Last judicial proceedings of drug case of the journalist Eynulla Fatullayev was enough open for the public. All the associated specialists were able to watch the proceedings wholly. [b]Course of proceedings. [/b] It is possible to say that public prosecutor could not substantiate the accusations against Eynulla Fatullayev with respect to drug storage and usage as the accusations were based on defective and biased investigation. The proceedings show that from the early beginning of the investigation preliminary investigation actions, investigation and search operations, storage of evidences, interrogation of the witnesses had not been performed under the procedural legislation. Because, search operations over the accused person and taking, fixation, storage and sending to the expertise the so-called substances, that is, officialization of material evidences didn?t comply with the requirements of legislation. Even it was suspicious whether the persons who had been invited as a witness corresponded to the status of witness. The proceedings showed that for some reasons the court had entrusted the same examination to different examination bodies and in some cases the conclusions of these bodies refuted one-another. Besides, related experts who had been invited to the proceedings were not able to substantiate their official conclusions in their testimonies and explanations. All of these indicated that expert-specialists had performed their examination and conclusions unfreely and may be even under impact. Therefore, there was a serious need for again commission examinations. However, unfortunately the court didn?t allow the petition, the accuser party objected and the society didn?t support such an important matter. In fact, the court and investigation insured themselves basing on examination report, more exactly, on official experts? opinions. Generally, process of investigation of storage and usage of drugs set forth in the relevant articles of the Criminal Case is based on the facts of expertise investigations since the examination subjects are exact scientific research objects such as chemical substances and human organism. [b]Let?s pay attention to condition of examination system in the country. [/b] Although there is suspicion that the examinations in the country is carried out illegally or thought to be groundless, there is a short list of instance where the people can lodge a complaint. Conclusion of the preliminary examination can only be checked and changed by one high commission examination instance. For compare, if we want to lodge an appeal with respect to the decision of any court we have Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, Plenum of Supreme Court, Constitution Court and Court-Juridical Council under the Ministry of Justice. Such multi-stage control system is available in the prosecution and investigation system which raises a question why the conclusion of the expert can be controlled by only one high instances while decisions of the prosecutor, investigator by 4-5 high instances? During the USSR there was a body which had a function of control like commission expertise under the Union Examination Bureau in Moscow where were sent all the complaints from examinations in all the union republics which in most cases found its just result. Today we have no such powerful complaint instance. Besides, without any independent examination body, there is arbitrariness in this independent examination system. There is a good question that in spite of European Court which has inspection and impact power over the decision of court system of European level in each European state which has power to make decision regarding releasing Eynulla Fatullayev, why then there is no such system in examination instance? Such a high level European Expertise body could not only have just control function but also be useful in performing difficult and complex investigations such as DNA and psychiatric and other examinations that the states in European region had difficulty. It should be noted that our center has already prepared official substantiated request to the Council of Europe. [b]Do we need such domestic problem which attracts the attention of the world? [/b] I should note that during the proceedings in Garadagh district Court poor quality and contradiction to the requirements of the procedural legislation of preliminary investigation carried out against journalist Eynulla Fatullayev under the article 234.1 of the Criminal Case and its groundless submission to consideration by the prosecutor was discovered. Besides, the Courts? 2 years and 6 month imprisonment decision basing on the very weak accusations will bring fault to juridical system in Azerbaijan and influence on reputation of statehood. Such groundless accusation and sentences allows us to consider them to be tendentious pressure over the professional activity of Fatullayev which can be considered as means with respect to prevention of democratic principles such as free speech and media. We consider that the Ministry of Justice and General Prosecutor?s Office should pay a special attention to the very issue. At the same time we consider that all the civil society expect reaction from the state leader and that principle of just will find its confirmation in next appeal instance over the case. Generally, the results show that problem of Eynulla Fatullayev was created artificially and unjustly and is useless scandal which cause the same headache to Azeri media, society and statehood. Constructive and development theory of Azerbaijan has been fundamental and based on democratic principles since the beginning. Free speech, expression and media have a special place within these principles. Therefore, the power ruling officials of this state have to remember of it and should be ready for both criticism and praise.