CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 février 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s85A364CF { width:35.31pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB042F7C6 { width:162.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIFTH SECTION                 CASE OF HUSEYNLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN   (Applications nos. 67360/11, 67964/11 and 69379/11)             JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   11 February 2016     FINAL   11/05/2016   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Erik Møse,   André Potocki,   Yonko Grozev,   Síofra O’Leary,   Carlo Ranzoni, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in three applications (nos.   67360/11, 67964/11 and 69379/11) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Azerbaijani nationals, Mr   Ilham Gasham oglu Huseynli ( İlham Qəşəm oğlu Hüseynli – “the first applicant”), Mr Elchin Mugarib oglu Salimov ( Elçin Müqarib oğlu Səlimov – “the second applicant”) and Mr Ibrahim Zabit oglu Ahmadzade ( İbrahim Zabit oğlu Əhmədzadə – “the third applicant”), on 5 October 2011, 14   October 2011 and 17 October 2011 respectively. 2.     The first applicant was represented by Mr I. Aliyev, and the second and third applicants were represented by Mr R. Mustafazade and Mr   A.   Mustafayev, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Ç.   Asgarov. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, that their arrest and conviction prior to an unauthorised peaceful demonstration had been an unlawful interference with their right to freedom of assembly. They further complained that guarantees of a fair hearing had not been respected in the administrative proceedings against them, and that their arrest and conviction had been contrary to guarantees of the right to liberty. 4.     On 6 May 2014 the complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 11 were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The first applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Baku. The second and third applicants were born in 1984 and 1975 respectively and live in Sumgait. A. Background information 6.     At the material time the applicants were members of the main opposition parties or groups in the country: the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan (“the PFPA”), the Musavat Party and Ictimai Palata, respectively. The first applicant was a member of the Board of the PFPA. The first and third applicants were candidates in the parliamentary elections of 2010. The first applicant was also a candidate in the parliamentary elections of 2005. 7.     The year 2011 was marked by an increased number of opposition demonstrations in Azerbaijan, mainly in Baku. They were held, inter alia , on 11 and 12 March, 2 and 17 April, 22 May and 19 June 2011. According to the applicants, the relevant authorities were notified about the demonstrations but refused to authorise them. Despite their peaceful character, demonstrations held without authorisation were dispersed by the police. 8.     All three applicants participated in a number of opposition demonstrations. In the course of many of them they were arrested and convicted. In particular, on 12 and 30 April 2010 and 12 March 2011 the second applicant was arrested and convicted of breaching the rules on the organisation and holding of assemblies and failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer. The third applicant was arrested during the demonstration of 12 March 2011 and reprimanded for breaching the rules on the organisation and holding of public assemblies. 9.     According to the applicants, they had intended to attend the demonstration scheduled for 2 April 2011. In addition, the first applicant was involved in the organisation of that demonstration. 10.     Prior notice of the demonstration of 2 April 2011 had been given to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), on 18 March 2011. On 31 March 2011 the BCEA refused to allow the demonstration to be held at the place indicated by the organisers, and proposed that it be held at another place on the outskirts of Baku. Nevertheless, the organisers decided to hold the demonstration in central Baku, and information about it was disseminated via Facebook and the press. B. The applicants’ arrest, custody and administrative detention 1. The first applicant, Mr Ilham Huseynli 11.     The first applicant alleged that between approximately 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 31 March 2011, after he had taken his child to kindergarten, police officers had stopped his car and requested that he follow them to a police station. He did not oppose the police officers’ demand and was taken to police station no. 20 of the Nasimi District Police Office. At an unspecified time the applicant was informed that he was being detained in connection with the upcoming demonstration of 2   April 2011. At around 2 p.m. he learned that he would not be released from detention. The applicant was then questioned. He was asked, inter alia , about his intention to participate in the demonstration of 2 April 2011 and generally about the politics in the country. 12.     According to the official records, the applicant was arrested for disobeying a lawful order of a police officer. In particular, police officers F.P., S.A. and R.V. stated the following in a report ( raport ) submitted to a superior police officer: “... at around 10.30 a.m. on 31 March 2011 on 3 rd Alatava street [in Baku] we stopped a [person] who was driving by in his car and requested his identity document because he bore a resemblance to a person who was on a wanted list. But he ignored our lawful demand to produce his identity document. We brought [him] to the police station. There we found out that [he] was [the applicant] ...” 13.     At around 1.20 p.m. on the day of the arrest, an “administrative-offence report” ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) was issued by police officer T.A. in respect of the applicant. The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). 14.     The applicant signed the part of the administrative-offence report acknowledging that he had been familiarised with the report, but left without signature the part with a pre-printed text which stated that “the rights and obligations under Articles   371, 372, 374, 377, 379 and 410.4 of the CAO of the Republic of Azerbaijan were explained”.     He made a statement that he had not disobeyed any order given by the police. This statement was included in the report. 15.     According to the applicant, he was never provided with a copy of the administrative-offence report or with other documents in his case file.   He was not given access to a lawyer after his arrest or while in police custody. 16.     The applicant was brought before the Nasimi District Court on the day of his arrest. 17.     According to the applicant, the hearing, which began at 3 p.m., was very brief. He refused the assistance of a State-funded lawyer and insisted on hiring a lawyer of his own choice, but the judge disregarded his request. His representation by that lawyer was ineffective and of a formalistic nature. 18.     The applicant stated before the court that he had been stopped by the police and had been requested to follow them to a police station, that he had complied with that request, and that he was not guilty of disobeying a police officer. 19.     The only witnesses questioned during the court hearing were police officers T.A., F.P. and S.A. Police officer T.A. testified that he had prepared the administrative-offence report in respect of the applicant. Police officers F.P. and S.A. gave testimonies virtually identical to the above-mentioned report they had submitted to a superior police officer. 20.     According to the record of the hearing, the State-funded lawyer stated that the applicant was not guilty and asked the court to terminate the administrative proceedings against him. 21.     The court found that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article   310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to seven days’ “administrative” detention. 22.     The applicant lodged an appeal before the Baku Court of Appeal, presenting his version of the facts surrounding the arrest, and arguing that he had been arrested in connection with the demonstration scheduled for 2   April 2011. He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first-instance court had not been fair. He urged the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court’s decision. 23.     It appears that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer before the Baku Court of Appeal. 24.     On 5 April 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court, stating that its findings had been correct. 2. The second applicant, Mr Elchin Salimov 25.     The second applicant alleged that at around 10.30   a.m. on 31   March 2011, when he was still in bed, three police officers had entered his apartment without an arrest warrant. The applicant’s father had let the police officers in. The police officers took the applicant to police station no. 3 of the Sumgait City Police Office. At an unspecified time the applicant was questioned about his political activities. 26.     According to the official records, the applicant was arrested for minor hooliganism and for disobeying a lawful order of a police officer. In particular, police officer T.R. stated the following in a report submitted to a superior police officer: “... at around 12.30 p.m. on 31 March 2011 on the territory of the 9 th micro-district of Sumgait, I noticed a person who was making noise ... But although I invited him to respect the discipline, he continued his cursing and improper behaviour ... Therefore I brought him to police station no. 3. There we found out that that [person] was [the applicant] ...” 27.     On the day of the arrest, an administrative-offence report was issued by police officer E.S. in respect of the applicant. The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Articles 296 (minor hooliganism) and 310.1 of the CAO. 28.     The applicant refused to sign the report. 29.     According to the applicant, he was never provided with a copy of the administrative-offence report or with other documents in his case file.   He was not given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while he was kept in police custody. 30.     According to a statement ( ərizə ) allegedly signed by the applicant and submitted to the Court by the Government, the applicant had refused legal assistance while in police custody. According to the transcript of the hearing before the Sumgait Court of Appeal, the applicant claimed that he had not signed that statement. 31.     The applicant was brought before the Sumgait City Court on the day of his arrest. 32.     According to the applicant, the hearing, which began at 3.30 p.m., was very brief and he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice. 33.     According to the transcript of the first-instance court hearing, the applicant refused the assistance of a State-funded lawyer and decided to defend himself in person. 34.     The applicant stated before the court that he had been taken to a police station from his apartment, that it had been his father who had let the police officers in, that at the police station he had been questioned about his political activity, and that he was not guilty of disobeying a police officer or of swearing at the location indicated by the police. According to the transcript of the Sumgait Court of Appeal hearing, the applicant orally requested that the chief of police station no. 3, M.N., be questioned. However, there is no information whether M.N. was questioned. 35.     The only witness questioned during the court hearing was police officer T.R. He testified that the applicant had been swearing without addressing any particular person and had failed to obey his order to stop his illegal behaviour. 36.     The court found that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Articles   296 and 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to seven days’ “administrative” detention. 37.     The applicant lodged an appeal before the Sumgait Court of Appeal, presenting his version of the facts surrounding the arrest, and arguing that his arrest had been unlawful, that the hearing before the first-instance court had not been fair and that his right to respect for home had been violated by the police. He urged the Sumgait Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court’s decision. 38.     It appears that the applicant refused legal assistance at the hearing before the Sumgait Court of Appeal. 39.     On 19 April 2011 the Sumgait Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court, stating that its findings had been correct. 3. The third applicant, Mr Ibrahim Ahmadzade 40.     According to the third applicant, at around 11 a.m. on 31 March 2011 he went with his lawyer to the Sumgait City Police Office. After a conversation with the chief of police, they left. The applicant, who did not clearly explain the purpose of that visit, alleged that when he had been outside the police office and no longer accompanied by his lawyer, police officers had arrested him without explaining the reasons for doing so, and had taken him to police station no. 4 of the Sumgait City Police Office. 41.     According to the official records, the applicant was arrested for “minor hooliganism”. In a report submitted to a superior police officer, police officer N.M. stated the following: “... at around 12.30 p.m. on 31 March 2011 on Akhundov street [in Sumgait] [we, the police officers,] noticed a person who was swearing loudly without addressing anyone in particular ... We approached him and ... brought him to police station no. 4. There we found out that that [person] was [the applicant] ...” 42.     Police officers R.S. and A.M. submitted explanatory reports ( izahat ) to a superior police officer. Those reports were virtually identical to the report submitted by police officer N.M. 43.     On the day of the arrest police officer V.J. issued an administrative-offence report in respect of the applicant. The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 296 of the CAO. 44.     The applicant refused to sign the administrative-offence report. 45.     According to the applicant, he was never provided with a copy of the administrative-offence report or with other documents in his case file.   He was not given access to a lawyer after his arrest or while he was kept in police custody. 46.     According to a decision dated 31 March 2011, police officer V.J. decided to invite a lawyer to represent the applicant, without indicating at what stage the lawyer should join the proceedings. 47.     The applicant was brought before the Sumgait City Court on the day of his arrest. 48.     According to the applicant, he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice to represent him at the hearing, which began at 4   p.m.   He asked the judge to postpone the examination of the case for one hour so that his lawyer could arrive at the court. However, the judge decided to adjourn the hearing for only thirty minutes and to recommence the hearing at 4.30 p.m., which was not enough time for the applicant’s lawyer to arrive. 49.     According to the transcript of the court hearing, the applicant refused the assistance of a State-funded lawyer. 50.     The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of breaching public order by swearing at the location indicated by the police, and that he believed that the motive for his arrest had been his participation in the demonstration of 12 March 2011. 51.     The only witnesses questioned during the court hearing were police officers M.N., R.S. and A.M. They testified that the applicant had been swearing without addressing anyone in particular and that they had therefore taken him to a police station. 52.     The court found that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article   296 of the CAO and sentenced him to seven days’ “administrative” detention. 53.     The applicant lodged an appeal before the Sumgait Court of Appeal, presenting his version of the facts surrounding the arrest, and arguing that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first-instance court had not been fair. He urged the Sumgait Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court’s decision. 54.     It appears that the applicant prepared his written appeal with the assistance of a lawyer of his own choice. However, he participated in the hearing before the Sumgait Court of Appeal without his lawyer. 55.     On 15 April 2011 the Sumgait Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court, stating that its findings had been correct. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     1995 Constitution 56.     The relevant part of Article 49 of the Constitution reads as follows: Article 49 Freedom of assembly “... II. Everyone has the right, having notified the respective governmental bodies in advance, to assemble with other people peacefully and without arms, to organise meetings, demonstrations, protests and marches, and to stage pickets.” B.     Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998 57.     Under Article 5 of the Law, advance written notification is required in order to agree on the place and time of an assembly and the route of a march, with the purpose of enabling the relevant local executive authority to take necessary measures. The notification has to be done in writing five days before the demonstration. 58.     Other provisions of the Law provide the relevant local executive authority with broad powers to issue relevant orders so as to prohibit (Article 8 §§ IV and V) or stop (Article 8 § VI) a public assembly; to restrict or change the place, route and/or time of a public assembly (Article 9 §§ II and VII); and to designate specific areas for public assemblies (Article 9 §   VI). C.     Code of Administrative Offences of 2000 59.     At the material time, Article 375 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) provided as follows: Article 375 Defender and representative “... 375.3. A defender and a representative shall be allowed to participate in administrative-offence proceedings from the time an administrative-offence report is drawn up. If an individual is subjected to an administrative arrest for committing an administrative offence, a defender shall be allowed to participate in the administrative-offence proceedings from the moment of the administrative arrest. ...”   60.     Article 376 provided, at the material time, as follows: Article 376 Compulsory participation of a lawyer “... 376.2.     If it is impossible for the lawyer chosen by the person against whom administrative-offence proceedings are being carried out to attend, a judge ... shall appoint a lawyer for that person, in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan. 376.3.     If a person subjected to an administrative arrest has no possibility to hire a lawyer due to [his or her] financial situation, [his or her] legal assistance shall be funded by the State. In this case a lawyer may not refuse to carry out his or her duties.” 61.     Article 396 provided, at the material time, as follows: Article 396 Measures to secure administrative-offence proceedings “396.1.     An authorised official may use the following measures in order to prevent administrative offences, to establish the identity of a person, to draw up an administrative-offence report if this cannot be done at the place [of the administrative offence] and if the drawing up of a report is important, to ensure the correct and timely examination of [administrative-offence] cases, and to ensure the implementation of decisions in administrative-offence cases: ... 396.1.2.     administrative arrest; ...” 62.     Article 398 provided, at the material time, as follows: Article 398.1 Administrative arrest “398.1.     Administrative arrest, that is the short-term restriction of an individual’s liberty, may be applied in exceptional circumstances when deemed necessary for ensuring the correct and timely examination of an administrative-offence case or for the implementation of a decision in an administrative-offence case, except for instances set out in legislation. ...” 63.     Article 410 provided, at the material time, as follows: Article 410 Administrative-offence report “... 410.3.     An individual who is subject to administrative-offence proceedings or a representative of a legal entity shall be given an opportunity to familiarise himself with the administrative-offence report. 410.4.   ... An individual who is subject to the administrative-offence proceedings or a representative of a legal entity ... has the right to a copy of the administrative-offence report.” 64.     Article 414 provided, at the material time, as follows: Article 414 Communication of an [administrative-offence] report (a prosecutor’s decision) for examination “... 414.2.     A report ... concerning an administrative offence punishable by administrative detention shall be sent to a judge for examination immediately after it has been drawn up.” 65.     Article 422 provided, at the material time, as follows: Article 422 Time-limits for examination of administrative-offence cases “422.3.     Cases [concerning an administrative offence] punishable by administrative detention shall be examined on the day of receipt [by the court] of an administrative-offence report; cases against persons subjected to administrative arrest shall be examined at the latest within 48 hours of their arrest.” 66.     Under Article 368 a public prosecutor has the right to participate in administrative proceedings. Chapter 28 of the CAO enumerates the participants of administrative proceedings and their rights and obligations. This Chapter does not mention “the prosecution” – a police officer, public prosecutor or any other public official representing the prosecution – as a participant of the proceedings. III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC DOCUMENTS AND PRESS RELEASES A.     “Observations on the human rights situation in Azerbaijan: Freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly”, by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, CommDH(2011)33, 29 September 2011 67.     The relevant extracts of this document read as follows: “... Since the publication of his 2010 report, the Commissioner continued to receive reports of threats, harassment, and violence against journalists or youth activists. One of the Commissioner’s recommendations to the Azerbaijani authorities was to end practices of unjustified or selective criminal prosecution of journalists or others who may express critical opinions. However, resort to such methods has apparently not abated, as illustrated by the trial against Bakhtiyar Hajiyev, a youth activist and candidate in the 2010 parliamentary elections who was using social networking sites to organise a protest. The Ganja City Court sentenced him to two years in prison on 18 May 2011 for evading military service. The timing of his arrest and the charges against him appear to be indicative of an attempt to stop his activities, which were critical of the Government. ... A further case concerns Jabbar Savalan, a member of the youth group of the Azerbaijan Popular Front Party, who was sentenced on 4 May 2011 to two and a half years imprisonment by the Sumgait City Court on drug possession charges, after marijuana was said to be found in his possession. This happened soon after he had posted several critical comments against the authorities and called for protests via social networks. Several international governmental and non-governmental organisations have voiced their concerns about what they consider to be fabricated charges. ... [The Commissioner] is concerned by information indicating that in the past months several national and international NGOs have faced difficulties in carrying out their activities freely, and that some of them have even been obliged to cease their activities in Azerbaijan. ... The Commissioner is particularly concerned to hear that a building where several human rights organisations were located, including the Office of the Institute for Peace and Democracy, was demolished on 11 August 2011 in the framework of a reconstruction programme being implemented in Baku. ... The building’s occupants were unable to retrieve any of their belongings, and their working materials - such as computers, documents, and books - were destroyed. The circumstances of the demolition, which occurred in the evening, give reason to believe that it was carried out in retaliation against the activities of Leyla Yunus, the director of the Institute and owner of the house, who was an outspoken critic of corruption and forced evictions in Azerbaijan. ... [T]he Commissioner’s attention was drawn to the wave of arrests of activists and political opponents in connection with protests held in Baku in March and April 2011. According to the information received, these protests were sometimes dispersed with excessive force, and the work of journalists was hindered. The organisers were denied permission to demonstrate in a central square and other places in the city centre in Baku, and were instead authorised to hold a demonstration in the outskirts of the city. ... The Commissioner has on various occasions criticised the method of curbing the impact of a demonstration by allowing it to take place only at another time and at a less central location, thereby diminishing significantly the visibility of the rally and its message to the general public. ...” B.     Report by Nils Muižnieks, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, following his visit to Azerbaijan from 22   to 24 May 2013, CommDH(2013)14, 6 August 2013 68.     The relevant extracts of the report read as follows: “... 43. In recent years, the authorities have arrested and prosecuted online media actors, notably bloggers or social media activists, in moves which have often been described as retaliation against their online activities. ... This appears to have been the case for many bloggers who have since been freed, such as Adnan Hajizadeh and Emin Milli, arrested in early September 2009 for hooliganism after having posted a video on YouTube which was critical of the government. ... 53.     The issue of limitations imposed on freedom of assembly has regularly been raised by local and international observers in recent years. The most frequent problems encountered include the banning of demonstrations in central and easily accessible locations and the use of force to disperse the demonstrations which still go ahead, leading to arrests and, in some cases, harsh sentences. ... 64.     The Commissioner notes that the authorities have ... confirmed that the legislation does not require permission for rallies. However, the authorities appear to have interpreted it as requiring such permission, and a system of authorisation has in practice replaced the system of notification. Peaceful protesters have for instance been effectively banned from demonstrating in central Baku since 2006, despite advanced notification of the assemblies. Several requests by the political opposition or civil society to hold demonstrations were allegedly denied or, when allowed, organisers were obliged to have them in areas very remote from the city centre. ...” C. Resolution 1917 (2013) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: “The honouring of obligations and commitments by Azerbaijan”, 23 January 2013 69.     The relevant extracts of the resolution read as follows: “... 10. Regrettably, there is no political dialogue with the opposition parties outside parliament. The Assembly is concerned by the restrictive climate for the activities of the extra-parliamentary opposition, which complains about limitations imposed on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and the lack of access to the public media. 11. The establishment of an inclusive political system and a truly competitive and unrestrictive political environment requires full implementation of basic freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. The situation in Azerbaijan is preoccupying and the Assembly expresses its deep concern in this regard. ... 14. The Assembly is alarmed by reports from human rights defenders and domestic and international nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) about the alleged use of fabricated charges against activists and journalists. The combination of the restrictive implementation of freedoms with unfair trials and the undue influence of the executive results in the systemic detention of people who may be considered prisoners of conscience. ...” D. European Parliament Resolution of 12 May 2011 on Azerbaijan, P7_TA(2011)0243 70.     The relevant extracts of the resolution read as follows: “... The European Parliament, ... D. whereas a wide-ranging clampdown on freedom of expression and assembly is being carried out in Azerbaijan following the peaceful protests against the government on 11 March and 2 April 2011; whereas the clampdown includes arrests, harassment and intimidation of civil society activists, media professionals and opposition politicians in Azerbaijan, E. whereas the cases of the activists Jabbar Savalan and Bakhtiyar Hajiev are of particular concern; ... 1. Expresses its deep concern at the increasing number of incidents of harassment, attacks and violence against civil society and social network activists and journalists in Azerbaijan; 2.   Strongly deplores the practice of intimidating, arresting, prosecuting and convicting independent journalists and political activists on various criminal charges; 3. Deplores the arrest of around 200 people prior to, and during, the anti-government protests of 2 April 2011 in Baku; calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to allow peaceful protest as well as freedom of assembly, which are central tenets of an open and democratic society; deplores the physical violence used against protesters; ... 9. Calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to maintain a dialogue with members of civil-society organisations and to take all steps to allow individuals to freely engage in peaceful, democratic activities and to allow activists to organise freely and without government interference; 10. Encourages the Azerbaijani authorities to allow peaceful demonstrations to take place in relevant locations and urges them to refrain from intimidating the organisers by detaining them and charging them with criminal and other offences; regrets that some youth activists have been expelled from Baku State University after missing examinations while in police custody linked to their political activities; ...” E. Public Statement by Amnesty International: “Clampdown on activists intensifies in Azerbaijan ahead of 2 April protests”, EUR55/003/2011, 31 March 2011 71.     The relevant extracts of the public statement read as follows: “... Ahead of a 2 April protest organized by opposition political parties through Facebook, the authorities have today detained at least 11 prominent political activists, echoing the pre-emptive methods they used to suppress protests on 11 and 12 March. The wave of arrests began on 29 March when Nazim Abbasli from the Azerbaijan Democrat Party was arrested and given five days’ administrative detention. Today two members of the youth wing of opposition party Musavat, Elchin Salimov and Rauf Mammadov, were arrested today by police and questioned about the 2 April rally. Elchin [Salimov] was sentenced to seven days administrative detention. Police have also questioned the family of Musavat member Idris Emiraslanli in an attempt to ascertain his whereabouts. Deputy Chairman of the Azerbaijan Popular Front Party (APFP) Ilham Huseynli, APFP members Karim Mehdiyev, Mehdi Mehdiyev and Nemat Aliyev, Classical Popular Front Party member Yagub Babanli, and youth activists Khalid Amanli, Rovshan Nasili, and Tabriz Qasimov were all arrested today and remained in custody this evening. Ilham Huseynli, Nemat Aliyev, Tabriz Qasimov and Mehdi Mehdiyev have already been given sentences ranging between five and seven days’ administrative detention. They were convicted of “resisting police” or “disturbing the public order” despite the fact that the protests had yet to take place. Amnesty International is concerned that the trials were held behind closed doors. ... Young activists’ calls for a protest on March 11 were similarly blocked by the authorities. Several youth activists who posted the announcement of the protest on the internet were arrested on questionable charges and convicted in trials that reportedly failed to meet international standards. ... The latest call for protests on 2 April has met with a new wave of violence and intimidation directed against activists and journalists. ...” F.     News release by Human Rights Watch: “Activists Jailed Ahead of Planned Protest. International Partners Should Condemn Crackdown”, 1 April 2011 72.     The relevant extracts of the news release read as follows: “... Azerbaijani authorities have detained at least 10 opposition activists in an effort to prevent a public rally planned for April 2, 2011, in Baku, the capital, Human Rights Watch said today. The arrests are the government’s latest attempt to prevent the type of protests in North Africa and the Middle East from spreading to Azerbaijan. Police detained the activists on March 31 in Baku and various provinces. The protests planned for April 2 have been organized by Azerbaijan’s opposition parties and young social network users. The activists were quickly convicted in summary trials on charges of disobeying police orders and sentenced to administrative - or misdemeanor - detention ranging from five to thirteen days, which would keep them locked up beyond the protest date. ... Police in Sumgait, a city 40 kilometers north of Baku, rounded up at least two activists, Ibrahim Mammedzade, a political activist who ran in the November 2010 parliamentary elections, and Elchin Salimov, an opposition Musavat party youth activist. Police went to Mammedzade’s home on the morning of March 31 but did not find him there. Mammedzade later went to the Sumgait Municipal Police Department on his own accord, together with his lawyer, Asabali Mustafayev. After about an hour-long conversation with the deputy police chief, in which Mammedzade was asked about his educational background and political activities, the deputy police chief assured Mustafayev that Mammedzade would not be detained. However, later in the day, police detained him, and a court sentenced him to seven days administrative detention for allegedly disobeying a police order. The trial was closed, and the judge refused to wait for Mustafayev to arrive ... Mustafayev ... told Human Rights Watch that Salimov had been picked up at home in the early hours of March 31 and sentenced to seven days of administrative detention for disobeying a police order. ... The Mobile Group of Lawyers, a group uniting several lawyers and providing pro bono legal aid to the detainees, said that other activists detained in Baku on March 31 and convicted of disobeying police orders included: Rovshan Nasirli, blogger and active social network user, who was sentenced by the Yasamal District Court to nine days; Namat Aliyev, opposition Popular Front Party member, sentenced to seven days by Nizami District Court; Khalid Amanli, an opposition Musavat party youth activist, sentenced to eight days by Yasamal District Court; and Kerim Mehdiyev, the driver for the opposition Popular Front Party leader, sentenced to 13 days by the Binagadi District Court. ...” G.     Press release by Amnesty International: “Azerbaijan protests broken up as riot police move in”, 2 April 2011 73.     The relevant extracts of the press release read as follows: “... According to local rights groups six more activists had been detained yesterday in connection with the protest, bringing the total number of those arrested before the protest to 17. Vugar Hasanli, Teymur Abbasli, Ibrahim Ahmadzade and Tahir Abdullayev were arrested by police late on 1 April. They were picked up by officers from their homes in and around Baku. ... Vugar Hasanli has already been sentenced to 10 days administrative detention, while Ibrahim Ahmadzade was sentenced to 7 days administrative detention. At least seven individuals have now been sentenced to administrative detention, most under Article 310.1 of Azerbaijan’s Administrative Code which bans ‘willful disobedience of a police official.’ The majority of these trials took place behind closed doors, without the defendants having access to legal representation. “The fact that key organizers are being arrested in advance, and sentenced in closed trials of offences that have yet to take place, is indicative of the length to which the authorities are prepared to go to silence dissenting voices,” John Dalhuisen said. Political activists Arzu Musayev and Kifayet Musayev said police had told them not to leave their home district of Gadabay to attend the rally in Baku, and that when they did they were followed by police officers all day. Azerbaijan state TV has reported that the 2nd April protest is an attempt by foreign powers to destabilize Azerbaijan. State controlled television stations have also broadcast several programs depicting Facebook users as mentally ill. ...” H. Amnesty International Report: “The Spring That Never Blossomed. Freedoms Suppressed In Azerbaijan”, EUR55/011/2011, 2011 74.     The relevant extracts of the report read as follows: “... In addition to those convicted in relation to their involvement in the protests, the authorities have also brought questionable criminal charges against Vidadi Isgandarov, a human rights defender, and opposition leader Shahin Hasanli. While the charges are not directly related to their participation in the protests, the timing of their arrests, as well as the dubious nature of the charges and the lack of incriminating evidence strongly suggest that they too were targeted and punished for their political activities and the peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. ... Shahin Hasanli, managing board member of the Popular Front Party, was one of those arrested on 31 March prior to the 2 April opposition rally. ... He was convicted on 22 July and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for the possession of illegal arms. ... Shahin Hasanli, who was one of the main organizers behind the March and April protests, claims that the bullets were planted on him by the police at the time of his arrest and maintains that he has been targeted because of his political activities. Once again, the timing of Hasanli’s arrest a few days before the April protests, the nature of charges and the paucity of supporting evidence, all point strongly to the conclusion that his arrest was politically motivated. ...” I.     News release by Human Rights Watch: “Azerbaijan: Government Cracks Down to Prevent Protests. Authorities Detain Dozens and Suspend a Human Rights Group”, 12 March 2011 75.     The relevant extracts of the document read as follows: “... In at least three cases, the authorities are holding the activists on administrative charges just long enough to prevent them from participating in the planned protests. On March 8, police detained Rashadat Akhundov, a 27-year-old social media activist who was one of the first to call for the March 11 protest. Elchin Namazov, Akhundov’s lawyer, told Human Rights Watch that police in civilian clothes approached him as he was running errands in Baku and demanded his documents. When Akhundov replied that he did not have them but could ask his father to get them, the policemen grabbed him, twisted his arms, stuffed him into a car and drove away. His mother witnessed the incident and tried to intervene, but was shooed away. ... That day the Khatai District Court convicted him of disobeying police orders and sentenced him to five days of administrative detention. ... Also on March 8, police arrested Sahavat Sultanov, deputy head of the opposition party Musavat’s youth wing and an active social media user. Sultanov, 29, had actively promoted the March 12 opposition rally through his Facebook contacts and other outreach. ... Police then charged Sultanov with ‘auto hooliganism’ - violating traffic rules, an administrative offense. In a hearing that lasted only minutes a judge sentenced him to five days of administrative detention. ... On March 4, police detained Dayanat Babayev, a member of the opposition Popular Front Party’s (PFP) Youth Committee and an active Facebook and social network user. Babayev, 21, was very critical of the government in his postings but promoted peaceful public protests. His family and friends heard nothing until March 6, when they learned that he had been convicted, allegedly for disobeying a police order, an administrative offense, and sentenced to 10 days in detention. The court ruling says that Babayev had disobeyed police orders and insulted policemen who approached him to warn him not to use foul language while talking on the phone in public. Asabali Mustafayev, Babayev’s lawyer, who visited him in the detention center on March 7, said that Babayev was rounded up in an internet café in downtown Baku. Fifteen minutes after he arrived, three plainclothes policemen came in, twisted his arms and took him away with no explanation. ...” J.     Annual Freedom of Expression Report by the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety: “Azerbaijan’s Critical Voices Struggling for Survival”, 2012 76.     The relevant extracts of the report read as follows:   “... Freelance journalist Fuad Huseynov was arrested in October 2010 on trumped-up charges of hooliganism after exposing illegal activities of public officials in the Ujar region, in particular, involvement in drug trafficking and trafficking in persons. On 26 September 2011, Huseynov was sentenced to six and a half years in prison under Article 221.3 of the Criminal Code. One of the “victims” who testified against Huseynov later stated that he had been pressured into giving false testimony by a local mafia group. Huseynov had previously served two years of a three and a half year prison sentence on hooliganism charges, after he accused a former Ujar city police chief of drug-related crimes. At the end of the year, he remained in custody at Prison No. 12. ... Blogger and human rights defender with “Law and Rights 2010” Taleh Khasmammadov was arrested on 12 November 2011 in the Ujar region. He was charged with hooliganism under Criminal Code Article 221.2.2 and Article 221.3, as well as resisting arrest under Article 315.1. Khasmammadov was sentenced on 20   April to four years in prison. He is thought to have been targeted for exposing the criminal activities of local officials, including by posting a series of videos to YouTube containing interviews with victims of human rights abuses. ...” K. News release by Contact online news: “Ministry of Internal Affairs threatens participants of 2 April protest”, 31 March 2011 77.     The relevant extracts of the news release read as follows: “Attempts to breach public order [and] to hold a protest on 2 April at the central streets and squares of Baku, without agreement of the Baku City Executive Authority, will be vigorously prevented. The chief of the press service department of the MIA of Azerbaijan, Orkhan Mansurzade, informed [the] Turan [news agency about this]. ... We recall that the mayor’s office refused to give permission to the Ictimai Palata to hold a demonstration on 2 April in front of Narimanov cinema and proposed to hold the protest in Bibiheybet settlement. In its turn the Ictimai Palata decided to hold the protest at 2 p.m. on 2 April at the Fountains Square. In connection with this arrests of potential activists began.” THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 78.     Given the similarity of the facts and complaints raised in all three applications, the Court has decided to join the applications in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 79.     The applicants complained that their arrest and conviction had been measures used by the authorities to punish them for their political activity and to prevent them from attending the demonstration of 2 April 2011 organised in Baku by the opposition. They invoked Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association)   “1.     Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right