AZERBAIJANI CITIZENS ARE DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO PROTEST AND DEFEND THEIR RIGHTS
Tarlan Zeinli (Rauf Heydarov)
Analysis of violation of law during Tarlan Zeinli’s judicial proceedings
Baku City Binagadi District Court
Case № 3(001)-1506/2025
10 March 2025
Presiding judge: Elchin Agayev
The person against whom an administrative record was issued: Tarlan Zeinli
The administrative report was drawn up by: Shahin Sadigov, a District police major at the 5th Police Station within the Binagadi District Police Department
On 8 March, 2025, Tarlan Zeinli (born in 2000), a pro-feminist activist known as Rauf Heydarov on social media, stood in front of the Natavan monument in Baku holding a poster with the arrested female journalists’ faces.
It should be noted that for several years, pro-feminists activists have been organising annual actions in defence of women’s rights in the centre of Baku on 8 March. In 2025, such an action was also held in the central squares of various Azerbaijani cities.
On 8 March 2025, Tarlan Zeinli (Rauf Heydarov) carried out a solitary picket demanding the release of the arrested female journalists. The photo of his action was circulated on Facebook. Under the post he wrote ‘‘Hours intimidating the authorities”. – https://minorityaze.org/en/1589-feminist-activist-rauf-heydarov-has-been-detained
Two days later, on 10 March 2025, T.Zeinli disappeared. His friends and lawyer called the Baku 5th Police Department, but they were told that Tarlan had not been there. According to the activists, the hospital doctors Tarlan visited the day of his detention said that the police officers picked him up and drove away in a civilian vehicle.
Soon, it became clear that T. Zeinli was detained on charges of committing administrative offences under the Article 535.1 (Disorderly Conduct) of the Administrative Offences Code of the Azerbaijan Republic.
As per the indictment, at about 17:00, on 10 March 2025, T.Zeinli spoke loudly on the phone using obscene words outside one of the metro stations in Baku. At that time, the Head of the Baku 5th Police Department urged him to terminate that conversation but T.Zeinli did not obey.
The police officer, who had drawn up the administrative protocol, questioned at the trial provided testimony similar to the one written in the protocol. Besides, he stated that T. Zeinli’s obscene language caused disturbance to the nearby residents.
- Zeinli, interrogated before the Court, did not plead guilty to the charges and testified that on 10 March 2025, two policemen approached him and demanded to follow them to the 5th police station.
The Court considered as aggravating evidence the fact that T.Zeinli, despite the police warnings, did not cease his misconduct. The Court did not find any mitigating circumstances in the case.
On 10 March 2025, the Baku City Binagadi District Court issued a ruling: to find Tarlan Zeyinli guilty on the charges and sentence him to 30 days of administrative arrest.
Commentary by expert lawyer:
The court verdict is unlawful and unjustified.
Under the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic, Article 24, everyone is entitled to inviolable, irrevocable and inalienable rights and freedoms.
The Article 47 of the Constitution of the Azerbaijan Republic guarantees to each individual the freedom of thought and speech. This provision is also enshrined in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 10 (1).
As stated above, on 8 March 2025, T. Zeinli held up a poster with images of the arrested female journalists, thereby conducting a solitary protest against those arrests. Thus, he expressed his thoughts and opinions in the form set out above, thereby he should not have been penalised for it.
According tot he Article 10 (1) oft he European Convention on Human Rights,
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
Paragraph 2 of this Article provides restrictions on the extent to which it may be lawful to interfere with this right. The restrictions are lawful if they:
- are prescribed by law,
- are necessary in a democratic society,
- in the interests of national security,
- territorial integrity or public safety,
- for the prevention of disorder or crime,
- for the protection of health or morals,
- for the protection of the reputation or rights of others,
- for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence,
- for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Handysite v. the United Kingdom dated 7 December 1976, says:
“Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”. – https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-57499
In order to understand whether any interference took place and if it was lawful, we should analyse it. Thus, in this case there was an interference with the right to freedom of expression. To understand whether it was lawful and legitimate, we will consider the facts of violation of the substantive and procedural law.
As seen from the judgement, the Court considered the following as evidence: the submitted the police officer’s reports, an administrative protocol, the police officer and detainee’s testimonies.
The police officer who drew up the protocol was questioned at the trial. He provided the testimony similar to the one stated in the protocol. Whereas the detainee’s testimony indicated that he had not violated the law and been detained by two police officers on 10 March, 2025. He testified, however, that he neither had used obscene language loudly nor expressed disobedience to the police officers.
There were several points in the policeman’s testimony which, under a full and comprehensive investigation, would have proved the detainee’s innocence. So, the policeman testified that T. Zeinli was talking loudly on the phone using an obscene language. Also, the policeman insisted that the loud obscene language caused a disturbance to the public.
If the Court had examined T. Zeinli’s telephone conversations, it would have been clear whether the policeman’s testimony was truthful. As far as the public distress was concerned, there was not a single complaint or petition expressing such distress or dissatisfaction. There are substantiated doubts in this case that the police officer was not impartial in his investigation.
The testimony of the detainee T.Zeinli was not examined at all. He said that he had been detained outside one of the metro stations. As a rule, there are always cameras installed in such crowded places that should indicate exactly what was going on from the angle of the given camera.
In this case, the Court did not take any initiative in requesting additional evidence that could prove either guilt or innocence of the detainee.
According to the Article 83.1 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Azerbaijan Republic,
A judge, an authorized body (official), who is conducting a case on an administrative offense, may make a decisio additional information necessary for the resolution of the case.
The Court proceeded as it does in most cases, e.g., it accepted the police officer’s testimony and documents submitted by the police as irrefutable evidence.
The Article 76.1 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Azerbaijan Republic states,
Any factual information on which a judge, competent body (official) can be based to determine the presence or a administrative error, the guilt of the person committing an administrative error, and other circumstances important fo resolution of the case shall be considered as evidence in cases of administrative errors. This information is provided with mater explanations of the person, the victim, witnesses, other documents, indicators of special technical means , in the information body (institution) determined by the relevant executive authority, as well as in other state information systems. It is determined by the info [59] in (reserves), the expert’s opinion, the administrative error protocol, and other protocols defined by this Code.
According to the Article 84.1 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Azerbaijan Republic,
The judge, competent body (official) who hears cases on administrative errors evaluates the evidence based on a com complete and objective review of all the circumstances of the case.
Pursuant to the Article 53.0.1 of the Code, the initiated proceedings shall be ceased if there is no administrative misdemeanour.
Apart from breach of procedural law norms, there was also a violation of substantive law norms in the matter. In this case, the Court did not clarify why the detainee was sentenced to 30 days of administrative confinement, why the strictest measure of punishment was applied, and why an alternative punishment not related to arrest was not imposed instead.
The Articles under which T.Zeinli was charged referred to an alternative punishment, such as a fine. However, the Court did not apply that sanction to the detainee without explaining their reasons.
It should be noted that the above-mentioned Articles are frequently used against the activists in order to intimidate them. All court judgements in these cases are written in a very similar way, with formal and abstract terms. There is no individual approach to each specific case in these rulings.
All of the above points to the fact that T. Zeinli’s guilt was not proved by the Court, and doubts were not cleared or interpreted in his favour. His detention, appearance before the Court and further sentence were not of a lawful and legitimate nature.
Thus, the breach of the norms of substantive and procedural Law led to the violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms, notably the right to freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial and, most importantly, the right to liberty and inviolability of individual.