law on media – Azerbaijan Internet Watch

The State of Internet Freedom in Azerbaijan – 2022 legal overview

Posted on March 9, 2023 by aiw_admin

In this final installment of legal analysis, we offer an overview of some of the key developments covered over the last year with relevant updates within what is seemingly becoming a restrictive internet freedom environment.

Summary

From gradually declining space for online media, the visible pattern of offline persecution for online speech, to the lack of protection mechanisms against personal data infringements, and the ineffectiveness of legal remedies against targeted cyber-attacks and harassment, the research and documentation carried out by Azerbaijan Internet Watch throughout 2022, has shown that over the past year, there has been a significant negative impact, on internet freedoms.

It’s been especially tough for independent media practitioners who are facing the potential prospects of fines, complete closures, and further measures of control and intimidation. The signs of the deteriorating situation were already sown in January 2021 when the government of Azerbaijan announced the establishment of a new media body – the Media Development Agency [MEDIA] and the drafting of a new Media Law. This law which was passed in December 2021, effectively authorized the MEDIA to impose a number of restrictions on media subjects, including a requirement for mandatory registration of journalists with the authorities. As a result, the Law on Media further consolidated the state control over independent and online media.

Over the course of the past year, the general prosecutor’s office continued to persecute online speech by excessively relying on the Law on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information combined with existing national legislation empowering the Prosecutor’s Office to take measures where it deems necessary. As a result, as documented in this but also prior reports, there have been numerous cases of social media users and media professionals facing fines, and other arbitrary punishments for exercising their right to freedom of speech, all on vaguely defined legal grounds.

AIW also identified that the government of Azerbaijan continuously failed to protect personal data effectively, either as a result of outdated laws, lack of technical capacity, or political will to address the issue. This is evident in numerous examples of hacked databases over the decade, where obtained personal data was shared or transferred to third parties, without consent, leaving countless users vulnerable. To make matters worse, the unlimited access by law enforcement and special service agencies to users’ personal data, leaves users at risk not to mention, the absence of privacy protection. The research carried out by AIW also showed there are no proper safeguard mechanisms against the abuse of personal data especially when this information is sold for commercial purposes, with subscribers left deprived of their right to know where their data is sent or sold.

Meanwhile, law enforcement authorities failed to offer an effective response to addressing complaints requesting a criminal investigation into the personal data infringements despite there being ample evidence proving that the personal data in question was indeed obtained through stolen or hacked accounts and later unlawfully distributed online.

The Pegasus litigations, including the targeted cyber-attacks on social media accounts of media professionals and activists, have also proved ineffective as a result of significant flaws and delays in the investigation process. The domestic litigations regarding the use of surveillance software (Pegasus) led to legal applications to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), exposing ill-intended practices of state secret surveillance agencies and inadequate national legislation, which has failed to ensure the protection of the rights of all users of telecommunication services as guaranteed by the Convention and the national laws.

Above mentioned domestic litigations also exposed the lack of adequate protective measures for privacy rights, especially in cases of covert surveillance and state-sponsored cyberattacks. Judicial remedies in place have been insufficient, and the existing civil and administrative avenues, require a heavy burden of proof on claimants.

As such, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) remains the most effective international avenue for legal remedies against violations of internet freedoms in Azerbaijan, despite the systematic delays in executing ECtHR judgments. The legal overview carried out throughout the past year indicates that bringing more applications before international tribunals, including the ECtHR and the Human Rights Committee, is essential for protecting privacy rights and countering violations.

Meanwhile, the government of Azerbaijan must adopt effective legal remedies and procedural safeguards against unlawful access to personal data and covert surveillance.

Restricting the Media: Implications for Online Media. Post-March 2022 developments

Online media in Azerbaijan faces significant challenges with respect to freedom of expression and internet freedoms. There are a growing number of restrictive laws regulating the internet and online content. In addition, the government of Azerbaijan systematically blocks websites, throttles internet connectivity, and carries out cyberattacks and surveillance on human rights and political activists, independent media outlets, and their staff.

On March 24, 2022, Azerbaijan Internet Watch, in its comprehensive legal opinion “New Media Law: implications for online media/journalism in Azerbaijan”, highlighted the adverse implications of the new Media law specifically for on online media and journalistic activities online in Azerbaijan.

On February 8, 2022, the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev approved the new Media Law. The law was adopted by Parliament on December 30, 2021. It was heavily criticized by local and international rights organizations who made repeated calls on the government to refrain from adopting the new Law given its restrictive nature. Critics of the draft law worried the new legal document would seriously threaten media freedom, including online media, as it contained provisions granting discretionary powers to the state authorities, including excessive media regulation, especially of online media platforms, as well as further restrictions on the work of practicing journalists, media companies, and relevant entities. Critics were also vocal about the absence of a broad and meaningful public consultation of the law prior to its adoption. The government of Azerbaijan strongly rejected any criticism.

And yet, AIW’s legal analysis, illustrated how the new law empowered media regulatory authorities to issue sanctions, further consolidating government control over the online media environment and journalistic activity, and imposing numerous requirements and regulations on audiovisual media, print media, online media subjects, news agencies, and journalist activities in Azerbaijan. The main concerns included the poorly worded definitions, excessive requirements, and restrictions for online media content, including registration requirements within the newly set up Media Registry for online media subjects, their staff, and freelance journalists working for online media.

The Media environment was already marred with violations and censorship in Azerbaijan prior to the adoption of the law. Numerous news websites were blocked while media practitioners affiliated with independent or opposition media platforms faced persecution and widespread intimidation. The most recent World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders ranked Azerbaijan 167th out of 180 countries in 2022.

Unlike previous media regulations implemented before 2009 which were mostly indirect restrictions and failed to meet satisfactory international human rights standards, laws that were adopted, amended, or implemented in the following years focused on more formal-legal measures. The new Media Law was the culmination of these measures.

Pre-2009 restrictions mainly consisted of de facto limitations (such as the imprisonment of journalists on bogus charges that were often unrelated to the media legislation) and financial “support” (one-time financial assistance packages, individual scholarships, various orders, medals, free housing after 2011).

Ahead of its adoption in the parliament, the new Media Law was drafted behind closed doors, without public discussions. Even after the draft law was revealed to the public, recommendations and proposals offered by media experts were not taken into account. Several international human rights organizations criticized the new Media Law and urged the Government not to enact the Law.

Among some of the problematic areas of the law are:

*Article 14:

This specific article and its paragraphs require that information published and (or) disseminated in the media (including online media) must meet at least 14 requirements. The law also requires that content published by media outlets should meet the requirements of the Law on Protection of Children from Harmful Information and the Law on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information which provides an exhaustive list of requirements criticized for vagueness.

*Article 60:

Article 60 paragraph 5, requires online media to publish at least 20 articles per day to qualify as an online media platform.

This is the first time a law defines what constitutes online media. But the rationale behind these measures is unclear. The article does not mention for instance, how newsrooms with smaller teams are meant to produce twenty articles per day. Independent journalists who have voiced concern over this specific article say, this creates an environment of news pollution with platforms focused on producing poorer stories aimed at simply meeting the imposed quota.

It also requires that online media outlets disclose their organizational information on their respective websites;

It also requires online media to register with the tax authorities, identify and appoint a person responsible for editorial;

*Article 62:

Article 62.1 reads that permission from state bodies is not required for setting up online media. But Article 62.2 requires that an online media entity must apply to the relevant executive authority (Media Registry) 7 days prior to the publication or dissemination of the relevant media material. In other words, while there is no need to apply for creating an online media platform, there is a requirement to apply for a permit once the online resource becomes operational and starts publishing.

Article 62.4 requires an additional opinion issued by the State Committee for Work with Religious Organizations before an online media focusing on religion and religious content is set up.

*Article 74 and Media Registry

The Media Registry system became operational in October 2022. The “rules for maintaining a media registry” — are a set of regulations determining the requirements and procedures journalists must meet in order to be eligible for inclusion as well as exclusion.

The Media Registry itself is an electronic information resource managed by the Media Development Agency, which is managed by the Supervisory Board consisting of a Chairman and 6 (six) members appointed by the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Article 74.2 reads that in order for journalists to be included in the registry they must prove a degree in higher education as well as a number of other merit-based criteria.

Article 74.2.5 requires that journalists obtain and provide an employment contract with a media entity which must be registered with the Media Registry.

*Article 78

According to Article 78.3 of the Media Law (transitive provisions) both print and online media shall apply to the Media Agency within six months after the media registry is established. If an application for a media platform’s registration is denied, then the applicant is not considered a legal entity. Since journalists cannot be “legal entities,” it is unclear what happens to journalists whose registration is denied.

There is no option to opt out from the registry as it is mandatory as per Article 78.3 of the Media Law.

Already, 200 media outlets and 180 journalists applied to the media registry according to the statement by the Media Agency. The Agency claims that approximately 160 media outlets were registered already. Independent media watchdogs, say around 40 media outlets were denied registration.

On January 12, 2023, the Executive Director of the Media Development Agency, Ahmed Ismayilov said, “media entities have six months to register, those who fail to do so, will be taken to court by the agency. It will be up to the court to decide whether to continue their activities or not.”

Following this statement, a group of independent and opposition journalists and media platforms have come together under a campaign “We do not want a licensed media.” They have been organizing round table discussions both online and offline calling on the government to cancel the registry and reform the bill on Media. In January, the group also issued a statement in which signatories claimed, “the new law will have very serious negative effects on the freedom of the media and journalists, and on their freedom of movement and activity.” The signatories of the statement also said, the law was unconstitutional and was against the European Convention on Human Rights. As such, they intend to apply to the Constitutional Court and continue onwards with the European Court of Human Rights.

The campaign led to Ismayilov’s backing from previously made statements about court proceedings. Instead, Ismayilov reportedly said, the registration was on a voluntary basis. However, it remains to be seen whether this claim holds true.

Even some pro-governmental journalists criticized the media registry based on rigid regulation and arbitrary application.

Several media organizations challenged the application to the media registry in domestic courts. Among them is 24saat.org LLC (an online media outlet), which has submitted a claim against Media Agency. The news site, was one of the first news platforms denied registration on the grounds its content was not sustainable (referring to the requirement of publishing a minimum of 20 news items on daily basis). The site raised the issues of the illegality of that decision, and its incompatibility with the Constitution and international agreements, asking instead that the agency registers the site and recognizes the violation of the right to freedom of expression. On January 9, 2023, the Baku Administrative Court held a preparatory hearing on the claim of 24saat.org LLC against the Media Agency. The court case continues.

The increased role of law enforcement & abuse of power in prosecuting online speech: post-May 2022 developments

There are two legislative acts that regulate internet freedom:

The Law on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information defines the requirements and responsibilities for individuals;
The Law on Media, which defines the (almost) similar and additional requirements and responsibilities for journalists and media;

In addition, the Code of Administrative Offences (Articles 388 and 388-1) determines administrative offenses for violations of the above-mentioned laws (the punishment includes fines and administrative detention).

Some Articles of the Criminal Code may be applied to the violations of the above-mentioned laws (such as Article 283 – incitement to hatred and enmity). As well as, the Law on Prosecutur’s Office which allows the respective prosecutor’s offices to issue warning to persons who might breach the law, inter alia, with their statements (Article 22).

The parliament amended the Law on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information in December 2021 broadening the responsibility of the website owners – previously owner was obligated to remove content, but as per recent amendments he/she must also block access to relevant content (article).

In general, both laws mentioned above can be described as online content regulation. Article 13.2 of the Law on Information and Article 14 of the Media Law regulate prohibited content and website owners as well as online media outlets must comply with these regulations. Otherwise, they would be subjected to blocking, suspension, administrative punishment, or warnings. Both legislative pieces prescribe a list of prohibited information. These lists are not exhaustive and very extensive. Moreover, the language of these lists is vague and open to arbitrary interference.

In recent months, the Office of General Prosecutor (OGP) embarked on a spree, of resorting to official warnings and legislation on administrative offenses against online media. The Law on Prosecutor’s Office authorizes the OGP and subordinate prosecutor’s offices to issue official warnings. Also, the Code of Administrative Offenses (Article 54.2) gives unlimited power to the Prosecutor’s office to initiate administrative offense cases for any other case envisaged in the Code. Thus, the prosecutor’s office has the authority to take measures of responsibility and deterrence against the dissemination of prohibited information on the Internet under the existing legislation on administrative offenses and the law of the prosecutor’s office.

AIW’s legal analysis titled “Who regulates content online in Azerbaijan. Legal analysis,” published in May 2022, shared the increased pattern of prosecuting authorities’ inclination to intervene and persecute online media speech.

Since then, OGP continued to issue warnings and leveling administrative offenses in the following cases:

*On July 27, 2022, social media users Fikret Faramez oglu, the head of the “jamaz.info” website, Agil Alishov, the head of the “miq.az” website and Facebook users – Elchin Ismayil, Ali Jabbarli, and Nurana Fataliyeva were warned by the OGP as per Article 22 of the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office”, not to allow for such negative circumstances in the future (on the grounds of dissemination of false information to undermine the business reputation of the Azerbaijan Army, create artificial agitation among citizens, as well as overshadow the work done in the direction of strengthening the state’s defense capabilities);

*The same day, Tofiq Shahmuradov (military journalist) was accused under Article 388-1.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses by the OGP, and the Nizami District Court found him guilty and sentenced the journalist to one month of administrative detention (on the grounds of disseminating false information to undermine the business reputation of the Azerbaijan Army, create artificial agitation among citizens, as well as overshadow the work done in the direction of strengthening the state’s defense capabilities);

*On July 30, 2022, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Azerbaijan warned social network users Sakhavat Mammadov, Rovshan Mammadov, Zulfugar Alasgarov, Elgun Rahimov, Fuzuli Kahramani, Zeynal Bakhshiyev, and Ruslan Izzatli within the scope of the Law on Prosecution’s Office (on the grounds – the requirements to present facts and events impartially and objectively, and not to allow one-sidedness, were not observed during the publication of information in the media);

*On August 3, 2022, the OGP warned Facebook users – Tayyar Huseynli, Mubariz Sadigli, Nijat Dadashov, and Irshad Muradov over violating relevant online content regulation (incitement to hatred, privacy violation, and defamation);

*On August 4, 2022, the OGP warned Rustam Ismayilbayli (activist) over a social media post, based on Article 22 of the Law on Prosecutor’s Office;

*On September 16, 2022, Taleh Khasmmadov (human rights defender) was warned by the OGP based on Article 22 of the Law on Prosecutor’s Office (dissemination of unspecified information about the Azerbaijani army). The rights defender was warned not to violate laws.

None of these warnings and/or administrative offense cases meet the requirements of the freedom of expression and access to a fair trial envisaged within the international human rights standards or the constitutional obligations of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Continued targeted cyber attacks against critics: post-November 2022 developments

In November 2022, AIW published a lengthy legal opinion, “In Azerbaijan, hasty legislative measures in response to cyber threats, leave the protection of personal data on the back burner,” providing a comprehensive analysis of the domestic legislation and the government’s use of those laws and its adverse effects for the personal data protection in Azerbaijan.

Among identified gaps, the report noted that in Azerbaijan, the national legislation on personal data protection does not effectively protect individuals against the arbitrary use of their personal data by both public and private entities.

The analysis also indicates that the national laws restrict and control personal data with intrusive measures, such as equipping telecom networks with special devices, and real-time access to vast amounts of personal data, in the absence of a criminal investigation or judicial order. As such, the absence of clear and enforceable regulations to protect personal data against arbitrariness and flawed systems due to negligence puts personal data at a higher risk of infringements.

Azerbaijan although joined Convention 108, also known as the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Automatic Processing of Personal Data, in 2009, has not ratified Additional Protocol to Convention 108 which requires each party to establish an independent body to ensure compliance with data protection principles and lays down rules on trans-border data flows.

The rights related to personal data are guaranteed by Article 32 of the Constitution of Azerbaijan, which provides the right to privacy of personal and family life, including information transmitted by various means of communication, including correspondence, telephone, mail, and telegraph. The Constitution prohibits acquiring, storing, using, and spreading information about a person’s private life without his/her consent.

There is also the Law on Personal Data, adopted in May 2010 which regulates personal data through different normation legal acts, and the Decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of Azerbaijan about “the requirements for the protection of personal data” adopted in September 2010. However, previously published analyses on the matter, point out a number of shortcomings.

The weakness of Azerbaijani safeguard mechanisms was acknowledged by Global Cybersecurity Index, which placed Azerbaijan in 40th place among 194 countries ranked by the index. The European Union’s EU4Digital Initiative also criticized the weakness of Azerbaijani mechanisms. According to the findings, Azerbaijani legislation was described as outdated and unable to protect personal data effectively while the government of Azerbaijan demonstrated no political will to overcome this problem.

Even the intra-country public cybersecurity assessment report found flaws in protection mechanisms (a lack of cybersecurity benchmarks for digital web providers).

The government-issued national strategy for overcoming the problem has not indicated positive results yet. Cyber-attacks increased following the second Karabakh war and peaked again during the September border clashes in 2022. Large-scale cybersecurity attacks were committed against several state institutions and banks in April 2022 and August 2022 the authorities refrained from explaining the extent of the damage and did not publicize the results of counteracting measures.

Gaps in legal remedies addressing government-sponsored cyber attacks

In February 2023, AIW, published the report “Legal overview legal remedies (or lack thereof) in cases of online targeting,” showing how Azerbaijan does not effectively protect digital rights. The report focused on two types of violations – cyber-attacks, and covert surveillance, which occur frequently but is not prevented due to inadequate legal remedies.

For instance, there is no automatic notification system for covert surveillance, and there is no independent internal review body. Additionally, there are no rules against prosecutorial discretion, no mechanism to address conflicts of interest between law enforcement and state security bodies, and challenges concerning judicial avenues.

Within existing legislation, the country’s criminal law is one that addresses cyberattacks and breaches of privacy. According to the Criminal Code (Articles 155, 156, and 271-273), cyberattacks and violations of privacy and correspondence rights are prohibited and shall be punished. According to these legal norms in case such an act is committed by law enforcement officials, they are categorized as aggravated circumstances. In these cases, the investigative authority is the prosecutor’s office.

There are civil legal remedies under tort law. However, tort law remedies are effective in practice if the relevant breaches are found in the criminal case. Domestic law in a substantive manner also contains constraints against covert surveillance.

According to domestic procedural law (Code of Criminal Procedure), initial inquiries must be conducted based on reports from victims or others. If the initial inquiry finds, reasonable suspicion on allegations it must remit its preliminary investigation. If the prosecutor’s office dismisses the allegations and refuses to initiate a criminal case, interested parties have the right to apply to district courts. District courts have the authority to remit the case back. Moreover, the relevant official bodies shall conduct disciplinary proceedings about the allegations about their officials on cyberattacks and illegal covert surveillance.

In addition, concerning cyberattacks, there is another review body within the Ministry of Digital Development and Transport – the Cyber Security Service. While the cyber security service does not possess sanctions against authorities, it does have the authority to review the cyberattack claims and issue general warnings concerning cyberattacks. Furthermore, this body may inform other investigative authorities if the problem concerns these authorities. However, it doest not have the legal power to conduct an investigation itself nor can it be considered independent.

In its February report, AIW shared recent cases demonstrating the lack of interest by the law enforcement authorities to offer protection in cases of digital rights violations despite having an ex officio power to conduct criminal investigations. Since then attacks have continued.

The most recent state-sponsored attack was against imprisoned political activist Bakhtiyar Hajiyev. Prior to his arrest, Hajiyev criticized the Government, especially the activities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Last year, he was abducted by unknown persons and was forced to delete posts about the Minister of Internal Affairs. Up until today, it remains unclear who abducted Hajiyev. The activist was also subjected to a nasty blackmail campaign.

In December 2022, following his return to Azerbaijan from a trip abroad, Hajiyev was summoned by the Baku General Police Department. He was charged with hooliganism and contempt of court. Based on these charges Khatai District Court applied for a remand in custody, the decision was extended until April 28, 2023. Hajiyev went on a hunger strike twice during his detention. After more than 50 days, he stopped at the end of February 2023.

At the end of December 2022, some anonymous social media accounts shared private correspondence between Hajiyev and the media editor (Vusala Mahirgizi). The leaked conversations alleged Hajiyev was a marionette of one of the clans. Hajiyev published a statement in which the activist said, the correspondence was leaked as a result of hacking of his private communication and that the allegations of Hajiyev being marionette were false.

It is worth noting that this correspondence was leaked during calls for the activist’s release. The leak was largely viewed as an attempt to weaken the advocacy campaign for the release of Hajiyev.

Since February 22, 2023, however, Hajiyev has been the target of another blackmail campaign. A number of anonymous users on Telegram under different channels [‘Exposure of Bakhtiyar Hajiyev’] have been disseminating some of Hajiyev’s private information as well as other women the activist has corresponded with were leaked. Currently, one of the Telegram accounts has 4681 subscribers. Similar information was leaked by fake Facebook accounts. In addition to leaked correspondence, sexually explicit photos of several women who appear with Hajiyev were shared by these accounts. As a result, at least two women were forced to leave their homes and hide from their families, fearing reprisals for ‘immorality’ from their families.

It has been identified, that some parts of the correspondence were probably photoshopped according to media professionals. However, there are others that may be authentic.

These anonymous users also published the names of activists threatening to leak their conversations with Hajiyev as well. Some of these activists are advocates calling for Hajiyev’s release. Some activists whose private communications were leaked said, they would submit a complaint about it.

In the meantime, the Ministry of Internal Affairs said these leaks had nothing to do with them and that during Hajiyev’s arrest, they did not seize any of his devices. However, according to Hajiyev’s lawyers, Hajiyev arrived at the Baku General Police Department in his car and left his phone in the car. The car stayed there for three days and it is likely his phone was compromised during this period.

Meanwhile, the Telegram channels are still active. Hajiyev submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office about the first incident of cyberattacks. According to his lawyers, they will add a second incident also.

What is next?

The overall analysis and reports indicate that domestic legal remedies in the substantive and procedural law do not protect privacy rights up to satisfactory levels in Azerbaijan. While substantive law at the formal level safeguards digital rights, in practice, these safeguards have no real effects. Judicial remedies are insufficient because criminal procedural avenues in some circumstances are insufficient, and in other circumstances, the district courts cannot force for initiation of the criminal case against officials as the latter still depends on investigative bodies like the prosecutor’s office who decide whether or not to open a criminal case.

Moreover, civil and administrative judicial avenues are also not operational because the heavy burden of proof lies on claimants. In addition, internal disciplinary proceedings are not effective due to a lack of independent oversight bodies. Also, Cyber Security Service lacks real mandatory power in cyberattack cases in addition to independence issues. Therefore, in the cases of covert surveillance and cyberattacks by state authorities, domestic remedies are not effective. It should be added that other aspects of domestic remedies concerning internet freedoms also have challenges. For example, blocking access and official warnings by the prosecutor’s office are especially problematic.

It is well established by the ECtHR in several cases against Azerbaijan that the domestic courts consistently fail to conduct effective judicial oversight in politically motivated cases and instead merely uphold the position of the executive authorities (see, among others, Aliyev v Azerbaijan, appl. No. 68762/14, 71200/14, 20/09/2018, para. 224). Consequently, it may be concluded that procedural law and its safeguards against internet freedom violations have serious flaws. Moreover, practical case studies further furnish that the relevant investigative authorities and domestic courts are not interested in pursuing criminal investigation cyberattacks, covert surveillance, and upholding internet freedoms in the cases of access blocking and official warnings.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) might be considered one of the most effective international avenues in terms of providing legal remedies for violations of internet freedoms. The effectiveness of the ECtHR lies in its ability to issue binding judgments against member states (namely, Azerbaijan) which can result in the provision of legal remedies for the victims of rights violations. However, there are systematic delays in the execution of the ECtHR judgments by Azerbaijan*, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe continuously supervises the execution of judgments of the ECtHR by the member states and urges states to obey the judgments.

*The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (to which Azerbaijan is a party) mandates that member states comply with the judgments and certain decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. And yet, the court’s decision on Khadija Ismayilova group v. Azerbaijan (Application No. 65286/13) calling on Azerbaijan to duly investigate committed acts, where they [the authorities] failed to do so, and any possible connection and links between crimes committed against journalists and their professional activities, was not complied with.

Given the existing environment, the likelihood of further cyber threats and attacks continuing is high.

The Telegram channels targeting Hajiyev remain. Unidentified persons with ties to the law enforcement authorities have access to Hajiyev’s personal data, and their goal to continue abusing this access is likely. Moreover, the state authorities have broad opportunities to compromise other activists’ accounts and to disseminate their private communications. Therefore, cyber threats currently create a difficult challenge for civil society activists. It should be added that the Government does not commit to changing personal data protection laws and taking practical steps to prevent state-oriented or third-party cyber attacks.

International human rights mechanisms, especially international tribunals are the main source of protection against violations of privacy rights and cyberattacks. Especially bringing more applications before the ECtHR and the Human Rights Committee is very important. Currently, there is no case law of the relevant international human rights mechanisms concerning cyberattacks and privacy violations against Azerbaijan. Despite Azerbaijan not adhering to the judgments of international tribunals on violations of rights, such kind of implementation procedure might help improve the situation.

Due to the current problematic situation within the legal profession (lack of lawyers, lack of interest, and fear among lawyers to take up human rights cases), many cases cannot be brought before international tribunals. Most human rights lawyers are already overwhelmed with the volume of cases they represent. Therefore, international assistance in bringing these applications before international courts is a useful tool for counteracting violations. International human rights organizations must assist local human rights lawyers in bringing cases of personal data infringements to international courts (ECtHR, UN).

In the meantime, the government of Azerbaijan must be urged to adopt effective legal remedies and procedural safeguards against arbitrary and unlawful control of personal data with excessive and broad discretion. Minimum safeguards for the exercise of discretion by public authorities must include detailed rules on (i) the nature of the offenses (grounds) which may give rise to an interception order; (ii) duration, scope, and practical review of interception orders; (iii) the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties.

An independent regulatory authority should be established to supervise and review complaints about personal data breaches. The laws must also be formulated with sufficient clarity and precision to give citizens an adequate understanding of the conditions and circumstances in which the authorities are empowered to resort to this secret and potentially dangerous interference with the right to respect for private life and correspondence.

International advocacy campaigning is a useful instrument for getting attention to the problem. New campaigns may bring the attention of international public bodies to the issue.

Finally, capacity-building activities on internet security issues should be continued and potentially targeted groups should be equipped with more information and tools in this area.

questioning over social media posts critical of government measures raise concern [updated August 3]

Posted on July 30, 2022August 8, 2022 by aiw_admin

The questioning of political activist Ruslan Izzatli, on July 28 over his social media post renewed concerns over government oversight of social media platforms and its non-transparent approach to cherry-picking issues that it deems unfit for public discussion.

Izzatli was not the first person to receive a call from the Prosecutor General’s Office last month inviting him for a meeting. In an interview with one media platform, Izzatli explained that the prosecutor’s office refused to explain the reason for the meeting over the phone and asked that the political activist comes in person.

During the meeting that took place on July 28, Izzatli was asked questions about a Facebook post in which the political activist shared some of the grievances of war veterans and servicemen since the second Karabakh war. He criticized the state for lack of measures in addressing these issues. “If Aliyev’s team can visit returned territories today it is because of the servicemen and war veterans. But their problems remain unaddressed,” wrote Izzatli in the said post.

Izzatli was also asked whether he had evidence for the claims made in the post and why the political activist wrote the post in the first place. The political activist also said he received a verbal warning.

Separately, on July 30, the General Prosecutor’s Office said it has warned seven other users over their public posts shared on social media. The Prosecutor’s Office in a statement said the users were warned after the Prosecutor’s Office identified a violation of the Law on Media. Specifically the statement said,

During monitoring, it was identified that during the publication of news in media, provisions of Article 14.1.11 of the Law on Media were not observed [Facts and events must be presented impartially and objectively, and one-sidedness must not be allowed].

In order to prevent cases of violation of socio-political stability, human and citizen rights and freedoms, a number of relevant persons were invited to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the prosecutor took measures.

As such, Sakhavat Mammadov, Rovshan Mammadov, Zulfugar Alasgarov, Elgun Rahimov, Fuzuli Kahramani, Zeynal Bakhshiyev and Ruslan Izzetli received a warning based on Article 22 of the Law on Prosecutor – to avoid cimilar negative incidents from taking place again.

The General Prosecutor’s Office repeats, in its appeal to media and social network users, that dissemination of unverified information that lacks clarificaition from the state institutions is unacceptable and holds one accountable according to existing legislation.

According to Alasgar Mammadli, a media law expert, Article 14 of the Law on Media, applies to journalists, newsrooms, and online news sites. But the majority of the men summoned to the Prosecutor’s Office this time were not journalists Alasgarli told Turan News Agency in an interview. The cited Article 14, cannot be used against individuals for expressing their thoughts. This is clearly an attempt to restrict freedom of expression said Mammadli. Journalist Sakhavat Mammadov who was among the group who received a warning agrees. Speaking with Turan News Agency on August 3, Mammadli said, that the warnings and questioning are meant to pressure activists and journalists and are clearly political orders. “Instead of calming people down, these incidents only raise tension and cause opposite effects. It shows there is an attempt to withhold information from the people, which only breeds rumors and disinformation.”

AIW has analyzed the Law on Media and its implications on media freedom in Azerbaijan here. Among key findings were poorly worded definitions and excessive requirements and restrictions for online media content [see below Article 14 as an example]; challenging parameters of registration of journalists, especially those working for online media outlets and freelance journalists; and lack of oversight and checks and balances to monitor decisions taken within the scope of the new law.

Article 14 of the Media Law requires that information published and (or) disseminated in the media (including online media) must meet at least 14 requirements. The law also requires that content published by media outlets should meet the requirements of the Law on Protection of Children from Harmful Information and the Law on Information, Informatization and Protection of Information which provides an exhaustive list of requirements criticized for vagueness.

For instance, Article 14.1.6. of the law prohibiting media from using “immoral lexical (swearing) words and expressions, gestures” contradicts the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights standards as “prescribed by law” on the account that it lacks sufficient clarity and precision. The article also does not comply with a standard, “necessary in a democratic society,” “found in Articles 8-11 of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that the state may impose restrictions of these rights only if such restrictions are ‘necessary in a democratic society’ and proportional to the legitimate aims enumerated in each article.” The text authorizes the authorities to consider any impugned statement or general criticism as an “immoral lexical (swearing) words of expressions”. With such a broad definition, this requirement has a chilling effect on journalists.

Article 14.1.11 of the law reads, “facts and events must be interpreted impartially and objectively, and one-sidedness must not be allowed.” A duty to impartial and accurate reporting and one-sidedness is likely to result in journalists refraining from exercising their right to freedom of expression without self-censorship. A failure of this requirement subjects the journalist to heavy sanctions. Furthermore, taking into account the existing political atmosphere in the country, such broadly defined restrictions can prevent journalists and other professionals working for online media from staying impartial without any interference.

Article 14.1.14 concerns published content according to which, “publication (dissemination) of information about the crime committed by a person in the absence of a court order that has entered into force should not be allowed.” Such a direct ban in general form could limit the freedom of expression, in particular, where certain cases are widely covered in the media on account of the seriousness of the facts and the individuals. The journalist also can be subject to disproportionate sanctions for publication or dissemination of information, which is already known to people, for instance in case of scandalous news about the corruption of officials. This clause heavily limits the primary duty of ensuring diversity and plurality of voices in the media.

Any imposed restrictions must meet the requirements as prescribed by law pursuant of legitimate aims (allowed by the international human rights law), necessary in a democratic society, such as proportionality, and non-discrimination.

In May, AIW looked into content regulation on the internet carried out by the Prosecutor’s office and how the measures in place, silence free speech often relying on the use of a restrictive law on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information. This legal overview was prepared following an uptick of cases in which social media users faced punitive measures for their online activism by the Prosecutor’s Office. At the time, the analysis concluded that the Prosecutor General Office has taken on a temporary role of taking measures against activists, journalists, and media within the scope of laws on information and media and with the powers vested in the prosecutor’s office under the existing legislation on administrative offenses and the law of the prosecutor’s office.

The day Ruslan Izzatli was questioned, Azerbaijan’s Press Council – nominally independent media regulation authority – held a press conference. Speaking at the briefing, the chairman of the Council Aflatun Amashov, expressed his concerns over circulating social media posts damaging the reputation of the Azerbaijani military. As such, the chairman said the council is ready to offer its recommendations on creating a legal framework to regulate social media platforms in Azerbaijan.

Speaking to Meydan TV, media law expert Khalid Aghaliyev said, the council’s proposal to regulate social media platforms is likely linked to the state’s intentions in having social media platforms open representatives in Azerbaijan and then use these representatives to further consolidate control mechanisms over social media platforms.

Who regulates content online in Azerbaijan? Legal analysis

Posted on May 17, 2022 by aiw_admin

In this new legal analysis, we specifically look into content regulation on the internet carried out by the Prosecutor’s office and how the measures in place, silence free speech often relying on the use of a restrictive law on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information.

As the use of the Internet grew in Azerbaijan, so did the measures adopted by the government to regulate the internet space, through legal changes that would tighten existing regulations. As such the ranking of Azerbaijan in Freedom House Freedom on the Net report as “not free” is indicative of the deteriorating internet freedom in several directions, including control of the ICT market, infrastructural challenges, restrictive legal measures, accounts of harassment of citizens for online criticism, and more. Numerous evidence-based reports point out the extent of coordinated, and deliberate efforts deployed by the government in Azerbaijan to restrict free speech on the users of social networks, journalists, and media at large in recent years.

Currently, two laws regulate what constitutes prohibited information on the internet and the liability for violating these requirements. These are the Law on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information, which defines the requirements and responsibilities for individuals; and the Law on Media, which defines the (almost) similar and additional requirements and responsibilities for journalists and media.

In addition, the presidential decree dated February 22, 2022, instructed the Ministry of Justice to prepare and submit a draft law on measures for violating information and media legislation on the internet to the government within a month. The law is yet to be adopted and concerns over its text and procedural implementation give ground to worry for a new restrictive law to be adopted not to mention its implications to further stifle free speech online.

Until then, an uptick in recent months, of cases in which social media users have faced punitive measures for their online activism indicates that the Prosecutor General Office has taken on a temporary role of taking measures against activists, journalists and media within the scope of laws on information and media. As such we decided to dedicate our next legal analysis report to the practices and activities of the general prosecutor’s office within the framework of national and international legislation.

***

In Azerbaijan, the Code of Administrative Offences and the Criminal Code regulate the legal sanctions against violations of the Law on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information. However, as noted above, an uptick in administrative penalties and warnings issued to media, journalists, and social network users in recent months shows that the main government institution carrying out monitoring, and handing out penalties and warnings has been the Prosecutor General’s Office.

This frequent and at times, aggressive interference by the prosecutor’s office, which normally is in charge of investigating criminal cases and is the prosecuting authority, itself raises a number of concerns with regard to freedom of expression and the media.

The prosecutor’s office argues that the official warnings issued by the institution are a precautionary measure for violating existing. It is worth noting, that laws here are also broadly defined. Local human rights lawyers and experts, suspect, that the prosecutor’s office relies on existing bills on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information as well as the Media, however, it could also refer to additional articles of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the legality of these acts is questionable.

***

Recent amendments to the Information Law

On December 27, 2021, the Azerbaijani parliament (Milli Məclis) adopted new amendments to the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan On Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information (30-VIQD).

One of the amendments includes expanding the measures against the prohibited content*

*Neither the previous nor the iterated version of the law clearly defines what is prohibited content leaving extensive room for the relevant state actors to decide, and based on these overt decisions, restrict freedom of expression online.

Previously, the owner of the internet information resource and domain name, and the hosting provider were responsible for removing (deleting) the information (specific content such as articles) from the information resource (website). The iteration obligates the owner, and the hosting provider, to block access to that content (article) on its website (Article 13-2.4, and 13-2.5).

As the law on information determines a list of grounds that define which content is prohibited, it also sets obligations for domain and information resource owners and host providers to remove or block the content upon receiving the warning from the executive authorities. In cases when content removal or blocking is not implemented, relevant executive authority applies to the court. As such, it is the judicial powers making a final judgment on the (il)legality of reported content rather than the executive power. This also means that the warnings issued by the executive authorities to the information resource and domain owners and host providers must not introduce liability. Because, when a court draws its final decision, it applies the principle of proportionality ensuring that different interests are balanced against each other.

Prohibited content as defined in the Law on Information (Article 13.2) and the Law on Media (Article 14).

Law on Media:

14.1.1. open calls must not be made for a forcible change of the constitutional order of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the disintegration of its territorial integrity, forcible seizure or retention of power, mass riots;

14.1.2. there must be no disrespect for the state symbols of the Republic of Azerbaijan;

14.1.3. norms of the state language must be observed;

14.1.4. discrimination on grounds of race, religion, origin, gender, ethnicity, and other discrimination must not be promoted, and also no open calls must be made for inciting ethnic, racial, or religious hatred;

14.1.5. terrorism, religious extremism, violence, and cruelty must not be propagated, and also, information aimed at financing terrorism, organizing or conducting training for terrorist purposes must not be disseminated, and open calls for terrorism must not be made;

14.1.6. words and expressions, gestures with immoral lexical (swearing) content must not be used;

14.1.7. the humiliation of honor and dignity, tarnishing of business reputation is not allowed;

14.1.8. secret information about a person’s family and private life must not be disseminated;

14.1.9. there must be no libel, insults, or hate speech;

14.1.10. actions that are contrary to the protection of health and the environment must not be propagated;

14.1.11. facts and developments must be commented on impartially and objectively, one-sidedness is not allowed;

14.1.12. parapsychology (psychics, mediums, etc.), superstition, or other kinds of fanaticism must not be propagated;

14.1.13. pornographic materials must not be published (broadcast);

14.1.14. information about a person being guilty must not be published (broadcast) without a valid court decision;

14.1.15. the requirements provided for in the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On protection of children from harmful information” must be complied with;

14.1.16. other information provided in Article 13-2.3 of the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On information, informatization, and protection of information” must not be broadcast.

Law on information, informatization, and protection of information:

*false information threatening to harm human life and health, causing significant property damage, mass violation of public safety, disruption of life support facilities, financial, transport, communications, industrial, energy, and social infrastructure facilities, or leading to other socially dangerous consequences.

propaganda and financing of terrorism, as well as methods and means of terrorism, information about training for the purpose of terrorism, as well as open calls for terrorism;
information on the propaganda of violence and religious extremism, open calls directed to the evocation of national, racial, or religious enmity, violent change of the constitutional order, territorial disintegration, violent seizure or maintenance of power, and organization of mass riots;
state secrets;
instructions or methods for producing firearms, their component parts, ammunition, and explosive substances;
information on preparation and usage of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, and their precursors, about locations of their unlawful acquisition, as well as information on the location of and methods of cultivation of plants containing narcotic substances;
pornography, including information related to child pornography;
information on the organization of and incitement to gambling and other unlawful betting games;
information disseminated with the purpose to promote suicide as a method of solving problems justifies suicide, provides the basis for or incites suicide, describes the methods of committing suicide, and organizes the commission of suicide by several individuals or organized groups;
defamatory and insulting information, as well as information breaching the inviolability of private life;
information breaching intellectual property rights;
other information prohibited by the laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The legal framework of the power of the prosecutor’s office to issue the official warnings

According to Article 133 of the Constitution, the Prosecutor’s Office of Azerbaijan (hereinafter – the “Prosecutor’s Office”) shall exercise control over the execution and application of laws, institute criminal cases, and conduct investigations. According to Article 2 of the Law About the Prosecutor’s Office, the Prosecutor’s Office of Azerbaijan is a single centralized body that, is logged in judicial authority.

According to Article 21 of the Law About the Prosecutor’s Office, issuing an official warning is one of the prosecutor’s mandates vested in its powers in the manner and within the framework established by law About the Prosecutor’s Office. Article 22 of the Law identifies under which circumstances, the prosecutor or his deputy shall issue an official warning to the citizen or official.

Because these warnings, as procedural acts, are not established in the administrative code of offenses or in the criminal procedural codes of the Azerbaijan Republic, they serve as a deterrent for individuals from certain actions, such as stopping, not repeating, or not taking any other action in the future.

Powers of the Prosecutor’s Office in the cases of administrative offenses

Article 54 of the Code of Administrative Offenses determines the scope of the prosecutor’s supervision power in the cases of administrative offenses. Within its power, the prosecutor shall take timely measures to eliminate the violation of the law during the proceedings on administrative offenses and exercise the prosecutor’s control over the application and implementation of the Constitution and laws of Azerbaijan.

The first sentence of Article 54.2 of the Code outlines a list of administrative offenses where the prosecutor’s office is empowered to initiate the administrative offense cases. The second sentence of the same Article also gives unlimited power to the Prosecutor’s office to initiate administrative offense cases for any other cases envisaged in the Code of Administrative Penalties.

Once the decision to initiate proceedings on administrative offenses is made, the Prosecutor’s Office then shall send the case to a judge or an authorized body for judiciary proceedings on the merits of the case. Overall, the scope of the prosecutor’s supervision concerning administrative offenses includes the right of the prosecutor to decide on the initiation of proceedings on administrative offenses, to participate in consideration of cases on administrative offenses, to give an opinion or petition on issues arising during the proceedings, to protest against a decision or to rule on an administrative offense.

Thus, the prosecutor’s office has the authority to take measures of responsibility and deterrence against the dissemination of prohibited information on the Internet under the existing legislation on administrative offenses and the law of the prosecutor’s office.

Prosecutor General’s Office warnings to journalists and social media users – comments on recent cases

Detecting dissemination of prohibited information on the Internet and taking non-criminal measures against it is carried out (in the order of checking the information on the violation of the law) by the department for Non-Criminal Prosecution of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Azerbaijan.

In recent months, there have been numerous reports in the media about some social media users, journalists, and news websites receiving warnings or handing administrative offenses in case materials, submitted to the courts by the Prosecutor General’s Office.

Example 1:

On April 1, 2022, the Prosecutor General’s Office warned two online media platforms for spreading inaccurate information. According to the Press Service of the Prosecutor General’s Office, “gazet.az” and “manset.az” published inaccurate information on March 31, 2022, about an incident in which as a result of collapsed school building some 20 people died, and many more were injured in Nakhchivan, thus violating the requirements of the Laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On Information, Informatization and Protection of Information”, as well as “On Media”.

But neither of the laws prohibit the spread of inaccurate information, nor do these laws define what inaccurate information is. The vagueness of the terminology however does allow the law enforcement authority to define any kind of views, and comments as “inaccurate information” and take punitive or deterrent legal action against them.

Example 2:

According to the press service of the Prosecutor General’s Office dated January 24, 2022, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan continued to take preventive measures against the placement of prohibited information by law on the Internet, for the purpose of ensuring information security.

The press service then referred to five social media users who received warnings and one person who was detained on the grounds of putting pressure on democratic institutions, disrupting the activities of government agencies, making calls that would result in the governance decline in the country, as well as posting insulting or defamatory information on Facebook thus violating Article 13-2.3.9 of the law on the information.

However, Article 13-2.3.9 of the Law on Information, Informatization, and Protection of Information cited by the Prosecutor General’s Office only prohibits the dissemination of “information that is insulting or slander, as well as infringing on the privacy of private life.” The law does not prohibit the information that could be characterized as putting “pressure on democratic institutions”, “disrupting government agencies”, or “calling to reduce the level of governance in the country” on the list of prohibited information.

Example 3:

On December 21, 2021, Prosecutor’s office issued a warning to the principal of a high school, who was interviewed about the suicides among students. The Prosecutor’s office said the information shared by the school principal qualified as prohibited content, and thus was unacceptable to spread.

The Prosecutor General’s Office did not reveal further details about the case and specifically what parts of the principal’s interview violated the rules about the information on suicide. Article 13-2.3.8 of the Law on Information only prohibits the information that “promotes suicide as a method of solving problems, justifies or incites suicide, explains the methods of committing suicide or information to organize the suicide of several people in a group.”

Example 4:

On December 28, 2021, Prosecutor’s office issued a warning to 5 social media users for violating Article 13-2 of the Information law by spreading the information without citing certain facts and sharing biased information aimed to stir sensation in the society. The prosecutor’s office further urged social media users and journalists “to refrain from disclosing inaccurate and distorted information,” warning “that the most serious measures would continue against the spread of biased and misleading information in society.”

Similar, non-criminal legal action (i.e., warning) by the Prosecutor’s Office was made on November 21, 2021, against some media and social network users. The Prosecutor General’s Office initiated a violation of an administrative offense under Article 388-1.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and sent the case to the relevant court for consideration. In addition, three other people were warned by the prosecutor. The Prosecutor General’s Office further urged more serious measures in accordance with the relevant legislation, including criminal liability against media and social network users who disseminate false and inaccurate information in order to create artificial agitation.

However, Article 13-2 of the information law does not prohibit information of a “sensational” nature or for not basing information “on concrete facts” or sharing “various biased information.”

Legal commentary on warning acts issued by the Prosecutor General’s Office

As noted above, although formal warnings are defined as a type of prosecutorial act, they do not explicitly determine the concrete legal consequences for the persons receiving these warnings. As such, it is possible to determine from existing cases that these warnings issued by the prosecutor’s office are announced after alleged perpetrators are called in for questioning.

It is also possible to determine that inviting the alleged perpetrator to the prosecutor’s office is done for the purpose of signing the warning act, as a way to consent and/or admit to violating the law and not repeating it again. This was reflected in the case of journalist Avaz Zeynalli* who after being called in for questioning refused to sign the issued warning. In such cases (when the warned entity does not sign the warning) it does not remove or cancel the warning. Also worth noting is that there are no specific points mentioned in the existing legislation about measures leveled against entities who refuse to sign the warnings.

Finally, while these official warnings are carried out as preventive measures against violating existing legislation the procedural action itself is prescribed neither in the criminal law nor in the Code of Administrative Offenses. And according to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan, “warnings” must be examined within the framework of administrative proceedings by the administrative courts. As such, the court clearly states, that warnings are issued within the framework of administrative proceedings, the prosecutor’s office functions as a law enforcement authority and has the authority to summon the individual to introduce the warnings. Such instances of summoning and conversations are apparently mandatory and carried out by the Prosecutors like “procedural coercive measures” indicated in the Criminal Procedure Code. Nevertheless, once again, it is important to note that the warning(s) is not a sanction within the meaning of criminal law and administrative offenses law and therefore prosecutor’s office shall not apply procedural coercive measures in the absence of any offense.

*The decision of Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan, № 2-1(102)-134/2019, 14.05.2019, Avaz Zeynallı v.Chief Prosecutor’s office.

Conclusion

What the cases above illustrate is that there is a problematic and overbroad application of legal measures against social media users, journalists, and media in Azerbaijan. The examples further indicate the application of restrictive information law (which includes vaguely defined grounds to restrict free speech) against free speech on the internet and its likelihood of violating freedom of speech and media freedom standards.

Social media users, journalists, and media may argue that government regulations and their overbroad application by the Prosecutor General’s Office impermissibly infringe their freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution and international conventions to which Azerbaijan is a party.

Furthermore, there are almost no reports of domestic courts rejecting petitions by the prosecutor’s office against people’s rights to exercise their right to freedom of speech online, creating additional concerns about the absence of effective judicial and other remedies against the arbitrary use of domestic legislation against speech freedom rights.

As mentioned in the analysis above, one of the main challenges is that in its current form, the law on Information as well as the Code of Administrative Offenses provides vaguely defined grounds which are then used by the Prosecutor General’s Office with wide and arbitrary discretion, and at times, in the absence of any clear citing of the permissible grounds in the law. Such interference with freedom of speech is not compatible with the international standards which require that the restrictions on freedom of speech are clearly defined and concisely envisaged in the law and pursue legitimate aims as prescribed in national laws.

An analysis of most of the above cases shows that the Prosecutor General’s Office and the domestic courts interfere in freedom of expression without the proper legal grounds required for such interferences. The content of the impugned remarks characterized by the Prosecutor General’s Office and domestic courts as false, inaccurate, aimed to create a sensation, or to put pressure on the government and democratic institutions is not explicitly mentioned in the Law on Information, Informatization, and Information protection. This is against international standards which require that the national authorities intervening in the freedom of expression must have a basis in national laws (as a rule, this would mean a written and public law adopted by parliament), as well as must demonstrate sufficient reasons for justifying the interference and carefully balancing the applicants’ right to freedom of expression with the other permissible (legitimate) grounds

Azerbaijan is obligated to protect the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information both online and offline, including on public health. International human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19) and European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10) permit restrictions on freedom of speech only if they are provided for by law, are strictly necessary and proportionate to achieving a legitimate aim.

Considering the increased scope of the legal harassment, it would be fair to conclude that such a large-scale punitive and deterrent legal measures against freedom of expression by law enforcement authorities is aimed at silencing legitimate criticism, discouraging citizens from expressing their views, and further suffocating the freedom of expression on the Internet.

Azerbaijan’s desire to regulate online hate speech: What problems should Azerbaijan fix first?

Posted on April 7, 2021April 13, 2021 by aiw_admin

This is part two in a series of detailed reports and analyses 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.

Background

On September 17, 2020, Zahid Oruc, member of the parliament and the head of the Human Rights Committee at the National Parliament, suggested parliament adopts a new law on hate speech. At the time, Oruc said the main goal was to prevent hate speech in the information space, possibly with the inclusion of social media platforms [several members of the parliament and government representatives have stressed that social networks should be regulated by law in Azerbaijan in recent years]. While stressing the urgency in adopting such a law, Oruc failed to address the exact nature of this urgency. In addition, likely in response to a possible backlash from the independent lawyers and civil society in Azerbaijan the MP said, the new bill, cannot be viewed “as a document against freedom of speech and expression”. Nevertheless, much of the responses that came following this announcement, were critical of the proposal especially in light of the legal context where plenty of other existing laws and procedures already address hate speech in one form or another.

In January 2020, the discussion on adopting the bill on hate speech was back on the agenda. Speaking at the first meeting of the spring session of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights the chairman of the committee Zahid Oruj noted that the spring session will focus on the analysis of world experience in the field of defamation and “hate speech” legislation.

But what about the analysis of Azerbaijan’s experience in the field of defamation?

In Azerbaijan, a number of conceptual elements of hate speech are envisaged in the different normative legal acts, including in the Code of Administrative Offences, Criminal Code, the law on Information, informatization and protection of information and Law on Mass-Media. In other words, several Azerbaijani laws include measures that are designed to address unacceptable online content (including hate speech), ranging from removing content, and making content temporarily inaccessible on the information-telecommunication network.

According to Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, everyone has the right to freedom of thought and speech. Agitation and propaganda, inciting racial, national, religious, social discord and animosity, or relying on any other criteria is inadmissible. Azerbaijan has also ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “ECHR”) where Article 10 provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression.

Azerbaijan’s history is rich with examples where existing laws, were abused to restrict freedom of expression, and the national legislation so far failed to comply with international human rights standards with respect to the safety of the media workers or citizens who exercise their right to freedom of expression. That and the lack of independent judicial oversight over the restrictions to freedom of expression and thought post additional challenges in a current environment.

In 2017, when changes were made to the law on combating religious extremism, two prominent members of the Popular Front Party were arrested relying on the existing legislation, even though it was clear, it was a setup, as neither of the activists had any religious affiliation. In January 2017, a Baku court convicted senior opposition Popular Front member Fuad Gahramanli to 10 years in jail for inciting religious and ethnic hatred. Gahramanli was known for his criticisms of the government on Facebook. In July 2017 a court convicted Faig Amirli, another Popular Front member and financial director of the now-closed pro-opposition Azadlig newspaper, on bogus charges of inciting religious hatred and tax evasion. Amirli was handed a suspended sentence.

Four out of seven alerts in 2019 related to detention. Despite the March 2019 release of some wrongfully imprisoned journalists, including anti-corruption blogger Mehman Huseynov, the detention and harassment of journalists continue to this day.

During the height of the pandemic in Azerbaijan, the parliament introduced a series of amendments to existing laws that were then used to prosecute activists. Scores of activists were rounded up, including members of the opposition Popular Front [some of these arrests were captured here].

The government of Azerbaijan has consistently ignored the international calls, including the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) requiring Azerbaijan to reform its domestic legislation with respect to freedom of expression and media rights in order to ensure that it is in line with the international standards. Instead of reforms, the government of Azerbaijan has aggravated the criminal liability for defamation and expanded the scope of the criminal liability to the online spaces (2016 amendments to the Criminal Code), adopted a criminal liability for extremist views on vague grounds, and established administrative liability for spreading false information.

These developments were contrary to the ECtHR’s findings in the Fatullayev, Mahmudov, and Agazade v. Azerbaijan cases (2008) where the Court found that application of provisions of the criminal law on defamation had been contrary to Article 10 of the Convention and the Council of Europe calls to the Member States that prison sentences for defamation should be abolished without further delay [Resolution 1577 (2007) of the Parliamentary Assembly, Towards decriminalization of defamation, to which the Strasbourg Court has referred on a number of occasions].

The country’s poor ranking on most of the rights and freedoms indexes attest to the grave reality in the country. It was also reflected in a statement issued following the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatović’s visit to Azerbaijan in July 2019 where the Commissioner said, “Freedom of expression in Azerbaijan continued to be under threat”.

The key state obligations while regulating the online hate speech and general concerns for the Azerbaijani context

Despite the term “hate speech” widely used in legal, policy-making, and academic circles, there is often disagreement about its scope and about how it can best be countered [Dr. Tarlach McGonagle. The Council of Europe against online hate speech: Conundrums and challenges, p. 3.]

There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed. However, in 1997 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a Recommendation (No. R (97) 20) on hate speech which stated the term (non-binding) “shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin”.

In its case law the European Court of Human Rights, without adopting a precise definition, has regularly applied this term to forms of expression that spread, incite, promote or justify hatred founded on intolerance, including religious intolerance.

Key concerns for the abusive application of the hate-speech regulations

There have been growing concerns in many countries that hate speech regulations (both online and offline) are often misused or result in a violation of freedom of thought and expression. To this end, many international human rights organizations have often emphasized raising concerns on this matter and issued general recommendations, and developed standards for the regulation of hate speech to ensure that such regulations are in line with international human rights standards.

As noted, hate speech has threatened freedom of expression in many countries. Despite the importance “to prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance …,” [Erbakan v. Turkey judgment of 6 July 2006, § 56] the presence of hate speech constitutes a serious threat for the freedom of expression in the process of potentially limiting the expression as such.

On May 13, 2020, Freedom of expression organization ARTICLE 19 has warned that France’s new “Avia” Law, will threaten freedom of speech in France. When a draft bill on hate speech was discussed in France, “the French government has ignored the concerns raised by digital rights and free speech groups, and the result will be a chilling effect on online freedom of expression in France”. Consequently, on June 18, 2020, the French Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel) the highest constitutional authority in France, declared that the majority of the Law on Countering Online Hatred, more commonly known as the Avia Law, was unconstitutional. This declaration rendered the key provisions in the law invalid. In its decision, the Constitutional Council held that certain provisions infringe “on freedom of speech and communication, and are not necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the aim pursued”.

The international human rights law provides that states may restrict freedom of expression (only) where provided by law with the condition to meet the principles of legality or necessity and proportionality.

Alongside these principles, an effective judicial review is needed to prevent any abuses of laws capable to restrict freedom of expression. The judicial review of such a measure, based on a weighing-up of the competing interests at stake and designed to strike a balance between them, is inconceivable without a framework establishing precise and specific rules regarding the application of preventive restrictions on freedom of expression [Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, § 64; Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, § 62, which concerns the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas; see also OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, §§ 40-43]. Furthermore, in some cases, for determining the proportionality, the ECtHR assesses the quality of the parliamentary and judicial review of the necessity of the measure [Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], §§ 108-109].

The First and foremost among these safeguards is the guarantee of review by an impartial decision-making body that separate from the executive and other interested parties.

The UN Special Rapporteur notes that “any restriction imposed must be applied by a body that is independent of political, commercial or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse” (A/67/357, para. 42).

This is not the case in Azerbaijan. For instance, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies is the main body regulating the internet in Azerbaijan, something that experts have called to change and share this role with an organization that is not under state control. The ICT market is also fairly concentrated in the hands of the government.

In its report (A/74/486, 9 October 2019), the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression evaluates the human rights law that applies to the regulation of online “hate speech” and notes that any restriction – and any action taken against speech should meet the conditions of legality, necessity, and proportionality, and legitimacy [Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/74/486, 9 October 2019), para. 20] and to establish or strengthen independent judicial mechanisms to ensure that individuals may have access to justice and remedies in case of restrictions. The Special Rapporteur further notes that “as a first principle, States should not use Internet companies as tools to limit expression that they themselves would be precluded from limiting under international human rights law. [para, 29]. In the meantime, the same Recommendation envisages a principle [third principle] that requires from the governments that interference with freedom of expression, in the context of combating hate speech, are narrowly circumscribed and applied in a lawful and non-arbitrary manner on the basis of objective criteria and must be subject to independent judicial control.

In addition to discussions on adopting the law on Hate Speech, there are also plans to adopt a new law on Media at the moment. The consistent view of the government to regulate social networks with the “hate speech” law poses an additional risk to the systematically undermined freedom of expression in Azerbaijan. There is no guarantee that Azerbaijan’s government will not use lex ferenda regulations as a tool of oppression against its political opponents and civil society.

Without genuine consultations with civil society organizations, independent journalists, disregarding the constant calls of the human rights organizations and ECtHR judgments to reform the domestic laws to remove irrelevant and restrictive frameworks over freedom of expression, new hate speech, and media laws should be taken into account as a serious concern [Dr. Tarlach McGonagle. The Council of Europe against online hate speech: Conundrums and challenges, p. 29].

Instead of addressing the systematic shortcomings, in particular, rendering the restrictive legal frameworks in the sphere of freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and thought, and internet freedom, the government of Azerbaijan continues to add more restrictive regulations into its legislation that is likely to undermine last remnants of the freedom of expression – the online spaces.

In addition, while in a hurry to pass restrictive legislation against freedom of expression, the government of Azerbaijan remains inactive when it comes to the effective investigation of the smear campaigns and hateful attacks against minority groups, such as LGBTQ- communities, and feminists.

Finally, having reviewed the current environment of repression and crackdown, and specifically, in the absence of effective judicial oversight and a fully independent regulatory body accountable to the public, it can be concluded that there is no urgency for any new regulations at the moment in Azerbaijan.

fresh media reforms raise concern [updated]

Posted on January 14, 2021February 15, 2021 by aiw_admin

On January 12, President Ilham Aliyev signed a decree “on deepening media reforms in the Republic of Azerbaijan.” As a result, the newly established Azerbaijani Agency for Media Development will replace the State Support Fund for Mass Media Development and will have all the rights of the former institution. In tandem, new media law is also being drafted by the Administration of the President for the President’s review in two months.

The decree was welcomed by many mouthpiece media, including the SES [Voice] media group. Its director, Bahruz Guliyev said, there was a need for fundamental reforms, transparency, and public demand. “Since the Azerbaijani law on mass media fails to meet the demands of the time, it requires to be revised, should be improved, and one of the main tasks of the new body is to develop a draft law ‘On media’ replacing the outdated law,” he added.

Guliyev has been a long advocate of the government of Azerbaijan. SES was established in 1991. In 2015, Guliyev in an interview with YAP [Yeni Azerbaijan Partiyasi – the ruling New Azerbaijan Party] said, the platform had a tough path having survived the “pressure and censorship from the government.” The reason for the pressure faced in the hands of the government claimed Guliyev was that “the newspaper was writing about Azerbaijani realities.”

Two years prior, Guliyev was shouting at ODIHR representative in the aftermath of the rigged presidential election in Azerbaijan accusing ODIHR of having prepared the entire preliminary statement long before coming to Azerbaijan. Just two months earlier, Guliyev was among the recipients of a free apartment by President Aliyev in the new government-built residential complex for journalists.

The charter

The Media Development Agency is a public legal entity carrying out activities to support the development of media, organise the training of media specialists and their additional education, stimulate the activities of audiovisual, print, online media and information agencies (media subjects), journalists and other media workers, as well as the introduction of new information and communication technologies and innovations in the field of media.

The agency’s tasks include organising the implementation of projects that are important for the state and society, aimed at developing, strengthening economic independence and improving the activities of these media entities, as well as in accordance with the “Concept of state support for the development of the media in the Republic of Azerbaijan.” The organisation also takes measures to strengthen the economic independence of media entities, creates financial support for the development of media, acts as a state customer for the production and distribution of audiovisual products, and holds competitions for this purpose.

Punitive measures

According to its charter, the agency can take measures to protect state and commercial secrets. In case of non-compliance with the information published in the online media within the requirements provided by law, the agency can contact the relevant authorities in order to take measures in this regard.

It also has the authority to take measures in accordance with the Code of Administrative Offenses in case of detecting signs of an administrative violation in the field of print and online media, and in case of detection of signs of a crime – to provide information to the appropriate authority [the powers are similar to the National Council on Television and Radio which can and has in the past deprive radio and television companies of air hours].

It will also be accountable to the head of state.

The agency’s governing bodies – a Supervisory Board of six members – and the executive director, are appointed by the head of state. Ahmed Ismayilov, is the executive director of the new fund. In April 2020, he was appointed the executive director of the now defunct Media Development Support Fund. Ismayilov, 40, is a lawyer by education. Previously he has worked in various government institutions, including the Heydar Aliyev Foundation, managed by the first lady and the first vice president Mehriban Aliyeva. He is a member of the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan Party.

Previously, the central executive body supervising the media in Azerbaijan was abolished when the country joined the Council of Europe in 2001.

Reactions

In his Op-ed, the director of Turan News Agency, Mehman Aliyev wrote:

Until now, the press supported by the state legally and illegally, has served the interests of the authorities, but not society; it has led to a deplorable situation in various areas, including the media themselves.

In the meantime, notes Aliyev, while the new fund’s focus is on technological aspects of media development there is no mentioning of protection of free press whatsoever. Lack of avenues for independent media in the country and impunity is the challenge, not the lack of technological equipment notes Aliyev.

Alasgar Mammadli, the media law expert, criticized the new agency’s broad, it’s vaguely defined legal powers and the absence of any wider preliminary discussions in the society ahead of its approval.

In an interview with ASTNA, lawyer Khalid Aghaliyev said while it is too early to say anything about the new agency, the role its predecessor played in Azerbaijan, should not be underestimated:

State Support Fund for the Development of Mass Media, established 11 years ago, was one of the institutions that played a key role in controlling the media in Azerbaijan. This organization gradually began to penetrate the media in 2009 and was able to make the print media almost completely dependent on it in a short time.

[…]

The image of this Fund, especially in the last 2-3 years, was seriously damaged, and its main mission was fully exposed. In this regard, it was entirely expected that the government would liquidate the Fund or present it in a new image. Therefore, I do not see a serious difference in principle between the abolished and the newly created institution. The new body will likely carry out the same mission as the Fund in reality.

[…]

Powers such as punishment with regard to the content and directing the content are very dangerous. Empowering an institution created by the state with such powers is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression. Legislation already delineates the boundaries of freedom of expression, and any other interference is unacceptable.

Two days after the decree was signed, Vugar Safarli, the former fund’s executive director [Ahmed Ismayilov’s predecessor] who was dismissed from his post in April 2020, was arrested on charges of embezzlement. During the investigation, the prosecutor’s office seized some 6million AZN [3.5million USD] from Safarli’s personal bank accounts. Safarli was expelled from the ruling party on February 15.

Now, the critics, and media practitioners must wait until the new media law is drafted. Given the country’s recent history of media crackdown, the chances of having transparent legislation are slim, while its implications worrying.