CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sEC623804 { width:4.64%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sFE059E41 { width:12.98%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF3F07D6B { width:22.28%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s641B0123 { width:10.66%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1C6D0615 { width:25.32%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4BBD3807 { width:24.12%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s413A2858 { width:4.64%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s72494EAB { width:12.98%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC0060ED7 { width:22.28%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7049C6A6 { width:10.66%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7DC2F7DB { width:25.32%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9C8A6726 { width:24.12%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA99A98F0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 13 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10302/21 Seymur AHMADOV against Azerbaijan and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 24 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications primarily concern the alleged unlawfulness of the applicants’ pre-trial detention or the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against them. At the material time the applicants (except for applicants Mr P. Chobanov, Mr D. Movlayev and Mr S. Mustafayev) were active members of one of the major oppositional parties, the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan ( Azərbaycan Xalq Cəbhəsi Partiyası – “the PFPA”). Applicant Mr A. Yusifli was an advisor to the chairman of the party. Applicant Mr P. Chobanov was member of an opposition party - the Azerbaijan Party for Democracy and Prosperity ( Azərbaycan Demokratiya və Rifah Partiyası ). On 14 July 2020 a demonstration was held in Baku in front of the Parliament, following the border clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan which had occurred the same month in the Tovuz district of Azerbaijan and had caused death of several high-ranking military servicemen. At night, a group of participants of the demonstration forcefully entered the building of the Parliament. The demonstration was dispersed by the police with the use of pepper gas and water cannons among other means. The police arrested a number of participants. According to official records, several police officers were injured, and damage was caused to public and private property, including to the interior of the building of the Parliament and to a police car. All applicants were among those who had participated in the demonstration. On 15 July 2020, at a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers, the President of the State made a public speech in which he mentioned the events of 14 July 2020 and the PFPA. On the same day the PFPA made a public statement that they were not the organisers of the demonstration, and that the President had made unfounded accusations against them. On various dates in July 2020 the applicants were arrested. The applicants were charged with the criminal offences under Article   127.2.1 (intentional infliction of less serious ( az ağır ) bodily injury when committed against a person in connection with the performance of their official duties or public duty), Article 186.2.1 (intentional destruction or damage to property when committed by causing damage in substantial amount), Article 186.2.2 (intentional destruction or damage to property when committed by burning, explosion or by other generally dangerous means, or when it resulted in serious consequences), Article 233 (organising or actively participating in actions that breach public order) and Article 315 (resistance or violence against a representative of the State authority) of the Criminal Code. All the charges were taken in conjunction with Article 34.2 of the Criminal Code, which meant that the applicants were accused of committing the crimes as a group of accomplices acting in concert, with premeditation ( qabaqcadan əlbir olan bir qrup şəxs ). On various dates in July 2020 the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicants’ pre-trial detention. Appeals against those decisions were unsuccessful. Applicants Mr S. Ahmadov and Mr B. Suleymanov also lodged requests with the Nasimi District Court to substitute their detention by house arrest. These requests were not granted. Later, upon the request by the prosecution, the Sabail District Court changed the pre-trial detention by house arrest, in respect of all applicants. By judgments of 21 June 2021 (concerning applicants Mr S. Ahmadov, Mr A. Yusifli, Mr P. Chobanov, Mr M. Guliyev, Mr E. Mammadov, Mr   D.   Movlayev and Mr S. Mustafayev) and 22 June 2021 (concerning applicants Mr   G. Mirzayev, Mr B. Suleymanov and Mr I. Hasanov) of the Sabail District Court, all applicants (and fourteen other defendants) were convicted as charged. The applicants were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The final sentences were applied conditionally, with application of various probationary periods. By judgments of 7 September 2021 (concerning applicants Mr   S.   Ahmadov, Mr A. Yusifli, Mr P. Chobanov, Mr M. Guliyev, Mr   E.   Mammadov, Mr D. Movlayev and Mr S. Mustafayev) and 20 October 2021 (concerning applicants Mr G. Mirzayev, Mr B. Suleymanov and Mr   I.   Hasanov) of the Baku Court of Appeal, the applicants’ conviction was upheld. By decisions of 29 June 2022 (concerning applicants Mr G. Mirzayev and Mr I. Hasanov), 27 April 2023 (concerning applicants Mr S. Ahmadov, Mr   A.   Yusifli, Mr P. Chobanov, Mr M. Guliyev, Mr E. Mammadov, Mr   D.   Movlayev and Mr S. Mustafayev) and 23 June 2023 (concerning applicant Mr B. Suleymanov), the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgments. Before the Court, applicants Mr S. Ahmadov, Mr G. Mirzayev and Mr   B.   Suleymanov (in applications nos. 10302/21, 10317/21 and 10356/21 respectively) complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed any criminal offence. Applicants Mr S. Ahmadov, Mr G. Mirzayev and Mr B. Suleymanov (in applications nos. 10302/21, 10317/21, and 10356/21 respectively) complain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for their continued pre-trial detentions. Applicant Mr G. Mirzayev (in application no. 10317/21) complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he was not afforded an effective judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. In applications nos. 55996/22, 33817/23 and 39095/23, all ten applicants complain that their convictions were based on false and unlawful evidence, and that the criminal proceedings against them were in breach of various fair ‑ trial guarantees (including the right to a reasoned decision and the right to adequate opportunity to contest evidence). These complaints – which fall under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention – are raised with reference to Article 6 § 1 or Article 6 § 3 of the Convention. Applicants Mr S. Ahmadov, Mr   G. Mirzayev, Mr B. Suleymanov, Mr   I.   Hasanov, Mr A. Yusifli, Mr P. Chobanov, Mr M. Guliyev and Mr   E.   Mammadov (in applications nos. 10302/21, 10356/21, 55996/22, 33817/23 and 39095/23) complain that their arrests and convictions were politically motivated and were a part of unlawful measures to pressure the PFPA. Applicants Mr S. Ahmadov, Mr G. Mirzayev, Mr B. Suleymanov and Mr   I.   Hasanov refer in this regard also to a public speech made by the President of the State on 15   July 2020: they allege that in that speech the PFPA had been accused of organising the unlawful actions during the demonstration of 14   July 2020, and that the criminal proceedings against the applicants had been instituted as a consequence of or in line with that speech. These complaints – which fall under Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 11 – are raised with reference to Article 6 § 2, Articles 11, 14 and/or 18 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions concerning applications nos. 10302/21, 10317/21 and 10356/21:   1.     Were the applicants in applications nos. 10302/21, 10317/21 and 10356/21 deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the pre-trial detention of the applicants compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion?   2.     Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the continued detention of the applicants in applications nos. 10302/21, 10317/21 and 10356/21, within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant in application no. 10317/21 have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?   Questions concerning applications nos. 55996/22, 33817/23 and 39095/23:   4.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned decision and the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? Were the applicants afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against them, and to adduce evidence in support of their line of defence and to have such evidence assessed by the court?   Questions concerning applications nos. 10302/21, 10356/21, 55996/22, 33817/23 and 39095/23 (in application no. 39095/23 only in part concerning applicants Mr A. Yusifli, Mr P. Chobanov, Mr M. Guliyev and Mr E. Mammadov):   5.     Has there been a breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article   11 of the Convention? Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicants, purportedly for a legitimate aim pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?   The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the judgments and decisions of the domestic courts, transcripts of the court hearings and the applicants’ appeals and requests.     APPENDIX List of applications:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 10302/21 Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan 04/02/2021 Seymur Intigam oglu AHMADOV 1988 Agsu Azerbaijani Elchin Ali oglu SADIGOV 2. 10317/21 Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan 04/02/2021 Gunduz Vagif oglu MIRZAYEV 1986 Baku Azerbaijani Asabali Gurban oglu MUSTAFAYEV   Ruslan Asabali oglu MUSTAFAZADE   3. 10356/21 Suleymanov v.   Azerbaijan 29/01/2021 Baba Tahir oglu SULEYMANOV 1982 Baku Azerbaijani Zibeyda Sohbat gizi SADIGOVA 4. 55996/22 Mirzayev and Hasanov v.   Azerbaijan 18/10/2022 Gunduz Vagif oglu MIRZAYEV [1] 1986 Baku Azerbaijani Ismayil Vagif oglu HASANOV 1979 Baku Azerbaijani Asabali Gurban oglu MUSTAFAYEV   Ruslan Asabali oglu MUSTAFAZADE 5. 33817/23 Ahmadov and Suleymanov v.   Azerbaijan 27/08/2023 Seymur Intigam oglu AHMADOV [2] 1988 Agsu Azerbaijani Baba Tahir oglu SULEYMANOV [3] 1982 Baku Azerbaijani Zibeyda Sohbat gizi SADIGOVA 6. 39095/23 Yusifli and Others v.   Azerbaijan 12/10/2023 Asif Ganbar oglu YUSIFLI 1974 Baku Azerbaijani Parvin Nadir oglu CHOBANOV 1989 Mingachevir Azerbaijani Mushvig Sahibali oglu GULIYEV 1975 Baku Azerbaijani Elvin Sarif oglu MAMMADOV 1986 Baku Azerbaijani Dayanat Karam oglu MOVLAYEV 1989 Baku Azerbaijani Sayavush Firudin oglu MUSTAFAYEV 1966 Baku Azerbaijani Nemat Aga oglu KARIMLI   [1] The same applicant as in application no. 10317/21. [2] The same applicant as in application no. 10302/21. [3] The same applicant as in application no. 10356/21.