enforcement and judicial institutions — especially in a case that has already provoked widespread public concern and speculation.

The joint statement on Elgun Ibrahimov’s death violates the standards governing preliminary investigations under Azerbaijan’s criminal procedural legislation. It presents a single theory as definitive before the investigation has properly concluded, includes irrelevant and reputationally damaging details about the deceased, and was issued in procedural violation of legal norms governing investigative communication.

Moreover, the statement appears calculated to calm public outrage and deter further questioning — a concern amplified by the detentions and abuses reported during protests. Ultimately, these actions not only compromise the credibility of the ongoing investigation but also infringe upon the right to fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and the public’s right to scrutinize state conduct in matters of grave concern.

If the truth behind Elgun Ibrahimov’s death is to be uncovered, the investigation must return to the principles of objectivity, transparency, and legal propriety — and all state institutions must be held to the standards they are bound to uphold.