activist taken from his home after a social media post

Activist Latif Mammadov was reportedly taken from his home, after posting on social media a critical post, about President Ilham Aliyev’s comments on recent protests in the village of Soyudlu

Mammadov is the third civic activist to be detained/questioned by law enforcement over online commentary about the village protests. 

On June 22, political activist and former political prisoner Giyas Ibrahimov was arrested and sentenced to 30 days in administrative detention on bogus charges of resisting police. 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.  

On June 21, police arrested another activist and board member of the opposition NIDA Youth Movement, Elmir Abbasov. He was sentenced to 20 days in administrative detention for disobeying police. The movement said, the charges leveled against Abbasov were bogus, and the real reason behind the activist’s arrest was his Facebook post about the protests and the state’s violent response to the residents of the village. Abbasov was released on July 11. 

In recent years, scores of activists, rights defenders, and journalists have been called into questioning, detained or sentenced, or held accountable over activity on social media platforms. 

another activist sentenced over social media post

Amrah Tahmazov, a civic activist was sentenced to 30 days in administrative detention. While police claims 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 the President Ilham Aliyev. 

According to reporting by Meydan TV, Tahmazov was detained on May 27. After being held at the police station for two days, the activist was taken to court, where he received the 30 day administrative detention sentence. 

The social media post

On May 16, Tahmazov, posted on his Facebook profile, about jailed political activist Alizamin Salayev. Salayev was on a hunger strike for more than 100 days over his unlawful arrest. Highlighting his case, Tahmazov wrote on Facebook, calling on President Aliyev to release Salayev, “you have made this nation sick, you have made everyone sick. Get your hands off the man. Let us live.”

Three days after Tahmazov posted the status, police showed up at his address. The activist’s parents told the police he was not home. Writing about this Tahmazov said, “I don’t like to exaggerate but if they come after me, know that its because of the previous post [about Salayev].”

The arrest

The indictment against Tahmazov claims the activist was arrested by the police after he was heard cursing on the street in downtown Baku, accusations the activist denies. According to Meydan TV’s reporting, during the appellate court hearing on June 10, the court ruled to keep the activist behind bars. 

Tahmazov’s lawyer, Zibeyde Sadigova told Meydan TV they intend to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

The charges of hooliganism and disobeying police are often used against civic and political activist in Azerbaijan.  

activist sentenced to 25 days in administrative detention over social media posts

On March 18, 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.

Mustafayev lives in Saatli himself and he wrote about the protest and police violence he witnessed. Shortly after he was called in for questioning and arrested on the spot on bogus allegations. According to reports, riot police used rubber bullets and tear gas against local residents who took the streets to voice their grievances.

Local opposition parties recognized Mustafayev’s detention as politically motivated

political activist arrested over social media post

Member of the opposition Popular Front party, Zaur Usubov, was arrested on February 21 and sentenced to 25 days in administrative detention according to reporting by Turan News Agency. The activist was officially charged with an all too common article – resisting police. 

Popular Front said, Usubov, was arrested over critical of the authorities’ social media posts, and that the charges leveled against the member are bogus. 

According to Turan News Agency, Usubov is the sixth party member arrested this year [2023] so far. Five of them, including Usubov, were handed administrative detention while another member is facing criminal charges while the investigation is ongoing. 

Police in Azerbaijan is accustomed to resorting to physical measures against civic activists who are critical of the authorities online. As documented by Az-Net Watch, there have been scores of similar examples in the past.  

political activist and blogger detained

On June 23, Elchin Ibrahimli, a member of an opposition party was detained according to local news reports. He was sentenced to 30 days in administrative detention the following day, said members of the party. According  to reports, the activist allegedly resisted police and as a result was sentenced on charges of resisting the police according to the Code of Administrative Offenses, Article 535. 

In a statement issued by the Ministry of the Interior, the blogger is said to have failed to show up in person at the police station despite numerous invitations. 

According to Azadliq Radio, Azerbaijan Service for Radio Liberty, Ibrahimli was arrested from his home. Speaking to the radio, Faig Jafarzade, the party regional head, said Ibrahimli is an active social media user and that his arrest is rooted in his political activism.  

In Azerbaijan, one man sentenced to ten months over a series of tweets

The 35-year-old resident of Nakhchivan was arrested in April, 2021. He was charged with Article 148 of the Ciminal Code (slander or insult using fake accounts on internet information services). In June, the Nakhchivan City Court sentenced the user to ten months.  According to Azerbaijan Service for Radio Liberty reporting, the same court, reviewed the motion filed against the court’s June decison on October 24. In its ruling, the court decided to replace the sentence with a fine. Taking into account, the time spent behind bars since April, the court then also ruled to remove the fine. 

The man, whose name is only identified by his initials, K.M., was jailed over a series of tweets from 2020, targeting the head of the Supreme Assembly of the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan, Vasif Talibov. 

AIW was unable to verify the tweets. Only two tweets with the same text appeared in search results. Both belonged to two different users. 

This is the first case where a user of social media platform, was arrested and then jailed explicitly over a text posted online and specifically on Twitter. Previously reported cases of harassment and initimidation of online activists, including detentions and/or arrests were justified with other offenses listed under the Criminal Code. Most common charges are hooliganism, disobeying authority, and drug posession. 

blogger handed seven year jail sentence [Updated May 5]

[Update] According to OC Media, Gurbanov was relocated to a prison, which the lawyer says, is in breach of the law. Speaking to OC Media, lawyer Fariz Namazli said, the relocation was illegal as the defendant is awaiting the result of an appeal case. “This [the decision to relocate Gurbanov] was explained to me by the fact that the detention centre was overcrowded and there were a large number of detainees,” Namazli told OC Media. Meanwhile, Gurbanov’s brother said his brother was placed in solitary confinement over an alleged fight. Gurbanov’s lawyer Namazli could not confirm but said he has filed an appeal for further investigation. 

On April 15, blogger, Aslan Gurbanov was sentenced to seven years on charges of calls to overthrow the government and incitement of national, religious, and social hatred, according to Azadliq Radio, Azerbaijan Service for Radio Free Liberty. Gurbanov was arrested on July 14. During his arrest, the blogger suffered from a seizure according to the Justice for Journalists records.

Gurbanov was arrested by the State Security Services and sentenced to four months detention. He was kept at the SSS’s pre-trial detention facility until the trial. 

According to the Azadliq Radio report the blogger was accused of anti-government propaganda on social media platforms and instigated national discrimination – the accusations, Gurbanov refutes. Contrary to the alleged claims that the blogger was disseminating false stories about the discrimination against the Talysh people – an ethnic minority group in Azerbaijan. 

In a statement issued by the Talysh Public Council of Azerbaijan, the group said, Gurbanov promoted Talysh culture and literature, and that accusing the blogger of plotting against the state was unsubstantiated. 

Gurbanov is not the first Talysh activist to be targeted in Azerbaijan. In 2007, the then editor of Talysho Syado (‘Talysh Voice’) newspaper Novruzali Mamedov was arrested initially on charges of ‘resisting law enforcement.’ He was later charged with treason. In his first 15 days in custody, Mamedov was held incommunicado at a [now former] Ministry of National Security detention center, and neither family members nor lawyers were able to visit him. In June 2008, Mamedov was convicted of treason for the ‘distribution of Talysh nationalist ideas and attempts to destroy the foundations of the Azerbaijani state’ and sentenced to 10 years in prison in a closed trial, in absence of his defense attorney, relatives, and the press. The prosecutors alleged that Mamedov received money from Iran to publish the newspaper, but failed to explain or comment on the charges publicly.

Mamedov died in prison in August 2009 as a result of a variety of health problems for which he never received adequate medical care reported Radio Liberty. 

In September 2013, another Talysh journalist, Hilal Mamedov was sentenced to five years in jail on charges of selling drugs, high treason including espionage for Iran, and incitement to national, racial, social, and religious hatred and hostility. Hilal Mamedov took over the editorial of the Talysho Syado after Novruzali Mamedov’s arrest. The journalist was pardoned in 2016 following the Presidential pardon decree. 

member of opposition party sentenced to 30 days [Update April 5, 2022]

[Update] On March 31, Shahin Haciyev was sentenced to six years on bogus drug possession charges. Haciyev was arrested in November of last year. Speaking in court, Haciyev’s lawyer said the charges were unsubstantiated and that he will be appealing the court’s decision, according to reporting by Meydan TV. The opposition Popular Front Party condemned the sentence, calling the charges false and stressing that the arrest was connected to Haciyev’s criticism of the authorities on social media. In February, two other members of the Popular Front Party, Gulnara Rahimova and Matanat Mahmarzayeva (Turan) were questioned by the police over their social media posts. 

On March 19, a member of the opposition Popular Front party, Shahin Haciyev was sentenced to 30 days administrative detention. According to Azadliq Radio, Azerbaijan Service for Radio Liberty, Haciyev was taken from his home in the city of Ganja on March 17. Two days later, a court sentenced Haciyev to 30 days administrative detention. According to the radio service, his charges are unknown. 

The party spokesperson in an interview with Azadliq Radio said Haciyev’s arrest is directly linked to his political activism and criticism of authorities online. “He was a staunch critic of the regime. This is why he was arrested in January 2021 and sentenced to 25 days in administrative detention for disobeying authority – Article 535.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.”

The Ministry of the Interior has not yet responded. 

one blogger and activist arrested [updated November 8]

[Update] Blogger Elchin Hasanzade, was released from jail on November 2 according to reporting by Meydan TV. Following his release, Hasanzade said, “I am free. I must go on. The fight against corrupted and tyrant officials continues from where it stopped.”

[Update] Turan News Agency reported on August 10 that blogger Elchin Hasanzade was transferred to a medical facility of the Penitentiary Service. Hasanzade’s relatives told Turan that the blogger’s health worsened in prison. In addition to his already existing condition, the blogger suffers from a kidney infection. 

[Update] Azadliq Radio reported on June 14 that the health of jailed blogger Hasanzade is critical. The news platform said the blogger was diagnosed with narrowing of the aortocoronary arteries. 

[Update] According to Azerbaijani online news platform Gozetci.az, jailed blogger Hasanzade is suffering from health complications. Hasanzade’s wife said, her husband is complaining of pain in his heart and kidneys and that he was transferred to a medical ward for treatment. 

On March 2, blogger Elchin Hasanzade and activist actor Ibrahim Salamov were sentenced to eight months in prison on accounts of slander and insult of the Criminal Code by the Sheki Court of Appeals. 

The two men are accused of criticizing a man named Shahriyar Mustafayev, who heads the Housing Department of the city of Mingachevir in their articles and social media posts. Both men, claim the allegations are bogus and that they are being punished for exposing the arbitrariness of Mingachevir city officials instead. 

Blogger Elchin Hasanzade, who has worked with some of the local papers in the city of Sumgayit, prior to his temporary relocation to Mingachevir, claims he was kicked out of an apartment he lived, in Mingachevir because of his criticisms against local officials online. And that it is the head of the city administration who is behind their arrest.

The head of the housing department refutes the claims in the meantime.  

The case dates back to November 2020, when the head of the housing department appealed to the local court. At the time, both men were sentenced to one year of correctional labor. The private prosecutor was dissatisfied with the verdict and appealed against the aggravation of Hasanzadeh’s and Turksoy’s sentences.

Correction: the previous version of this article referred to Ibrahim Salamov as an activist. Salamov is also a theater actor at the Mingachevir State Drama Theater. 

Restrictive new bills sweep freedoms under the carpet [part 1]

This is part one in a series of detailed reports and analysis on existing legal amendments and new legislation affecting freedom of expression, media, and online rights in Azerbaijan and their compliance with international standards for freedom of expression.  

In March of last year, AIW shared an update about amendments to an existing bill on Information provisions, Informatization, and Protection of Information and Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Now, let’s take a closer look at these amendments and what they entail. 

Amendments to the Information Law

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.

Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences

During the same plenary meeting on March 17, 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.

Implementation of the Amendments (abuse of application)

Shortly after the amendments, police applied these provisions frequently against individuals, including political activists and journalists despite the call from the United Nations, Council of Europe, and OSCE expert bodies urging the authorities to address the disinformation in the first instance by relevant government institutions, providing reliable information and resorting to other restrictive measures, only where they met the standards of necessity and proportionality. This did not prevent authorities from targeting a number of activists and journalists in the following days.

On April 16, 2020, Human Rights Watch documented how Azerbaijani authorities abused quarantine restrictions allegedly to fight with disinformation while arresting opposition activists and silencing the government critics. HRW documented at least six activists and opposition journalists’ sentenced to detentions ranging from 10 to 30 days.

March 21, 2020, Ilgar Atayev was called in for questioning and charged with article 388.1 of the code of administrative offenses – sharing prohibited information on the Internet or Internet – telecommunication networks. According to Meydan TV, an independent online news platform, although Atayev informed that the charges against him were sent to court, he was not aware of the exact accusation. Authorities claimed at the time, Atayev, shared information on COVID without quoting official sources and that the shared information was false.

March 23, 2020, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ press service, three people were administratively arrested for allegedly spreading misinformation about the coronavirus infection.

March 27, 2020, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ press service, between March 26 and 27, 15 people were identified and summoned to the local police on the grounds of allegedly spreading misinformation about the coronavirus infection on social networks and WhatsApp instant messaging application. After the relevant investigations, police warned seven people, fined five, and sentenced three to administrative detention.

April 4, 2020, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ press service, during the control measures carried out between April 1-2, one person was administratively arrested, and five people were fined for allegedly spreading false information about the coronavirus infection on social networks, including WhatsApp instant messaging application.

April 6, 2020, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ press service, one person received a warning for allegedly spreading false information about the coronavirus infection on social networks, including WhatsApp instant messaging application.

Amid on-going arrests, detentions, and fines, on April 3, 2020, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement noting that press freedom must not be undermined by measures to counter disinformation about COVID-19.

Analysis of the law

Content regulation rules and policies which presumably touch on the freedom of speech must meet the strict criteria under international and regional human rights law. According to the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, a strict three-part test is required for any content-based restriction.

The Court notes that the first and most crucial requirement of Article 10 of the Convention is that any interference by a public authority with the exercise of the freedom of expression should be lawful.

The second paragraph of Article 10 stipulates that any restriction on expression must be “prescribed by law”. Furthermore, any restrictions need to be necessary for a democratic society [See Sunday Times v. UK (No. 2), Series A no. 217, 26.11.1991, para. 50; Okçuoğlu v. Turkey, No. 24246/94, 8.7.1999, para. 43.] and the state interference should correspond to a “pressing social need”.[See Sürek v. Turkey (No. 1) (Application No. 26682/95), the judgment of 8 July 1999, Reports 1999; Sürek (No. 3) judgment of 8 July 1999.] The state response and the limitations provided by law should be “proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued” [See Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III.] Therefore, the necessity of the content-based restrictions must be convincingly established by the state [The Observer and The Guardian v. the United Kingdom, the judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 29-30, § 59.]

The Law on Information, Informatisation, and Protection of Information (Law № 460-IQ)

In 2017, the Law (1998) was updated with a series of restrictive amendments, converting the Law from a technical regulation into a content regulation.

Primary concerns of the Law concerning content regulation:

Owner of the Internet information resource, including owners of the domain name, host, and internet providers bear a strict administrative liability to remove the content manifestly prohibited under article 13-2.3 within 8 hours of notice;

In urgent cases, [when the legally protected interests of the state and society are threatened or there is a real threat to human life and health requires to do] the internet information resource may be temporarily restricted on the basis of a decision of the regulatory body – Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies [restriction is applied without a court order. Although an application is made to the court, the decision to close down the online information source remains in force until the court handles the case or the decision is annulled.]

In refusing to remove the content upon the government’s notice within the 9 hours, owners of internet information resources, owners of domain names, host, and internet providers will face a court sue with possible administrative sanctions.

Safeguards against removal and blocking procedures:

Article 13-3.1 of the law provides that the relevant executive authority (regulatory body) shall issue a warning to the owner of the Internet information resource and its domain name and the hosting provider in writing if it directly discovers cases of placement of prohibited information in the Internet information resource or identifies it based on substantiated information received from individuals, legal entities or government agencies;

Existing legislation and practice concerning content removal and blocking do not provide adequate safeguards against arbitrariness;

for instance, there is no requirement to inform the information resource owners, Internet and host providers or owners of other sites and their users before issuing the content removal warning, and failure to implement the warning leads to a penalty because the Code of Administrative Offenses provides for liability for both the posting of prohibited information and the failure to remove prohibited information posted on the Internet.

The Law on Information, Informatisation, and Protection of Information provide that warning about content removal is considered a mandatory requirement and that failure to obey is sanctioned under Article 388-1.1 of the CAO and possible court sue for block order.

Content removal and blocking procedures also lack transparency and fairness:

The law does not oblige the regulatory body to provide the information resource owners, internet and host providers, or other sites’ substantiated opinion reasoning for the content prohibited. In other words, the regulatory body and other state authorities can request to remove the content or block access to websites without any obligation to substantiate their demands.

Vague Terms and Quality Law Standards:

Sufficient clarity is the requirement of the quality law standard established by the ECHR case-law which requires that the law be both adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual to foresee the consequences which a given action may entail, and indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise [see Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000‑XI; and Ahmet Yıldırım, cited above, §§ 57 and 59].

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). 

For instance, article 13-2.3.2 of the Law (№ 460-IQ) classifies the information on the promotion of violence and religious extremism and calls for the separation of territorial integrity as prohibited content. The religious extremism and calls for the separation of territorial integrity are vague terms and lack sufficient clarity.

The Law on Combat with Religious Extremism (LCRE) adopted in December 2015, in article 1.0.1.1 defines religious extremism with vague and problematic expressions. The Law refers to acts as “humiliating national dignity,” “compromising religion,”  and “preparing, storing and disseminating religious extremist material” as amounting to religious extremism. Expressions such as “national dignity” or “humiliation of national dignity” are non-legal concepts that are not defined in the domestic laws and therefore subject to broad interpretation by the authorities applying them, opening the way to misinterpretation of the concept and its application in an arbitrary manner [Furthermore, article 1.0.1.6 of the LCRE refers to “forcing someone to practice any religion (religious belief), including performing religious ceremonies and rituals as well as to religious education” as another act of religious extremism, which is equally problematic and may collide with the idea of spreading ideas of religious beliefs and inviting others to join, as a part of exercising freedom of religion, subject to the interpretation of the two concepts by the authorities, in absence of any criteria or clear terms in place. As the ECtHR has ruled, freedom of religion and the freedom to change religion in particular cover activities aimed at persuading others to change religion.]

Procedural safeguards:

Another problematic provision is article 13-2.3.9 of the law, which classifies insult and slander as the prohibited content online. Generally, the legislation of Azerbaijan provides for both civil action and criminal prosecution of defamation. As to the criminal prosecution of defamation, as of March 2017, there are four articles in the Criminal Code that provide criminal liability for defamation. With the amendments to the Law on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information and Code of Administrative Offences on 17 March 2020, defamation is now sanctioned under the code of administrative offenses.

In practice, police often apply this provision against people who allegedly insult police or other state officials. 

On June 27, 2020, police arrested and fined several individuals who criticized the singers who devoted a song to the police claiming, they allegedly insulted the singers on social networks, insulted their honor and dignity. Meydan TV’s investigation revealed that most of those punished were representatives of opposition parties such as the Popular Front, Musavat and public activists. They were punished under Article 388-1 (posting of information prohibited from dissemination on the Internet).

However, the application of this provision contradicts with the domestic legislation. In Azerbaijan, it is not up to the police to classify the information on the grounds of slander or insult and instead is defined exclusively by the respective domestic courts upon the complaints of the individuals.

According to well-established court practice, courts always decide to conduct an expert examination to assess whether information/opinion is insulting or slanderous, and then the judge relies on the result of the expert examination. Furthermore, the law does not exclude the possibility that the same statement may be subject to both civil and criminal proceedings for defamation. 

Furthermore, the law does not specify how the sanction might be imposed if alleged prohibited content is identified. It is not clear from the text whether the website user will bear the responsibility alone or together with the owner of the internet or host provider. It is seemingly left to the executive authority to decide. For instance, in the case of a media article that allegedly contains prohibited content, the government may block the website forever in parallel, imposing sanctions on the content owner (user of the information resource).

Proportionate and necessary:

As discussed above, if the restriction does not meet proportionality and necessity requirements, the content removal or blocking measures may lead to violation of freedom of expression guaranteed under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Law on Information, Informatisation, and Protection of Information fail to specify a definition of the categories of blocking orders, such as blocking of entire websites, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, ports, network protocols or types of use, like social networking, including a limit on the duration of the blocking order which is crucial parameters of the interference to assess whether applied methods are proportionate and necessary in a democratic society to limit the freedom of expression.

Conclusion

This ambiguous law gives extensive flexibility for the state to consider different, particularly critical views as false and government views as correct. The new amendments stipulate that the information shared on the Internet, which disrupts activities of the state institutions, is prohibited and punishable under the Code of Administrative Offences. While false information is also prohibited and punishable if such information threatens other socially dangerous consequences, which the law does not define. 

Such vague definitions and ambiguous expressions provide extensive discretion powers for the state authorities, allowing them to label critical views as false and prohibited. Given the abovementioned concerns, the Law on Information, Informatisation, and Protection of Information does not comply with international standards on freedom of expression. Its scope remains incredibly broad in terms of vague definitions, lack of safeguards, and procedural guarantees.