5.  The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix.
6.  On 12 January, 26 January, 10 March and 29 December 2013 demonstrations were planned to be held in Baku. It appears that the organisers of the demonstrations gave no proper prior notice to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”). Information about the demonstrations was disseminated through Facebook or the press.
7.  According to the applicants, the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The demonstrations of 12 January and 10 March 2013 were aimed at protesting about the deaths of soldiers in the army. The demonstration of 26 January 2013 condemned the use of force by the police against the participants of previous demonstrations, while those taking part in the demonstration of 29 December 2013 were protesting against bureaucratic injustices which had allegedly caused a disabled war veteran to set himself on fire on 25 December 2013.
8.  Each applicant attended one of the demonstrations (see Appendix), but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse those who had gathered. All the applicants were arrested during the dispersal operations and were taken to various police stations.
9.  The applicants were questioned at the police stations they were taken to.
10.  On the day of each applicant’s arrest administrative offence reports (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) were issued, which stated that the applicants had committed an administrative offence under Article 298.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) (participation in a public assembly that had not been organised in accordance with the law).
11.  Some of the applicants refused to sign the administrative offence reports (applications nos. 52270/13, 26424/14 and 26994/14).
12.  According to most of the applicants, they were never served with copies of the administrative offence reports or with other documents from their case files. They were not given access to a lawyer after their arrest or while they were in police custody.
13.  According to statements (ərizə) written by the applicants in applications nos. 20589/13 and 33164/13 at the police stations on the day of their arrest (12 January and 10 March 2013 respectively), they refused the services of a lawyer.
14.  The applicants in applications nos. 20589/13 and 26424/14 were released after being kept in police custody for a few hours, subject to an undertaking to reappear at the police station on various dates.
15.  Most of the applicants were taken to trial courts directly from the police stations, either on the day of their arrest or the following day. The applicants in applications nos. 20589/13 and 26424/14 were brought before first-instance courts on the day they returned to the police station.
16.  According to most of the applicants, the court hearing in each case was very brief. Members of the public were not allowed in the courtroom, even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public.
17.  According to most of the applicants, they were not given an opportunity to appoint lawyers of their own choosing. State-funded lawyers were asked to assist some of them. The applicants in applications nos. 21219/13, 33164/13, 33593/13 and 26994/14 were not represented by a lawyer. According to documents from the case files, the applicants in applications nos. 21219/13, 33164/13 and 26994/14 refused the assistance of a State-funded lawyer and decided to defend themselves in person.
18.  According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the applicant in application no. 20589/13, the State-funded lawyer stated briefly in his oral submissions that the applicant was guilty and asked the court for lenience. Similarly, the State-funded lawyer for the applicant in application no. 26424/14 stated in general terms that the applicant was not guilty and asked the court to discontinue the case. In addition, none of the material submitted to the Court contains any record of showing that the State-funded lawyer, Mr V.M., made any oral or written submissions on behalf of the applicant in application no. 52270/13.
19.  The only witnesses questioned during the court hearings with respect to the applicants in applications nos. 20589/13 and 26424/14 were the police officers who, according to the official records, had arrested them. The police officers testified that the applicants had staged unauthorised demonstrations. No witnesses were questioned by the courts in the other applicants’ cases.
20.  The first-instance courts found that the applicants had participated in unauthorised demonstrations. The applicants were convicted under Article 298.2 of the CAO and sentenced to a period of administrative detention, varying from thirteen to seventeen days, or to a fine of 400 or 500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (see Appendix).
21.  On various dates the applicants lodged appeals with the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that their convictions had been in violation of their rights because the demonstrations in which they had participated or attempted to participate had been peaceful. The applicants also complained that their arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the first-instance courts had not been fair. They asked the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance courts’ decisions in their cases.
22.  The applicants in applications nos. 21219/13, 52270/13 and 26424/14 were assisted before the Baku Court of Appeal by lawyers of their own choosing. The other applicants were not represented by a lawyer.
23.  On various dates the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld the decisions of the first-instance courts (see Appendix).
24.  In its decision with regard to the applicant in application no. 33593/13 the Court of Appeal noted, inter alia, that he had voluntarily refused legal assistance at the pre-trial stage.