Opposition Figure Given 25 Days Administrative Detention

Posted on March 10, 2026March 17, 2026 by aiw_admin

Jeyhun Novruzov, head of the Sabail district branch of the Popular Front Party (AXCP), has been sentenced to 25 days of administrative detention.

According to the party, he was found guilty under:

Article 510 (petty hooliganism)
Article 535.1 (failure to obey police orders)

The AXCP states that Novruzov had criticized traffic police on Facebook four days prior, accusing them of unlawfully fining pedestrians. Novruzov was previously sentenced to 10 days in detention in December 2024 under similar charges, which he denied.

Novruzov is not the first activist to receive penalties for online criticism. Recent months have seen continued cases in Azerbaijan where individuals—particularly opposition activists—have been detained after posting criticism of authorities on Facebook. According to recent reporting by independent Meydan TV, numerous individuals who liked and commented on social media posts critical of the authorities have also faced penalties and charges.

Among them is Movsum Mammadov, who was sentenced to 30 days in prison after posting criticism of local authorities on social media; civic activist Konul Ahmadova, who was sentenced to 10 days in administrative detention; and Mushfig Abbasov, who was sentenced to 15 days in administrative detention.

Analysis of anonymized court decisions published on Azerbaijan’s electronic court portal shows that social media activity—particularly Facebook posts—is frequently referenced in administrative cases. Courts typically describe such activity using generalized phrases such as “sharing content on social networks” or “publishing information online,” while avoiding full quotation of the posts themselves. The content is legally framed as violating public order, often characterized as insulting, immoral, or disruptive. Evidence commonly includes screenshots and data extracted from mobile devices. Rather than prosecuting speech directly, courts tend to apply public-order provisions such as petty hooliganism, effectively translating online expression into administrative offenses.

Azerbaijan Uses Vague ‘Immorality’ Law to Imprison Critics

Posted on February 23, 2026March 23, 2026 by aiw_admin

Azerbaijan is now actively imprisoning civic activists and government critics under new administrative legislation signed into law by President Ilham Aliyev on 26 January 2026. The amendments, approved by parliament on 15 January, classify ‘immoral activity on social media directed against society and national morality’ as petty hooliganism — a shift from criminal to administrative liability that allows authorities to detain individuals immediately, without a criminal conviction.

On 5 February, activist Movsum Mammadov from the Kurdamir district was sentenced to 30 days in administrative detention for Facebook posts documenting poor living conditions in his community and criticising local authorities’ inaction. Friends reported that his critical posts were deleted from his account shortly after his arrest, and he became unreachable.

Under the new framework, ‘disrespectful actions’ on social media carry fines ranging from ₼50 ($30) to ₼2,000 ($1,200) depending on the circumstances and whether it is a repeat offence, and administrative arrest of up to 30 days, or up to two months for repeat offences.

Human rights lawyers have condemned the legislation as deliberately vague. Yalchin Imanov told OC Media that the broad language violates the principle of legal certainty — a foundational principle of law requiring that rules be clear, unambiguous, and have predictable consequences. He characterised the law as enabling total state control and driving widespread self-censorship. Fariz Namazli added that, unlike the previous criminal framework — which required a guilty verdict and was thus harder to apply swiftly — administrative liability can be imposed immediately, giving the state a far more powerful and instant tool to silence dissent. He noted that the previous law linked petty hooliganism to a breach of public order; the new law replaces this with the undefined concept of ‘manifest contempt for society’.

Movsum was not the only social media user. Also in February, Zeinab Zeinalli, a 25-year-old content creator known online as ‘Koti’ with approximately 300,000 followers, was remanded in custody for eight days after being charged with publishing obscene statements and openly disrespecting society. The Prosecutor General’s Office confirmed the charges. Pro-government outlet Okhu.az reported that Zeinalli’s prior offence — a ₼600 ($350) fine for promoting illegal gambling on Instagram in November 2025 — was a factor in the court’s decision to detain rather than fine her. She admitted in court to having insulted users who criticised her online, expressed remorse, and pledged to change her behaviour.

However, the crackdown on TikTokers predates the new law. According to OC Media reporting, Azerbaijan’s Interior Ministry had detained or summoned over 60 TikTok users in the first three months of 2024 alone for content deemed contrary to moral values, particularly during live broadcasts. At the time, the ministry’s spokesperson could not specify which articles of the administrative code the TikTokers were charged under, reflecting the legal ambiguity that preceded the January amendments.

Among those recently arrested for online content are also TikTokers Sardar Majnunov (Serdar Inanki) and Rena Jafarova (Renka), who were detained on 17 February for allegedly publishing content with ‘obscene expressions or gestures’. Majnunov was sentenced to 20 days in jail, while Jafarova was fined ₼750 ($440), with the court granting her leniency due to having an underage child. In early February, queer TikToker Salman Mammadov, who used his page Velizarofficial primarily to fundraise for sick people and children, was arrested and sentenced to 30 days of detention for ‘promoting immorality’.

Human rights lawyer Fariz Namazli told OC Media that the legislation remains deeply flawed: there are no precise criteria defining what constitutes offensive, immoral, or morality-violating expression, and courts have consistently failed to justify why specific posts are deemed contrary to national values.

administrative detention handed over social media posts

Posted on June 27, 2023June 24, 2024 by aiw_admin

Former political prisoner, Giyas Ibrahimov was sentenced to 30 days in administrative detention on bogus charges of resisting police on June 22. On June 24, new charges were leveled against the activist, accusing Ibrahimov of spreading prohibited information on the Internet (Article 388.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses). The former was handed down to the activist after Ibrahimov voiced criticism against the state over its mishandling of popular unrest in one of the villages in western Azerbaijan. The latter is related to the former accusation, punishing Ibrahimov over his social media post.

Ibrahimov is not the first activist to be questioned or held accountable over activity on social media platforms. AIW has documented how over the years activists, rights defenders, and journalists have been called into questioning, detained or sentenced, and asked to remove or apologize over their social media commentary.

The controversial law on Information, Informatisation, and Protection of Information was first adopted in 1998. In March 2017, a series of restrictive amendments were added to the law, converting the law from a technical regulation into a content regulation. In March of 2020, the law was updated yet again. In a previous analysis of the law, AIW together with a legal expert identified some of the key challenges and loopholes in the law, such as:

In the list of prohibited information envisaged in the Law on Information, Informatisation, and Protection of Information, the definition of what entails prohibited content is described with vague expressions that are open to excessive interpretations. With these terms, the state authorities “enjoy” a broad discretion power to categorize any information as prohibited (Law № 460-IQ);
Amendments to an existing bill on Information provisions, Informatization, and Protection of Information extended the subjects – to users – of responsibilities for placement of prohibited information, including the “false information” on information-telecommunication networks.This means that amendments establish the liability over the information-telecommunication network users to place prohibited content on the information-telecommunication networks; The amendments also added an item to the list of prohibited content, forbidding the placement of false information: thus, prohibited information was considered “false information [yalan məlumatlar] in case it posed a threat to harm human life and health, cause significant property damage, mass violation of public safety, disrupt life support facilities, financial, transport, communications, industrial, energy and social infrastructure facilities or other socially dangerous consequences.”In other words, if users placed content on the internet that might be considered false information capable to disrupt the functioning of state bodies or their activities it can be considered on the grounds of violating the existing law.

Article 388 of the administrative offenses

During the same plenary meeting in March 2020, an amendment to article 388-1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (CAO) of Law No. 27-VIQD was also approved.

Article 388-1 of the CAO was aggravated with the penalty of up to one-month administrative detention with other sanctions against real or legal person owners of internet information resources and associated domain names as well as on users of information-telecommunication networks for the placement, or the violation of provisions of the Information Law aiming at preventing the placement, of prohibited information on such internet information resources.

With the amendments introduced to laws, users of the information-telecommunication network, owners of internet information resources, and domain names might be punished under Article 388-1 of the CAO. The penalty for the offense is a fine between 500 and 1000 manats (about US$294–$588) for real persons and 1000 to 1500 manats for officials, with an option of up to one month of administrative detention for both classes of persons depending on the circumstances and the identity of the offender.

During the first year of the pandemic, the same administrative offense was used to target scores of political activists.

Recent arrests and detentions

On June 23, journalist Ulvi Hasanli was also invited for questioning over a Facebook post. After being kept for several hours and questioned about the post, Hasanli was asked to remove the post which he declined to do on the grounds there was nothing illegal about the content of the post. He was later released. Earlier the same month, Amrah Tahmazov, a civic activist was sentenced to 30 days in administrative detention. While police claim the activist was arrested over hooliganism and disobeying police, Tahmazov and his friends, believe the arrest was over his social media post in which he criticized President Ilham Aliyev. In March, civic activist, Elvin Mustafayev (known online as Atilla Khan) was sentenced to 25 days in administrative detention on charges of petty hooliganism and disobeying police in Saatli province of Azerbaijan. According to Mustafayev’s friends, the activist was reprimanded for his critical-of-the-authorities comments and posts on Facebook. Since mid-March, residents of Saatli have been protesting water shortage. In February, a member of the opposition Popular Front party was sentenced to 25 days in administrative detention. Police accused the activist of resisting police, while party members claimed the arrest was over the activist’s social media posts in which he often criticized the authorities. This is by no means an exhaustive list as it only includes cases from recent months.

Previous reports: