5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently serving a prison sentence. 6.  The applicant has been involved in various political organisations and local and international non-governmental organisations for a number of years. In 2009 he co-founded a political organisation named the Republican Alternative Movement (“REAL”) whose initial goal was to oppose the proposed changes to the Constitution, which included abolition of the limits on the re-election of the president, at the constitutional referendum of 18 March 2009. In 2012 the applicant was elected REAL’s chairman. In this capacity, he expressed views opposing the current Government (for more detail, see an earlier judgment of this Court, Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, §§ 6-7, 22 May 2014). According to the applicant, REAL was quickly becoming one of the main political forces opposed to the ruling Government. In 2014 it announced that it was beginning a process of transforming itself into a political party. 7.  The applicant had intended to stand as a candidate in the presidential elections of November 2013, but was unable to do so owing to the events giving rise to the present case and his nomination as a candidate was rejected by the electoral authorities (for more detail, see Ilgar Mammadov, cited above, §§ 8 and 62-67). During the events giving rise to the present case, he also made an unsuccessful attempt to have himself registered as a candidate for repeat parliamentary elections in Agdash Constituency No. 90 in June 2016. 8.  Following the applicant’s arrest described below, another member of the REAL board, Mr Rasul Jafarov, was arrested under charges of illegal entrepreneurship, tax evasion and abuse of power (for more detail, see Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, 17 March 2016). According to the applicant, four other current or former members of the REAL board were forced to leave the country owing to the “pressure by the Government”. 9.  In the below-mentioned criminal proceedings, one of the applicant’s co-defendants was Mr Tofiq Yaqublu, who was a deputy chairman of the Musavat Party and who also worked as a columnist for the Yeni Musavat newspaper (see Yagublu v. Azerbaijan, no. 31709/13, 5 November 2015). Pursuant to a presidential pardon decree of 17 March 2016, Mr Yaqublu was released from serving the remainder of his prison sentence. 10.  The circumstances relating to the Ismayilli events and the applicant’s visit to Ismayilli are described as follows in Ilgar Mammadov (cited above, §§ 9-12):
“B.  The Ismayilli events of January 2013 9.  On 23 January 2013 rioting broke out in the town of Ismayilli, located to the northwest of Baku. According to media reports quoting local residents, the rioting was sparked by an incident involving V.A., the son of the Minister of Labour and Social Protection and nephew of the Head of the Ismayilli District Executive Authority (‘IDEA’). It was claimed that after being involved in a car accident, V.A. had insulted and physically assaulted passengers of the other car, who were local residents. On hearing of the incident, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of local residents took to the streets and destroyed a number of commercial establishments (including the Chirag Hotel) and other property in Ismayilli thought to be owned by V.A.’s family. 10.  On 24 January 2013 the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General’s Office issued a joint press statement, placing the blame for the rioting on E.S., a hotel manager, and his relative [El.M.], who had allegedly been drunk and who, it was claimed, had committed acts of hooliganism by damaging local residents’ property and inciting people to riot. 11.  Meanwhile, [N.A.,] the Head of IDEA, V.A.’s uncle, publicly denied that the Chirag Hotel belonged to his family. 12.  On 24 January 2013 the applicant travelled to Ismayilli to get a first‑hand account of the events. On 25 January 2013 he described his impressions from the trip on his blog. The entire post read as follows:
‘Yesterday afternoon I spent a little longer than two hours in Ismayilli, together with [another member] of our Movement [REAL] and our media coordinator... First, here is [the summary of] what I wrote on Facebook during those hours using my phone:
- We have entered the town.
- There is a lot of police and their number is growing. The protesters gather each hour or two and make speeches. We are in front of the building of the [Ismayilli District] Executive Authority. There are around 500 police officers in this area.
- The cause of the events is the general tension arising from corruption and insolence [of public officials]. In short, people have had enough. We are having conversations with local residents.
- The [ethnic] Russians of the village of Ivanovka are also fed up; they tried to come to [Ismayilli] to support the protest, but the road was blocked and they were sent back.
- Everybody is preparing for the night.
- We are leaving Ismayilli, returning to Baku. The matter is clear to us. Quba was the first call. Ismayilli is the second. After the third call, the show will begin.
We came back after having fully investigated the situation in Ismayilli. I wrote that clashes would again take place in the evening, by posting ‘everybody is preparing for the night’ [on Facebook]. People there had been saying ‘We’ll give them hell in the evening; we have procured supplies’ (meaning the fuel for Molotov cocktails had been bought). People are angry. There are also those who do not care and who are afraid, but those who are not afraid are very exasperated and will continue the protest at night. This is no longer a political situation where we could stay there and try to change something; this is already a situation of disorderly crisis which requires conciliatory steps by the State to be resolved.
No one should fool oneself or others. The events in Ismayilli were not and are not a calm peaceful protest, it is an extremely violent but just protest and the responsibility for it lies with Ilham Aliyev.
As it is with all revolutionary processes, in the beginning the political initiative is still in the hands of the President, but by not taking action he is gradually losing this initiative. When [such leaders] begin to react to the situation, it is usually too late and their actions have no effect. Mubarak, the Shah of Iran, and all others have gone this way’.” 11.  A day before posting the above in his blog, on his way back by car from Ismayilli to Baku on 24 January 2013, between 5.41 and 5.46 p.m. the applicant gave a live interview to Azadliq Radio by phone, stating in particular as follows (as quoted in the domestic courts’ judgments):
“Our impressions are such that, after the Quba events, this is the most serious warning to the Azerbaijani leadership that the State can no longer be governed in this manner. So, we saw a lot of police. And so, we saw up to five hundred members of various forces, the police and internal troops in front of [the IDEA building]. And people held discussions in small groups and from time to time small groups united and, for example, shouted slogans. Their main demand was for [the Head of the IDEA] to apologise for these events. Because it is claimed that his relative had caused the initial incident [that sparked the riot]. However, the government representatives consider that the State is not responsible [for these events]. Thereafter we spoke to many people from the local population. All of them were discontent, and the main reason was, of course, last night’s event, that is apparently the car accident [that sparked the riot]. But in reality there are deep social and economic problems at the root of this incident. A few families, a few small groups control the entire economy of the whole region, all of them are one another’s relatives, there can be no talk of any competitive, just economy, social infrastructure is undeveloped, people live from pension to pension. Then, there are many complaints. Ordinary people say, for example, that when cash for pensions is brought [to the region] by a bank car, the cash is put into ATMs and is available for withdrawal a week later. The people suspect that that money is invested for interest during that week and those responsible for this make profit from the interest gained on the social funding of the entire region.” 12.  Subsequent circumstances are described as follows in Ilgar Mammadov (cited above, §§ 13-15):
“13.  On 28 January 2013 the applicant posted more information on his blog concerning the events, citing the official websites of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the Ministry of Taxes and publishing screenshots of those sites. In particular, he noted that, according to those sources and to information posted on V.A.’s Facebook account, the Chirag Hotel was actually owned by V.A. This directly contradicted the earlier denial by the Head of IDEA. The information cited by the applicant was removed from the aforementioned Government websites and V.A.’s Facebook page within one hour of the applicant publishing his blog entry. However, the blog entry itself was extensively quoted in the media. 14.  On 29 January 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a new joint press statement concerning the events in Ismayilli. It noted that ten people had been charged with criminal offences in connection with the events of 23 January 2013, and had been detained pending trial. In addition, fifty‑two people had been arrested in connection with their participation in ‘actions causing a serious breach of public order’; some of them had been convicted of ‘administrative offences’ and sentenced to a few days’ ‘administrative detention’ or a fine, while others had been released. The statement further noted that ‘lately, biased and partial information has been deliberately disseminated, distorting the true nature of the mentioned events resulting from hooliganism’, including information about large numbers of injured people and the disappearance of one individual. The statement refuted that information, noting that only four people had been admitted to the regional hospital with injuries and that no one had disappeared. It further stated, inter alia, the following:
‘Following the carrying out of inquiries, it has been established that on 24 January 2013 the Deputy Chairman of the Musavat Party, Tofiq Yaqublu, and the Co‑chairman of the REAL Movement, Ilgar Mammadov, went to Ismayilli and made appeals to local residents aimed at social and political destabilisation, such as calls to resist the police, not to obey officials and to block roads. Their illegal actions, which were calculated to inflame the situation in the country, will be fully and thoroughly investigated and receive legal assessment.’ 15.  On 30 January 2013 the applicant commented on that statement on his blog. He noted that the Government had taken a decision to ‘punish and frighten’ him, and that there were several reasons for that: firstly, the applicant’s blog posting of 28 January 2013, which had revealed facts embarrassing the Government; secondly, the fact that REAL had raised a public debate on the June 2012 legislative amendments aimed at keeping secret information concerning shareholders in companies, creating ‘a more clandestine environment for stealing the oil money’; thirdly, the applicant’s earlier criticism of the National Assembly, in which he compared it to ‘a zoo’, following enactment of the legislation placing ‘severe limitations on the freedom of assembly’ by ‘introducing unjustifiably high monetary penalties for attending unauthorised demonstrations’; and lastly, the REAL Movement’s ‘quickly accumulating strength’ prior to the presidential election, becoming a ‘serious barrier in the eyes of the traditional [political] players’ and threatening ‘to spoil the repeat of the election farce performed year after year’.” 13.  On 4 February 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office charged the applicant with criminal offences under Articles 233 (organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials, posing a threat to their life or health) of the Criminal Code, in connection with his alleged involvement in a riot in the town of Ismayilli on 24 January 2013. On 30 April 2013 the applicant was charged under Articles 220.1 (mass disorder) and 315.2 of the Criminal Code, thereby replacing the original charges. 14.  The applicant, Tofiq Yaqublu and two other defendants, E.I. and M.A., charged solely in connection with the events of 24 January 2013 (see paragraph 20 (b) and (c) below) were joined as defendants to the existing criminal case concerning the events of 23 January 2013. 15.  The specific actions attributed to the applicant were described as follows:
“Beginning at around 3 p.m. on 24 January 2013, Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov,
having taken advantage of the fact that from around 9.30 p.m. on 23 January 2013 a group of persons in the town of Ismayilli had engaged in acts of malicious hooliganism causing a serious breach of public order, had deliberately burned, in a publicly dangerous manner, property belonging to various persons [including] the Chirag Hotel, four cars, five mopeds and scooters, and an auxiliary building located in the yard of a private residential house, and had committed acts of violence against Government officials,
having, in his false way of thinking, considered [the above events] as a ‘rebellion’,
aiming to make the above acts develop and acquire a continuous character in order to create artificial tension and to violate the social and political stability in the country,
being a resident of Baku, arrived in Ismayilli and, together with Tofiq Rashid oglu Yaqublu and with the active participation of others, [committed the following:]
organised, as an active participant, acts causing a serious breach of public order, by means of openly and repeatedly inciting town residents [E.I.], [M.A.] and others, who had gathered at the square near the administrative building of the Regional Education Department located on the Nariman Narimanov Street opposite to the administrative building of [the IDEA], [to do the following:]
[i]  to enter in masses into the area in front of the building of [the IDEA], which is the competent body of the executive power of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and by doing so to create difficulties for the movement of traffic and pedestrians, [ii]  to disobey the lawful demands to disperse, made by Government officials wanting to stop their illegal behaviour, [iii]  to resist uniformed police officers protecting the public order, by way of committing violent acts posing danger to [police officers’] life and health, using various objects, [iv]  to disrupt the normal functioning of [the IDEA], State enterprises, bodies and organisations, as well as public-catering, commercial and public-service facilities, by way of refusing to leave, for a long period of time, the areas where the acts seriously breaching the public order were being committed, and [v]  to stop the movement of traffic, by way of blocking the central avenue and the Nariman Narimanov Street, and
was finally able to achieve that, at around 5 p.m. of the same day in the town of Ismayilli, a group of persons consisting of [E.I.], [M.A.] and others had marched in masses from the mentioned square in the direction of the administrative building of [the IDEA] and had thrown stones at officers of the relevant bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs who were preventing [this march] in accordance with the requirements of the law.
By these actions, Ilgar Eldar oglu Mammadov committed the criminal offences under Articles 233 [later replaced by Article 220.1] and 315.2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.” 16.  The circumstances relating to the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the pre-trial proceedings are described in detail in Ilgar Mammadov (cited above, §§ 16-55). 17.  In that judgment, the Court found that, during the pre-trial period, the applicant had been deprived of his liberty without a “reasonable suspicion” of having committed a criminal offence, in breach of the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (ibid., §§ 87-101), that he had not been afforded a proper judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 111-19), that his right to presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention had been breached owing to the prosecuting authorities’ prejudicial statements made before he had been proved guilty according to law (ibid., §§ 125-28), and that the restriction of the applicant’s liberty had been applied for purposes other than bringing him before a competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, constituting a breach of Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 137-44). 18.  After completion of the pre-trial investigation, the applicant’s case was sent to trial at the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes. The applicant was to be tried, together with seventeen others, in connection with the Ismayilli events. 19.  The applicant’s formal indictment sent by the prosecution to the trial court appears to have essentially repeated the initial accusations against him (see paragraph 15 above). It added, however, that as a result of the acts of mass disorder committed at around 5 p.m. on 24 January 2013, six specifically named police officers had been subjected to violence threatening their lives and health (see paragraph 48 below). 20.  Out of the seventeen other defendants:
(a)  fourteen were accused of participating in the riots on 23 January 2013 (which involved actions breaching public order, burning of private property, and acts of violence against public officials). They were charged under Articles 186.2.1, 186.2.2, 220.1 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code;
(b)  one defendant, Mr Tofiq Yaqublu, also an opposition politician, was accused, like the applicant, of “organising” and actively participating in public disorder on 24 January 2013 by means of inciting local residents to commit acts breaching public order and acts of violence. Like the applicant, he was charged under Articles 220.1 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code; and
(c)  two defendants, E.I. and M.A., were accused of participating, together with the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu, in the continuation of the riot on 24 January 2013 (which involved actions breaching public order and acts of violence against public officials). They were also charged under Articles 220.1 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code. 21.  On 4 November 2013 the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes held a preliminary hearing at which it examined a number of applications lodged by the applicant and other defendants. 22.  In particular, the applicant applied to the court requesting, firstly, that it hold its hearings in a larger courtroom which could accommodate media representatives and, secondly, that it allow for video and audio recording of the hearings. The court rejected the first request, noting that no media representatives had asked to attend the hearings. It also rejected the second request, finding that the victims of the criminal offences participating in the preliminary hearing had objected to being recorded during the trial. 23.  After a break in the preliminary hearing, the defence lodged an objection to the composition of the court, referring to the fact that it had rejected the two previous requests. The court refused to examine the objection, finding that it was ill-founded and intended to delay the trial. It noted in this connection that most of the text of the objection had been pre‑printed before the hearing, indicating an intention by the defence to object to the composition of the court no matter what happened at the hearing. 24.  The defence then applied to the court with the following requests:
(a)  that the applicant be released from detention, with reference to Article 5 of the Convention and various provisions of the domestic law;
(b)  that the proceedings against the applicant be discontinued owing to the absence of corpus delicti and on the grounds that the charges against him were false; and
(c)  that the evidence against the applicant obtained at the pre-trial stage, including statements by a number of prosecution witnesses (including those mentioned in paragraphs 48 and 52-56 below), be declared inadmissible on the grounds that it had been unlawfully obtained, and that letters from the Ismayilli Region Police Department (“the Ismayilli RPD”) and the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) (see paragraph 73 below) also be declared inadmissible on the grounds that they contained information that had not been verified independently by the prosecution authorities. 25.  By an interim decision of 5 November 2013, delivered following the preliminary hearing, the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes decided to reject the applicant’s requests as unsubstantiated, and to “keep unchanged” the preventive measure of remand in custody. 26.  The trial spanned approximately thirty hearings. During the course of the hearings, the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes examined testimonial evidence, as well as video recordings and other material. 27.  At the time of communication of the application to the respondent Government, the Court requested the parties to submit, inter alia, “the transcripts of the first-instance and higher courts’ hearings, in the parts relating to the applicant”. The applicant was not in possession of copies of the trial transcripts, as he was allowed only to consult them. The Government failed to submit full copies of the transcripts of the first‑instance hearings in the parts relating to the applicant, and limited themselves to submitting a small selection of transcripts of the preliminary hearing and transcripts of hearings of 29 November and 29 December 2013 and 13 January 2014, where the first-instance court dealt with various procedural matters. Parts of the transcripts containing full statements of the witnesses and their cross-examination were not submitted. The Government also submitted a selection of transcripts of appellate and cassation hearings. 28.  Below is a brief summary of the evidence examined by the trial court, as described in the court’s judgment itself as well as, where relevant, in the indictment and in the parties’ submissions.
(a)  Statements made by the accused 29.  The statements of the fourteen defendants charged with participation in the events of 23 January 2013 (see paragraph 20 (a) above) concerned only the events of 23 January 2013 and did not include any pertinent information about the events of 24 January 2013. The court examined both the statements they had made at the trial hearings and their pre-trial statements. 30.  When heard at the trial hearings, thirteen of the above-mentioned fourteen defendants pleaded not guilty and made statements differing from those made at the pre-trial stage. Ten of them alleged that they had given their pre-trial statements under duress, either psychological pressure or physical ill-treatment. At the conclusion of the trial, two of them retracted their allegations of ill-treatment in custody. 31.  One of the above-mentioned fourteen defendants admitted his guilt and confirmed his pre-trial statement admitting participation in public disorder on 23 January 2013. 32.  E.I. and M.A., the defendants charged with participation in clashes with the police in the morning (around 10:30 a.m.) and the afternoon (around 5 p.m.) of 24 January 2013 (allegedly after having been incited by the applicant) (see paragraph 20 (c) above), did not mention the applicant or Tofiq Yaqublu in their statements. 33.  At the trial hearings, E.I. pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been beaten and tortured by investigators at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings with the purpose of obtaining a statement favourable to the prosecution. He stated that between about 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 24 January 2013, there was a crowd of a hundred or so people moving in the direction of the IDEA building. The police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd, and in response the protesters threw stones at the police. E.I. further stated that in the afternoon of 24 January 2013, and more specifically between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m., he had not been in the town at all but had been attending a funeral in a nearby village. A number of other witnesses gave statements, some of which confirmed his version of the events (see paragraph 46 below). 34.  In his pre-trial statement, E.I. had stated that he had been in the town in the afternoon of 24 January 2013 and had participated in the clashes with the police; he had not specified the exact time. 35.  At the trial hearings, M.A. pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been beaten by investigators at the pre-trial stage with the purpose of obtaining a statement favorable to the prosecution. In addition, the investigators had demanded a bribe in the amount of 2,000 US Dollars from him. As to the events of 24 January 2013, M.A. stated that he had been in the town between about 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. and that there had been many people in the town centre. In the afternoon, he had left Ismayilli for another town. According to the applicant, in order to prove this, M.A. had asked the court to examine records of the calls made from his mobile phone during the afternoon of 24 January 2013, but the court failed to do so. 36.  In his pre-trial statement, M.A. had stated that on 24 January 2013 he had joined the crowd of protesters and thrown stones at the police; he had not specified the exact time. 37.  Lastly, Tofiq Yaqublu and the applicant testified as follows. 38.  At the trial hearings, Tofiq Yaqublu stated that he had arrived in Ismayilli at or shortly after 4 p.m. on 24 January 2013, together with journalists M.K. and Q.M. (see paragraphs 61 and 64 below) and another journalist. They parked close to a Unibank building located near the IDEA building. They saw a number of police officers in the area. There were also many journalists waiting to interview the head of IDEA. Tofiq Yaqublu spoke to those journalists for two minutes. He then received a call on his mobile phone and, while talking on the phone, saw the applicant together with a REAL member, N.C. (see paragraph 58 below). He stopped for five to ten seconds to quickly greet the applicant. The situation in the area was calm. He then went to see the burned hotel, where he was approached by two or three police officers who asked him to accompany them to a police station. In the police station, he was taken to S.K., a senior police officer of the Ismayilli RPD (see also paragraph 45 below), who enquired about the reasons for his visit to Ismayilli. A little later M.K. was also asked by phone to go to the police station. Both of them were told to leave Ismayilli and to report in Baku that the situation in the town had calmed down. They were then allowed to leave the police station. According to Tofiq Yaqublu, not counting the time he had spent at the police station, he spent about ten minutes in total in Ismayilli. During that time, he did not see any crowds or any clashes and did not hear anyone shouting slogans. He left Ismayilli at around 5 p.m. 39.  Tofiq Yaqublu’s statement at the trial slightly differed from his pre-trial statement. In particular, in his pre-trial statement, Tofiq Yaqublu had stated that he had arrived in Ismayilli at around 3 p.m. There he had seen a small group of eight to ten young locals. He had approached them and questioned them very briefly about the events of the previous night. 40.  In his statement at the trial hearings, the applicant submitted that his arrest had been politically motivated. As to the events in question, he stated that, after hearing about the events of 23 January 2013 in the news, the next day he and N.C. (see paragraph 58 below) had gone to Ismayilli by car. At around 3.30 p.m. on 24 January 2013 they had entered the Ismayilli Region and had arrived in the Ismayilli town centre at around 4 p.m. On the way to the town centre, they stopped from time to time and spoke to local residents, without getting out of the car, to receive information about the events that had taken place up to that time. In the town centre, they parked at the central square, where there was a group of journalists. He spoke to the journalists who told him that, despite the situation being calm at that moment, there was an atmosphere of tension in the town. While standing next to the journalists, he then posted some observations on his Facebook page. Just then he saw Tofiq Yaqublu passing by, speaking on his mobile phone. They greeted each other. After that, he, N.C. and one of the journalists went to a nearby teahouse. While they were in Ismayilli, there were no crowds of protesters and no violent clashes happening. After spending around thirty minutes in the teahouse, they left the town. On the way back to Baku, he gave a telephone interview to Azadliq Radio.
(b)  Statements made by victims and witnesses 41.  The trial court heard around one hundred witnesses, the majority of whom were prosecution witnesses. Twenty-three of them had the status of victims of criminal offences and were mostly either police officers who had allegedly suffered minor injuries or owners of damaged or destroyed property.
(i)  Witness statements concerning the events of 23 January 2013 42.  The majority of witnesses and victims of the criminal offences gave statements concerning solely the events of 23 January 2013. According to their statements, there was a spontaneous riot by local residents in the evening of 23 January 2013, sparked by violent behaviour of the director of the Chirag Hotel (E.S.) and his companion (El.M.), both of whom were heavily inebriated, after a car accident in which they had been involved. E.S. and El.M. repeatedly insulted and physically assaulted the other car’s driver and some local residents who were in the vicinity of the accident. This resulted in a fight where E.S. and El.M. got beaten up and, with more people joining the fight, it eventually escalated into a riot. The riot continued late into the night and resulted in injuries to a number of people, including several police officers, and the destruction of various property. 43.  The victims included the owner, employees and guests of the hotel and a few bystanders who had lost their property, as well as a number of injured police officers. For example, one of the victims, V.Az., a maid employed by the hotel, stated that some of her personal belongings had been destroyed during the events of 23 January 2013.
(ii)  Witness statements concerning the events of 24 January 2013
(α)  Witnesses who did not mention personally seeing the applicant 44.  Two police officers stated that there was public disorder on the morning of 24 January 2013 (according to one, between about 10 a.m. and 11 a.m.; according to the other, between about 11 a.m. and noon). A crowd moved from the area near the administrative building of the Regional Education Department in the direction of the IDEA building, throwing stones at the police. One of the two police officers, E.A., stated that between about 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., he had been injured by a stone thrown at him and had been immediately taken to hospital. 45.  S.K., a senior police officer of the Ismayilli RPD, gave a lengthy statement about the events of 23 January 2013. As to those of 24 January 2013, he stated that Tofiq Yaqublu had been detained and brought to him at the police station, and that at that time he had been informed that the applicant had also been in Ismayilli but had been “lost among the crowd and disappeared”. S.K. had spoken to Tofiq Yaqublu for about half an hour, and thereafter the latter had been released. According to S.K., there had been outbreaks of unrest throughout the day on 24 January 2013. 46.  Thirteen residents of Ismayilli or various villages around Ismayilli made statements, mostly very scant, containing various types of information relating to the events of 24 January 2013. None of those witnesses’ statements related directly to the charges against the applicant or Tofiq Yaqublu. Seven of them stated that on the afternoon of 24 January 2013, they had travelled in the same bus as E.I. (see paragraph 33 above) from one of the villages in Ismayilli Region to the town of Ismayilli, and had arrived in the evening, by which time there was unrest in the town. Three of them specified that they had arrived in the town between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., while three others stated that they had arrived between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. or when “it was already dark”. One did not specify the time of arrival.
(β)  Police officers 47.  Ten police officers mentioned in their pre-trial statements that they had seen the applicant on 24 January 2013. Some of them stated that there had been disorder between about 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on 24 January 2013. They further stated that on the afternoon of 24 January 2013 (according to three of them, at around 4 p.m.; according to two of them, at around 5 p.m.; according to four of them, between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m.; and one of them did not specify the exact time), they had seen a crowd gathered near the administrative building of the Regional Education Department (only two of them specified the size of the crowd, one of whom stated that there were twenty people, and the other – two hundred people). According to the documents in the case file, at least three of them stated that the people moved to the area close to the Regional Education Department along the “hospital road”, which was the informal name for M.F. Akhundov Street used by locals. All ten of them further stated that they had also seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu among the crowd, inciting people to act unlawfully by telling them to “block the road, disobey orders, throw stones, go towards the IDEA building”, and that, following this, the crowd had moved towards the IDEA building and thrown stones at the police. 48.  According to their own pre-trial statements (as summarised in the first-instance court’s judgment), six of the above-mentioned police officers had allegedly been hit by stones thrown by the crowd on the afternoon of 24 January 2013. All six of them were recognised as “victims of crime”. Two of them stated that they had not sustained any injuries because they had been wearing thick winter coats, while the others either stated that they had received only minor injuries or did not mention any injuries. One of them was the police officer who subsequently retracted his pre-trial statement (see paragraph 49 below), including the allegation that he had been hit by a stone. There were no medical records or other evidence in respect of any injuries to those police officers. According to the applicant, the very first time the above-mentioned six police officers were questioned about the events of 24 January 2013 was five months later, between 24 and 27 June 2013, and it was at that time that it was first alleged that they had had stones thrown at them on the afternoon of 24 January 2013. The Government remained silent in respect of these specific allegations by the applicant and did not submit any relevant documentary evidence refuting them. Neither did the Government submit full copies of these police officers’ pre-trial statements or relevant excerpts of the trial transcripts reflecting their statements at the trial hearings. 49.  One of the above-mentioned six police officers gave a differing statement during the trial hearings, claiming that he had been at the police station the whole day on 24 January 2013. He stated that he had not seen any of the accused committing or inciting others to commit acts of disorder. He explained that he had signed his pre-trial statement without having read it. According to the applicant, three months after the first-instance court had delivered its judgment, that police officer was dismissed from the police service. 50.  According to the applicant, another police officer also initially retracted his pre-trial statement, giving a similar explanation to that of the above-mentioned officer, but after a break in the hearing, he asked to be heard again and informed the court that he confirmed the content of his pre‑trial statement. The Government did not submit the transcripts reflecting the statements of this witness at the trial and did not otherwise comment on the above allegation by the applicant. 51.  The other police officers’ statements at the trial hearings appeared to confirm their pre-trial statements.
(γ)  Other witnesses 52.  According to the first-instance court’s judgment, two residents of Ismayilli, R.N. and I.M., stated that between about 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. on 24 January 2013 they had seen a crowd of people near the administrative building of the Regional Education Department. They had also seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu inciting them to riot, after which the crowd moved in the direction of the IDEA building committing acts of mass disorder. Both R.N. and I.M. specified that the crowd moved in the direction of the building of the Regional Education Department, and from there in the direction of the IDEA building, along the “hospital road” (M.F. Akhundov Street). 53.  According to the applicant, during cross-examination by the defence, which was not reflected in the first-instance court’s judgment, both of those witnesses, especially R.N., had given answers contradicting their earlier statements. In particular, the applicant claimed in his appeal (see paragraph 117 below) that, in his witness statement, R.N. had said that from around 3 p.m. on 24 January 2013 he had been at his relative’s home for lunch. After lunch, sometime before 5 p.m., he had gone to the area next to the Regional Education Department, where he had seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu inciting a large crowd of people to riot and that thereafter the crowd had attacked the police with stones. During cross-examination at the trial hearings, in response to a question by the defence, he had stated that, in connection with this criminal case, he had participated as a witness in the questioning by the prosecution authorities only two days after the Ismayilli events, and that he had not been a participant in any other investigative steps and had not signed any other procedural documents relating to this case. Following that response, the defence produced a copy of the record of the inspection of the damage to the Chiraq Hotel and N.A.’s house, which had been conducted from 10 a.m. to 4.10 p.m. on 24 January 2013 (see paragraph 65 below). According to the record, R.N. had been present during the inspection as an attesting witness and had signed the inspection record. Despite the fact that this had revealed a clear inconsistency between the record and R.N.’s testimony and his responses to the defence’s questions, raising a number of questions as to the witness’s integrity and the truthfulness of his statements, the presiding judge had hastily dismissed the witness without giving the defence an opportunity to ask any more questions. 54.  Similarly, according to the applicant, witness I.M.’s statement contained contradictory details and he had been unable to respond to the defence’s questions seeking clarification. Moreover, the defence had found out that that witness’s son was an employee of the burned hotel owned by V.A. 55.  The Government remained silent in respect of the above-mentioned allegations by the applicant in respect of R.N. and I.M.’s self-contradictory statements and did not submit any relevant documentary evidence refuting them. Neither did the Government submit full copies of these witnesses’ pre-trial statements or relevant excerpts of the trial transcripts reflecting their statements at the trial hearings. 56.  One resident of a nearby village, R.B., who had been in the town on 24 January 2013, stated, briefly, that there had been disorder in the centre of the town between about 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. and that he had seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu in the crowd. R.B. specified that the protesters moved towards the town centre along the “hospital road” (M.F. Akhundov Street). According to the applicant, R.B. also stated that he had not heard exactly what the applicant and Tofiq Yagublu had been saying to people around them (see paragraph 116 below for more detail). 57.  N.M., a journalist, stated that he had arrived in Ismayilli between about 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. together with N.C. He had seen several other journalists in the town centre. There had been no rioting or clashes with the police at that time. The applicant did not make any inflammatory statements to local residents. After a while, the witness had gone to a teahouse together with the applicant. 58.  N.C., the applicant’s colleague from REAL who had travelled together with the applicant and N.M. to Ismayilli, stated that they had arrived in the town at around 4 p.m. There had been no rioting or clashes with the police at that time. After staying in the square near the IDEA building for twenty-five to thirty minutes, they had gone to a teahouse. At around 5 p.m. they had left the town. 59.  I.A., a journalist, stated that there had been some disturbances in the town between about 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. and that the police had used water cannons and rubber bullets against the protesters. At around 4 p.m. other journalists had arrived from Baku. The applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu had arrived with them. At that time, there had been no unrest and no clashes with the police. The applicant had invited him for a tea, but he had refused. At around 5 p.m. the applicant had left the town together with N.M. and N.C. After they had left, in the evening, there had been clashes between protesters and the police, which had continued until around 11 p.m. 60.  M.R., a journalist, stated that she had contacted the applicant by phone from Baku while he was in Ismayilli on 24 January 2013. 61.  M.K., a journalist, stated that he had travelled to Ismayilli together with Tofiq Yaqublu. They had arrived a little after 4 p.m. Very shortly after their arrival, Tofiq Yaqublu had been taken by plain-clothed individuals to the police station. A few minutes later, he himself had gone to the same police station, where both of them had been told that the situation in the town was now calm and had been asked to go back to Baku. No inflammatory statements were made by Tofiq Yaqublu while they were in Ismayilli. 62.  R.C., a journalist, stated that between about 3 p.m. and 4.p.m. he had seen Tofiq Yaqublu in Ismayilli. A little while later, sometime between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m., he had seen the applicant and N.C. and had spoken to them for a few minutes. At around that time, plain-clothed individuals had taken Tofiq Yaqublu to the police station. After the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu had left the town, between about 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. there had been a new round of clashes between the protesters and the police. 63.  E.M., a journalist, stated that he had seen Tofiq Yaqublu being taken to the police station; he did not specify the time. He had also seen the applicant. In the evening, after the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu had left the town, there had been clashes between protesters and the police. 64.  Q.M., a journalist, stated that he had arrived in Ismayilli at around 4 p.m., together with M.K. and Tofiq Yaqublu. The latter had been taken to the police station a few minutes later. There had been no rioting or clashes with the police at that time. He had not seen the applicant at all while he had been in Ismayilli.
(c)  Other evidence 65.  The court also examined various material evidence, including video recordings and photographs of the events; inspection reports of damage to the Chirag Hotel, a house owned by the head of IDEA, several burned cars and scooters, public light fixtures, and other public and private property; and property documents showing, inter alia, that V.A. had property rights to the hotel. It appears that one of the formal inspections of the damaged property was conducted from 10 a.m. to 4.10 p.m. on 24 January 2013, in the presence of R.N. (see paragraph 53 above) as an attesting witness. 66.  As for the injuries to police officers during the events of 23 and 24 January 2013, the court took note of six forensic reports dated between 24 and 26 January 2013 documenting various injuries sustained by six police officers on either 23 or 24 January 2013, and a record of 25 February 2013 showing that one more injured police officer had been admitted to hospital on 24 January 2013. None of these seven injured police officers were the same as the six who had allegedly been hit by stones on the afternoon of 24 January 2013 (see paragraph 48 above). 67.  The court ordered forensic examinations in respect of allegations of ill-treatment by a number of the accused, including E.I. and M.A. (see paragraphs 30, 33 and 35 above). According to the forensic reports issued on 25 January 2014 (a year after the events in question), no injuries had been found on them. The court questioned four police officers named by the accused in connection with the alleged ill-treatment, all of whom denied that the accused had been ill-treated. The court noted that the majority of the accused, except one, had not complained of ill-treatment before being heard at the trial hearings. A criminal complaint by one of the accused had been examined by the Sabunchu District Prosecutor’s Office and dismissed. In such circumstances, the court concluded that the defendants’ allegations of ill-treatment were ill-founded. 68.  In so far as directly relevant to the specific charges against the applicant, the court examined the following evidence. 69.  According to the description given in the court’s judgment, a video recording of 24 January 2013 showed the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu “standing in the centre of the town of Ismayilli, opposite to the administrative building of the Education Department, at a place where acts of mass disorder had been committed”. The description did not specify the time of day when that scene had been shot. 70.  Another set of video recordings of the events of 24 January 2013 showed a group of local residents in the centre of the town, in N. Narimanov Street and M.F. Akhundov Street, blocking the roads, shouting slogans and disobeying repeated orders by the police to disperse. The same video contained scenes showing E.I. and M.A. throwing stones at the police and encouraging others in the crowd to do the same and to disobey the police. There was also a scene showing a police officer (who was not one of the officers who claimed to have been injured on the afternoon of 24 January 2013 (see paragraphs 44 and 48 above)) getting injured by a stone and leaving the area limping. Lastly, the video showed the police using a water cannon against the crowd and the protesters dispersing in various directions. The description of the above recordings did not specify the time of day when those scenes had been shot. 71.  The court also examined the applicant’s mobile phone geo‑localisation records for 24 January 2013. They indicated that at 2.41 p.m. he had been within the zone of the antenna in the town of Gobustan; at 3.39 p.m. – the antenna in the village of Diyalli in the Ismayilli region; at 3.46 p.m., 3.59 p.m., 4.27 p.m., 4.40 p.m. and 4.58 p.m. – the antenna on Javanshir Street in the town of Ismayilli; at 6.09 p.m. – the antenna in the village of Bizlan in the Ismayilli region; at 7:25 p.m. – the antenna in Gobustan; and at 8.41 p.m. – an antenna in Baku. 72.  The court further examined the content of the applicant’s blog post (see paragraph 10 above) and the content of the telephone interview he had given to Azadliq Radio between 5.41 p.m. and 5.46 p.m. on 24 January 2013 (see paragraph 11 above). 73.  The court also examined information given by the Ismayilli RPD and the MNS, described in the judgment as follows:
“According to letter no. 2/117 of the Ismayilli District Police Department dated 1 April 2013, on 24 January 2013, at places where people were densely gathered in front of the Education Department in Ismayilli, [Tofiq Yaqublu], together with [the applicant], incited people to make assertions against the State and government bodies and their activities.
According to letter of 6/2274 of the Ministry of National Security dated 20 April 2013, on 24 January 2013 [Tofiq Yaqublu and the applicant] were in Ismayilli and called on residents to resist the police, to block roads ... and to commit other similar acts aimed at disturbing social and political stability.” 74.  On 18 November 2013 the applicant’s lawyers applied to the trial court with a number of requests, in particular:
(a)  that the applicant be released from pre-trial detention, with reference to Article 5 of the Convention and various provisions of domestic law (this request was similar to the one lodged at the preliminary hearing);
(b)  that various pieces of evidence against the applicant obtained at the pre-trial stage be declared inadmissible, including statements by a number of prosecution witnesses (including those mentioned in paragraphs 48 and 52-56 above) on the grounds that they had been unlawfully obtained, and the letters from the Ismayilli RPD and the MNS (see paragraph 73 above) on the grounds that they contained information that had not been verified independently by the prosecution authorities (this request was also similar to the one lodged at the preliminary hearing);
(c)  that additional witnesses for the defence be heard (including I.A., R.C., and E.M. (see paragraphs 59 and 62-63 above)) and other additional evidence (inter alia, contemporaneous media reports concerning the events of 24 January 2013) be examined; and
(d)  that the hearings be held in a larger courtroom which could accommodate media representatives. 75.  The court examined those requests at the hearing held on 29 November 2013 and decided: (a)  to reject the request for release on the grounds that the applicant’s circumstances had not changed; (b)  to reject the request concerning the inadmissibility of the evidence produced by the prosecution, on the grounds that it was ill-founded; (c)  to postpone the examination of the request for admission of additional evidence, because it was not sufficiently substantiated; and (d)  to reject the request to change the hearing venue, because media representatives were able to attend the hearings in the current venue. 76.  It appears from the transcript of the hearing of 29 November 2013 that there was a verbal altercation between the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu on one side, and some prosecution witnesses on the other, and that the presiding judge called the accused to order on several occasions. The judge also issued a warning to one of the applicant’s lawyers, Mr F. Agayev, for loudly objecting to the court’s decisions to reject the defence’s requests. 77.  On 2 December 2013, after having consulted the transcript of the preliminary hearing, the applicant’s lawyers applied to the court to amend some of the wording used in the transcript to describe the applicant’s statement during the preliminary hearing to the effect that he considered the trial to be a sham and did not accept the trial court as a fair tribunal. On 13 December 2013 the court held that the transcript had been correct and that the amendments proposed had the purpose of justifying the applicant’s and his lawyers’ disrespectful attitude towards the court during the preliminary hearing. 78.  On 29 December 2013 the applicant applied for access to the transcripts of the trial hearings, arguing that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the transcript of each hearing had to be drafted within three days of the hearing and made available to the parties within the following three days. The court rejected the request, ruling that the transcripts should be made available to the parties not after each trial hearing, but after the completion of the trial. On 13 January 2014 the court reiterated its position on that matter. 79.  On 11 January 2013 one of the applicant’s lawyers applied to the court to terminate the participation in the trial as “victims of crime” of six police officers who had allegedly been hit by stones during the afternoon of 24 January 2013 (see paragraph 48 above). He claimed that the decision granting them victim status had been unsubstantiated. In support of the request, the lawyer argued that all of those police officers had first been questioned five months after the events by the same investigator. He further argued that it had not been shown that the police officers had sustained any injuries, and that there were no forensic reports in this respect. Moreover, having been given victim status, unlike regular witnesses, those persons had been present in the courtroom throughout the entire trial, giving them an ability to coordinate their statements, not only with each other but with other prosecution witnesses. 80.  It appears that the above-mentioned application was dismissed by the court. 81.  At the hearing held on 13 January 2014 one of the applicant’s lawyers, Mr F. Agayev, lodged a second objection to the composition of the court, arguing, inter alia, that the court was biased: it had rejected all of the defence’s requests and created obstacles to the proper questioning of “fake witnesses” by the defence. The court dismissed the objection, finding, inter alia, that it was ill-founded, that the reasons for the objection were artificial and unsubstantiated, and that it appeared to have been lodged with the purpose of delaying the trial. The court also imposed a fine on the lawyer in the amount of 220 Azerbaijani manats (AZN), under Article 107.4 of the CCrP, for disrupting the court proceedings. 82.  In February 2013 the applicant’s lawyers applied to the court to admit and examine as evidence contemporaneous reports by various news agencies, including the Azerbaijan Press Agency (“the APA”) and Trend, showing that no clashes had been reported to be happening in Ismayilli at the time the applicant was there. It appears that this request was rejected. 83.  After the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes had delivered its judgment (see paragraphs 85 et seq. below), on 17 March 2014 the applicant’s lawyers and on 19 March 2014 the applicant himself applied for access to the transcripts of the court hearings. On 4, 10, 16 and 22 April 2014 the applicant was given access to the transcripts for a total of seventeen hours and thirty minutes. It appears that one of the applicant’s lawyers, Mr F. Agayev, was not given access to the transcripts because he had refused the demand by a court clerk to hand over all of the technical devices he had been carrying (his mobile phone, tablet, and so on) which could have been used to photograph pages of the transcripts. He had refused that demand on the grounds that there were more than ten volumes of transcripts (a total of about 2,000 to 3,000 pages) and that there was not enough time to properly consult them without the use of technical devices. It appears from the documents in the case file that the applicant’s other lawyer, Mr K. Bagirov, was given access to the transcripts for an unspecified period of time. However, he was not allowed to make copies of the transcripts. 84.  On 28 April 2014 the applicant submitted to the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes his remarks concerning the transcripts of the trial hearings, of which he had time to read about 500 pages. He alleged that in a number of instances various statements by witnesses had been distorted or misrepresented in the transcripts in a manner unfavourable to him. By a decision of 12 May 2014 the court refused to accept the applicant’s remarks, holding that the transcripts were accurate. 85.  On 17 March 2014 the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes delivered its judgment, deciding as follows. 86.  As to the accused whose allegations of ill-treatment were considered to be ill-founded (see paragraph 67 above), the court decided to take into account their pre-trial statements, in which they had admitted the factual accusations against them, as more truthful than their statements at the trial hearings, in which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been ill‑treated at the pre-trial stage. 87.  In respect of the other accused and witnesses who had given differing statements at the pre-trial stage and during the trial hearings, including the police officer who had retracted his pre-trial statement (see paragraph 49 above) and the accused E.I. and M.A., the court decided to take into account the pre-trial statements as being more “truthful and objective”, reasoning that the statements they had made later at the trial hearings, which had been more favourable to the accused, had been inconsistent with other evidence and had been designed to help the accused “avoid criminal liability”. 88.  With regard to the accusations against the applicant in particular, the court found as follows. 89.  The statements of prosecution witnesses, video recordings and other evidence proved that there had been mass disorder in Ismayilli between about 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 24 January 2013, that the applicant had been in Ismayilli at that time, and that, together with Tofiq Yaqublu, he had incited local residents, including E.I. and M.A., to commit those violent acts of mass disorder, threatening the lives and health of six police officers. 90.  The court further held that the statements made by the applicant on his blog (see paragraph 10 above) and in his interview to Azadliq Radio (see paragraph 11 above) also proved that, even before traveling to Ismayilli, he had had an “intention to organise mass disorder” and that, when in Ismayilli, he was guilty of inciting people to commit acts of disorder and to disobey the police. 91.  As to the statements of witnesses Q.M., E.M., R.C., M.K., I.A., N.C. and N.M., who had said that there had been no clashes between protesters and the police in the town at that time and that neither the applicant nor Tofiq Yaqublu had incited anyone to violence or disobedience, the court found that there were inconsistencies in their statements. In particular, the court found as follows:
“However, [Q.M.] stated that, after he had greeted [the applicant], he had gone to sleep in the car. In fact, he had not known the whereabouts of [the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu] during that period of time. [M.K.] stated that, after getting out of the car, Tofiq Yaqublu had gone on foot towards the building of the IDEA, whereas during the pre-trial investigation [M.K.] had stated that [Q.M.] had left them, that he himself had frequently changed his location in order to record the people moving around in the square, that he had separated from Tofiq Yaqublu, that Tofiq Yaqublu had been at another place, that [another journalist] had been taking photos, that [N.A., the Head of the IDEA] had started to give an interview at that time, and that, when he had been going for the interview, Tofiq Yaqublu ... had been arrested and taken away by plain-clothed individuals. [E.M.] stated that Tofiq Yaqublu had been arrested before the interview given by [the Head of the IDEA], while [R.C.] stated that the interview ... had lasted about twenty minutes at most and that, during that period of time, he had not been aware of the whereabouts of [the applicant] and Tofiq Yaqublu. As it can be seen from the above, the witnesses who stated that they had been next to [the applicant] and Tofiq Yaqublu at all times concealed the essence of the matter by giving contradictory statements.” 92.  The court found that the statements by those witnesses were favourable to the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu because those witnesses knew the defendants personally and wanted to “help them avoid criminal liability”. Their statements were not accepted as “objective, sincere and truthful” because they were “incompatible with the facts of the case and contradicted the irrefutable evidence” of the applicant’s guilt. 93.  The court further found that, likewise, the applicant’s and Tofiq Yaqublu’s statements at the trial hearings claiming that there had been no mass disorder while they had been in Ismayilli did not reflect the actual circumstances, and had been made in order to “avoid criminal liability”. 94.  The Sheki Court for Serious Crimes convicted the applicant under Articles 220.1 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. 95.  The other defendants were also found guilty as charged and given sentences ranging from two years and six months’ to eight years’ imprisonment, with some sentences being conditional. 96.  On 14 April 2014 one of the applicant’s lawyers, Mr F. Agayev, lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes of 17 March 2014. 97.  The lawyer pointed out at the outset that at the time of lodging the appeal, neither a full copy of the text of the judgment of 17 March 2014 nor the transcripts of the trial hearings had yet been made available to him. 98.  The lawyer argued that the applicant had been convicted following a sham trial by a court which had tried him from a position of “presumption of guilt” throughout the entire proceedings. The applicant’s visit to Ismayilli, as an opposition politician, to find out the reasons for the events of 23 January 2013 had been used by the Government as an excuse to punish him for his legitimate political criticism, a decision which had been taken long before the Ismayilli events. 99.  The rights of the defence had been seriously restricted in that the majority of their well-founded requests and objections had been routinely dismissed; the defence had not been given adequate access to trial transcripts and some of the evidence (including some video material); the defence lawyers had not been allowed to use various technical devices, such as laptop and tablet computers, during the trial hearings, and so on. 100.  The formal accusations against the applicant (see paragraphs 15 and 19 above) had been written in a manner which did not comply with the norms of the Azerbaijani language, making it difficult to understand exactly what the applicant was accused of. The factual allegations against him were unclear and did not fit the elements of the criminal offences proscribed under Articles 220.1 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code. Given that the applicant had been in Ismayilli for only about one hour and had no prior personal acquaintance with anyone implicated in the riots of the previous night, it was highly improbable – and even physically impossible – for him to have “organised” mass disorder within such a short time frame, as described in the formal accusations. 101.  The applicant had been accused and convicted of organising an outbreak of mass disorder which had never happened. All the reliable and meaningful evidence produced at the trial had clearly shown that there had been no acts of mass disorder during the afternoon of 24 January 2013 while the applicant was in the town. 102.  Firstly, all video recordings and other relevant material evidence showed that there had been no clashes with the police in the afternoon of 24 January 2013 and that the applicant had not incited anyone to violence or disobedience. 103.  In particular, a video recording originally taken from the website of Obyektiv TV, operated by an NGO named the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (“the IRFS”), had been edited before its examination by the court (see paragraphs 69-70 above). As to the parts of the video showing clashes between protesters and the police (it appears that, here, the lawyer referred to the scenes described in paragraph 70 above), it was clear from the size and direction of the shadows cast by buildings, people and other objects that the video had been shot during the morning. That fact had been additionally confirmed by the chairman of the IRFS in a letter dated 24 January 2014. The full, unedited version of the video attached to the letter contained scenes shot during the afternoon of 24 January 2013 showing numerous police vehicles on M.F. Akhundov Street advancing in the direction of the IDEA building with no protesters present. Then it showed the applicant, N.C. and N.M. standing near the Education Department and calmly talking to each other, with no one else in the vicinity. Afterwards, Tofiq Yaqublu could be seen talking to R.C. and two others (it appears that the above scenes correspond to the scenes described in paragraph 69 above). Then, it showed Tofiq Yaqublu being taken by the police to a car and driven away. Later, an interview with the head of the IDEA was shown. Throughout the entire video, the situation in the town during the afternoon of 24 January 2013 was calm and under the control of the police. 104.  A video made available by the Yeni Musavat newspaper showed the absence of any clashes between protesters and the police during the afternoon of 24 January 2013. According to the applicant’s lawyer, the first‑instance court added that video to the case file but, for unexplained reasons, decided not to use it as evidence. 105.  A third video that was examined during the trial had been recorded by a camera installed on the Unibank building, directed at the area of M.F. Akhundov Street near the building of the Regional Education Department. From that angle, if any crowd had passed in the vicinity of the Education Department and headed towards the IDEA building, it would certainly have been reflected in the recording. However, the parts of the video corresponding to the period between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 24 January 2014 did not show any crowd or even a small group of protesters in that area. 106.  The applicant’s mobile phone geo-localisation records showed that he had left the town of Ismayilli by 4.58 p.m. Similarly, Tofiq Yaqublu’s mobile phone geo-localisation records showed that he had left the town by 5.17 p.m. 107.  On several occasions the defence had requested the trial court to examine a number of contemporaneous news reports by various information agencies, television and radio stations, and other mass-media sources which had closely followed the Ismayilli events. None of them had reported any unrest happening in Ismayilli in the afternoon of 24 January 2013 and had only reported clashes happening in the evening, starting at around 8 p.m. However, the court had rejected the defence’s requests to examine that material. 108.  Secondly, the applicant’s version of the events was strongly corroborated by the statements of Tofiq Yaqublu, N.C., N.M., M.K., R.C., I.A., Q.M., E.M. and others. They had all stated that there had been no clashes during the afternoon of 24 January 2013 and that the applicant had not incited anyone to commit any acts of disorder. Those statements were mutually consistent and were also corroborated by all the material evidence, as described above. 109.  Two of the accused, E.I. and M.A., had both stated that there had been unrest in Ismayilli during the morning of 24 January 2013, but that they had both been out of town during the afternoon. Neither the investigating authorities nor the court had bothered to check their alibis. Their statements also indirectly corroborated the applicant’s version of the events, namely that there had been no unrest during the afternoon of 24 January 2013. Also, both of them had alleged before the court that they had been ill-treated by the investigating authorities with the aim of obtaining statements incriminating the applicant. 110.  Three police officers had mentioned in their statements that there had been no unrest during the afternoon of 24 January 2013. One police officer had testified that he had been injured by a stone during the morning. Their statements also corroborated the applicant’s version of the events. 111.  As to the witnesses who had testified against the applicant, the majority of them were police officers. Their statements were contradictory, false, inconsistent in various details (such as, for example, the time and exact locations where they had seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu) and conflicted with all the video recordings and other material evidence. 112.  In particular, the assertion that six police officers had been hit by stones on the afternoon of 24 January 2013 was false. None of those police officers had reported being injured or hit by stones immediately or soon after the alleged incident. All of them had been recognised as “victims of crime” and questioned by the prosecution for the first time only between 24 and 27 June 2013, five months after the events. There had been no medical evidence of their injuries. By contrast, the injuries sustained by seven police officers on 23 January and during the early hours of 24 January 2013 had been promptly documented either on the same day or a couple of days later. In such circumstances, it was clear that the above-mentioned six police officers had given false testimony against the applicant. The applicant had formally applied to the court to exclude them from the trial as “victims of crime”, but to no avail. 113.  When cross-examined by the defence at a trial hearing, one of the above-mentioned six police officers had been unable to name the personnel of the police unit to which he had been deployed and, until assisted by a prosecutor, could not pinpoint his own exact location in Ismayilli at the time when he had allegedly seen the applicant. When the defence lawyer had tried to get him to show, on an official map of Ismayilli, exactly where he had seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu standing and inciting the crowd, the presiding judge had forbidden the use of the map. When the defence lawyer had then asked the police officer to describe his location with reference to various landmarks next to the Regional Education Department, the presiding judge had dismissed the question. The defence lawyer had then lodged a second objection to the composition of the trial court. In response, the presiding judge had decided, firstly, to leave the objection unexamined and, secondly, to fine the lawyer in the amount of AZN 220 for having lodged an allegedly unsubstantiated objection designed to delay the hearing. Thereafter, the defence lawyers for all of the accused had been dissuaded from lodging any further objections, having been clearly shown that doing so would be meaningless. 114.  Similarly, other police officers had been unable to answer the defence’s questions seeking clarification, or had given statements that differed significantly from their pre-trial statements, only to radically revert back to their pre-trial statements immediately after a break in the hearing announced by the court. On some occasions, the court had dismissed police officers from the witness stand before the defence could complete the cross‑examination. 115.  Furthermore, at the trial one of the police officers (see paragraph 50 above) had retracted the written statement he had signed at the pre-trial stage, stating that everything in it had been a product of an investigator’s imagination. 116.  The applicant’s lawyer argued that, at the trial hearings, witness R.B. (see paragraph 56 above) had stated that he had seen only about twenty people in the town centre between about 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 24 January 2013, and that, although he had seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu among them, he had not heard what they had been talking about with the people around them. 117.  The lawyer further argued that R.N. was a ”fake witness” engaged by the police and claimed that both witnesses R.N. and I.M. had given knowingly false and contradictory statements as described in paragraphs 53‑54 above. 118.  In conclusion, the applicant’s lawyer argued that a proper assessment of the available evidence clearly showed that, contrary to the prosecution’s version of the facts, there had been no acts of mass disorder at the time when the applicant had been in the town (between about 4 p.m. and 5 p.m.) and that some clashes between protesters and the police had taken place several hours before he had arrived in the town (between about 10 a.m. and 11 a.m.) and several hours after he had left the town (after 8 p.m.). Statements given by the prosecution witnesses, to the contrary, had been shown to be contradictory, unreliable or false, and uncorroborated by the available material evidence. Accordingly, there was no corpus delicti in respect of the criminal offences for which the applicant had been convicted. 119.  Before the examination of the appeal, on 2 June 2014 the applicant applied to the Sheki Court of Appeal for access to the remaining part of the transcripts of the trial hearings for consultation. His request was granted and the date for his consultation of the transcripts was scheduled for 9 June 2014. However, on 6 and 9 June 2014 he lodged two applications withdrawing his previous request and, instead, asking for a speedy examination of his appeal. 120.  During the examination of the appeal by the Sheki Court of Appeal, the applicant’s lawyers lodged a number of applications repeating those lodged with the first-instance court. It appears that all of them were rejected. 121.  By a judgment of 24 September 2014 the Sheki Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence, essentially reiterating the reasoning of the first-instance court in respect of the charges against him. The judgment did not address any of the arguments raised in the applicant’s appeal. 122.  In November 2014 the applicant’s lawyers submitted a number of remarks concerning the transcript of the appellate hearings, and requesting amendments. The Sheki Court of Appeal refused to amend the transcripts. 123.  On 14 November 2014 the applicant’s lawyers lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, reiterating the points raised in the previous appeal. 124.  On 19 November 2014 a judge of the Supreme Court requested all the material of the case file from the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes. At the first hearing held on 13 January 2015 the Supreme Court decided, in the absence of any objections, to postpone further hearing of the case for an indefinite period because more time was needed for examination of the case file. The hearing was resumed on 13 October 2015. 125.  By a decision of 13 October 2015, the Supreme Court quashed the Sheki Court of Appeal’s judgment of 24 September 2014, having found that the lower courts’ rejection of the defence’s requests for the examination of additional defence witnesses (in particular, two members of REAL and one NGO director) and other evidence (in particular, contemporaneous news reports by various media agencies, additional mobile-phone records, additional video recordings, and so on) had been insufficiently reasoned and were in breach of the domestic procedural rules and the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. The case was remitted for a new examination by the appellate court. 126.  Before the repeat examination of the case by the Sheki Court of Appeal, the applicant, who at that time was serving his sentence in Penal Facility No. 2 in Baku, wrote to the appellate court several times waiving his right to be personally present at the appeal hearings to be held in Sheki, expressing confidence that his lawyers would conduct his defence adequately in his absence. The Sheki Court of Appeal responded each time with an explanation that, under domestic law, the defendant’s presence at appeal hearings was mandatory and invited him to attend the hearings. Finally, on 20 April 2016 the court ruled that the applicant should be brought to Sheki for the appeal hearings. 127.  During the hearings at the Sheki Court of Appeal, the applicant’s lawyers lodged a number of applications, including requests for the applicant’s release from detention; for the allegedly unlawfully obtained statements of prosecution witnesses (including those mentioned in paragraphs 48 and 52-56 above) and other evidence produced by the prosecution (including the letters of the Ismayilli RPD and the MNS) to be declared inadmissible; for additional defence witnesses to be heard; for the admission and examination of contemporaneous news reports by various information agencies; and for examination of the video recording taken by the camera installed on the Unibank building. It appears that, apart from the first two requests, all the others were granted. 128.  The appellate court re-examined the case material of the first‑instance trial and, in addition, examined new evidence. In particular, it heard two new defence witnesses (both members of REAL). Their statements do not appear to have contained any significant details in respect of the accusations against the applicant. The court also examined a number of contemporaneous news reports and the “Unibank video recording”. 129.  By a judgment of 29 April 2016, the Sheki Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence. Below is the summary of the appellate court’s reasoning contained in its judgment. 130.  The court’s assessment of the evidence examined at the first-instance and appeal hearings began as follows:
“Having viewed the recording of the video surveillance camera installed at the ATM of Unibank in the town of Ismayilli, directed at M.F. Akhundov street leading towards the administrative buildings of the IDEA and the Education Department, the court determined that between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 24 January 2013 [the situation] was relatively calm on that street.
Having examined [reports] of APA, Trend and other mass media ..., the court noted that the media had reported that, as a continuation of the events starting on 23 January 2013, between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on 24 January 2013 there was a general situation of confrontation and tension in the centre of Ismayilli, [and had also reported] about growing numbers of people on the streets in the vicinity of buildings of government bodies.
...
It is noted in the 25 January 2013 issue of the Yeni Musavat Online newspaper ... that [E.M.], the newspaper’s correspondent sent to Ismayilli, reported at 4.05 p.m. on 24 January 2013 that ‘currently numerous vehicles – buses, water cannons, and other vehicles, thought to be coming from Baku – are entering the town. The crowd around the area where the government bodies are located has been growing and tension remains.’ At 5 p.m. he reported that ‘... despite the engagement of additional forces, the crowd is growing on the streets where the government bodies are located and around them. According to local rumours, the protest, which started in the town centre yesterday, would continue tonight after dark’.” 131.  The court also referred to, as evidence, the letters from the Ismayilli RPD and the MNS, as described in the first-instance judgment (see paragraph 73 above). 132.  The judgment continued as follows:
“The court does not accept as evidence the statements of witnesses [Q.M., E.M., R.C., M.K., I.A., N.C. and N.M.] that there were no riots between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 24 January 2013 and the statements of [the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu] that they did not incite the public to riot or resist the police, that there were no riots between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 24 January 2013, and that they spent only five to ten minutes in Ismayilli.
In particular, [Q.M.] stated that, after he had greeted [the applicant], he had gone to sleep in the car and, in fact, had not known the whereabouts of [the applicant and Tofiq Yaqbulu] during that period of time. [M.K.] stated that, after getting out of the car, Tofiq Yaqublu had gone on foot towards the building of the IDEA, while during the pre-trial investigation [M.K.] had stated that [Q.M.] had left them, that he himself had frequently changed his location in order to record the people moving around in the square, that he had separated from Tofiq Yaqublu, that Tofiq Yaqublu had been at another place, that [another journalist] had been taking photos, that [the head of the IDEA] had started to give an interview at that time, and that, when he had been going for the interview, Tofiq Yaqublu ... had been arrested and taken away by plain-clothed individuals. [E.M.] stated that Tofiq Yaqublu had been arrested before the interview given by [the head of the IDEA], while [R.C.] stated that the interview ... had lasted about twenty minutes at most and that, during that period of time, he had not been aware of the whereabouts of [the applicant] and Tofiq Yaqublu. As it can be seen from the above, the witnesses who stated that they had been next to [the applicant] and Tofiq Yaqublu at all times, concealed the essence of the matter by giving conflicting statements. Moreover, in his interview to ... Azadliq Radio given from 5.41 to 5.46 p.m. on 24 January 2013, Tofiq Yaqublu stated that ‘[he had been] detained at the police station for approximately forty minutes ... [He had been] taken to [S.K.’s] office at the police station [who alleged that Tofiq Yaqublu] had come here to organise sabotage and to prepare people for more protests. [The police were then reassured that Tofiq Yaqublu was indeed a columnist for a newspaper]. For that reason, [he] was released.’ This interview proves that Tofiq Yaqublu was not taken to the police station without a reason, but that he was detained ... because of his actions aimed at disruption and sabotage.” 133.  The court then noted that the statements of ten police officers, including five of the six alleged victims of crime (see paragraphs 47-48 above) and witnesses R.N., I.M. and R.B. (see paragraphs 52-56 above) indicated that between about 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 24 January 2013 there was mass disorder in front of the building of the Regional Education Department and that the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu had incited people to riot and resist the police. 134.  The court referred to the applicant’s interview with Azadliq Radio (see paragraph 11 above). According to the court’s interpretation, contrary to what the applicant had stated in the court proceedings, the content of his interview showed that the situation had not been calm in Ismayilli during his visit. 135.  In respect of the witness statements favouring the applicant, the court concluded as follows:
“Having come to the same conclusion as the first-instance court, the court considers that ... the witnesses [Q.M., E.M., R.C., M.K., I.A., N.C., and N.M.] wanted to help [the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu], whom they knew and had relations with, avoid criminal liability. The specific circumstances mentioned in their statements cannot be accepted as objective, sincere and genuine because they do not fit the factual circumstances of the case and conflict with other, irrefutable evidence.” 136.  As to the video recording by the camera installed on the Unibank building, the court assessed it as follows:
“The court holds that the statements of [the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu] ... do not fit the actual circumstances of the case. [Their] statements ... are of a self-defence nature and designed to avoid criminal liability. As the main evidence proving their statements, they rely on the recording dated 24 January 2013 of the video surveillance camera installed at the ATM of Unibank, directed at M.F. Akhundov Street leading towards the administrative buildings of the IDEA and the Education Department. Although the recording shows that between about 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. the situation was relatively calm on that street, it is not the only street leading to the centre (the IDEA [building]); moreover, it cannot be ruled out that individuals could have gone along that street towards the building of the [IDEA] one-by-one and gathered there [afterwards], or could have arrived in the centre from other directions. ...” 137.  As to the video evidence originally examined by the first-instance court, the Sheki Court of Appeal mentioned the video recording showing the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu “standing in the centre of the town of Ismayilli, opposite to the administrative building of the Education Department, at a place where acts of mass disorder had been committed”, without specifying the time of day when that scene had been shot (see paragraphs 69 and 103 above). However, the Sheki Court of Appeal did not mention any of the other video recordings of 24 January 2013 relied on by the first-instance court, showing clashes between protesters and the police (see paragraphs 70 and 103 above). 138.  The court further noted that, according to the information obtained from the first-instance court, throughout the day on 24 January 2013 forty‑four people had been arrested under the Code of Administrative Offences, including nine people arrested between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. The court concluded that this was an indication that the situation in the town had not been calm while the applicant was there. 139.  The judgment continued as follows:
“[The applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu] claimed that the evidence gathered by the prosecution against them had been false. As an example, they referred to the testimony of [R.N.] who had participated, as an attesting witness, in the inspection of the scene of the events [of the previous night] from 10 a.m. to 4.10 p.m. on 24 January 2013, and had later testified that at around 5 p.m. on the same day he had seen [the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu inciting people to commit acts of disorder]. [They] argue that [R.N.] is a person who cooperates with the police and that the police had instructed him to testify against them. However, the court holds that [R.N.’s] presence during the inspection of the scene of the events as an attesting witness does not make it impossible for him to have observed and witnessed an event occurring one hour later.” 140.  The appellate court then digressed to discuss at significant length the Court’s judgment in Ilgar Mammadov (cited above). 141.  The appellate court’s judgment continued as follows:
“Being far from an intention to give an assessment of the European Court’s position in its above-mentioned judgment, the court holds that, first of all, [the applicant’s and Tofiq Yaqublu’s] unlawful actions should be evaluated through the prism of the events that took place in Ismayilli on 23 and 24 January 2013. That is so because those events constituted the reason and grounds for instituting criminal proceedings and the criminal prosecution of [the applicant, Tofiq Yaqublu] and others.
As described above, on 23 and 24 January 2013 in Ismayilli, under the organisation and with the active participation of the accused persons, a crowd formed by a large number of residents spontaneously joined together and destroyed, by burning, and partly looted the building of the Chirag Hotel, destroying equipment and items found inside the building, as well as personal belongings of the hotel guests and staff; [they also destroyed, by burning,] three cars in the grounds of the hotel, damaged houses and cars on the streets with stones, [and also destroyed, by burning,] private property of people who had no connection to the events, and inflicted bodily injuries on individuals, including many police officers who were performing their official duty to restore public order.
In connection with these events, on 23 January 2013 criminal proceedings were instituted under Articles 186.2.2, 221.2.1, 233 and 315.2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan and eighteen individuals were charged [in the framework of those proceedings], over fifty individuals were found administratively liable, and twenty-four individuals were recognised as victims.
The criminal events that occurred in Ismayilli were the most widely covered news for several days by both local and reputable foreign mass media. In other words, they were not ordinary events that happened in Ismayilli.
In connection with the participation of [the applicant] in those events and the criminal offences committed by him, as well as the evidence concerning those offences, the court finds it necessary to reiterate once more the following.
Although [the applicant] states that he arrived in Ismayilli at 3.46 p.m. and left before 5 p.m. on 24 January 2013, examination of the detailed invoice of his incoming and outgoing mobile calls, and his blog post of 25 January 2013, where he shared his impressions from his trip by writing ‘yesterday I was in Ismayilli for a little more than two hours together with another member of our movement (REAL) and a media coordinator’, proves that on 24 January 2013 [the applicant] was in Ismayilli from 3.46 p.m. to 6 p.m.
[The applicant] insists that, when he was in Ismayilli, there was no mass disorder there. However, this statement is completely refuted by the case material.” 142.  In this connection, the court continued:
“Victims [in particular, five police officers (of the six mentioned in paragraph 48 above), E.A. (see paragraph 44 above) and V.Az. (see paragraph 43 above)] and witnesses [in particular, R.N., I.M. and R.B. (see paragraphs 52-56 above), as well as S.K. (see paragraph 45 above) and four other police officers (see paragraph 47 above)] stated during both the pre-trial investigation and the first-instance hearings that throughout the day on 24 January 2013, including between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., mass riots had continued, crowds of people had attacked the [IDEA] building and had stoned police officers. They also testified that they had seen [the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu] standing separately from each other, raising their hands, talking to people surrounding them and saying ‘do not be afraid of anything, enter the building of the IDEA, stone the police officers’. At their instigation, a group of individuals started moving towards the building of the IDEA and [the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu] were also among them. The police attempted to isolate [the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu] from the crowd by requesting them to [step aside], but they disobeyed and moved to the back of the crowd.
Another circumstance worth noting is that [two police officers] gave those statements on 28 January 2013 and [R.N. and I.M.] gave their statements on 2 February 2013, that is before [the applicant’s] arrest.
At the same time, [R.N. and I.M.] confirmed their statements during face-to-face confrontations with [the applicant].” 143.  The court then once again referred to the information reported by the Yeni Musavat Online newspaper (see paragraph 130 above) and the information the applicant had published on his Facebook page (see paragraph 10 above). It then reiterated that nine people had been arrested between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. on 24 January 2013. 144.  The judgment continued:
“The above-mentioned circumstances show that on 24 January 2013, when [the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu] were in Ismayilli, the events were unfolding there and that the crowd attacked the IDEA building and committed acts of violence against the police.” 145.  The court then found that it was not “believable” that the applicant had visited Ismayilli simply to gather “first-hand information”, considering, inter alia, that his Facebook posts were aimed at “promoting disobedience”. 146.  The court also found that the applicant’s Facebook posts of the afternoon of 24 January 2013 and his blog post of 25 January 2013 (see paragraph 10 above) were proof of his intention to organise mass disorder. In particular, it stated:
“The above-mentioned [posts by the applicant] demonstrate once again that, before traveling to Ismayilli, the applicant had an intention to organise mass disorder with the aim of defending the REAL movement’s demands for the creation of conditions for a revolt, and that, after he had arrived in Ismayilli, he had carried out his intention.” 147.  The court concluded its analysis as follows:
“The above-mentioned circumstances of the case prove beyond doubt that on 24 January 2013 [the applicant] travelled to Ismayilli and organised mass disorder there together with [Tofiq Yaqublu]. Moreover, at around 5 p.m. on the same date, as active participants, [they] were able to achieve that a group of individuals formed of [E.I.], [M.A.] and others marched in masses in the direction of the administrative building of the [IDEA], and threw stones at police officers who were preventing [this march] in accordance with the requirements of the law, resulting in the use of violence posing a danger to the lives and health of [six named police officers].
As for [the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu] arriving from Baku and, within two hours, managing to convert unorganised riots into organised acts of subversion, the court considers that in normal circumstances it would not appear convincing that [this could have been done]; however, it must be taken into account that [the rioters] considered [N.A.], the Head of the [IDEA], responsible for the events, they were enraged and, as [the applicant] himself stated, ‘the situation was flammable’. [The applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu] took advantage of this factor and, using anti-government slogans, attracted [the rioters’] attention, enraged them even more and then committed the criminal offences described above.” 148.  On 21 June 2016 the applicant’s lawyer, Mr F. Agayev, lodged a cassation appeal against the Sheki Court of Appeal’s judgment of 29 April 2016, reiterating the points in his previous appeals and arguing further that the appellate court had assessed the evidence in a manifestly arbitrary manner. As an example, he pointed out that the court had failed to duly take into account that the video recording by the Unibank camera clearly refuted the prosecution’s version of the events, according to which the crowd had allegedly moved specifically along M.F. Akhundov Street in the direction of the police positioned near the IDEA building. Moreover, the court had wrongly concluded that the applicant had left Ismayilli at 6 p.m., whereas the mobile phone geo-localisation records showed that his mobile had been last registered in the centre of the town at 4.58 p.m. 149.  By a decision of 18 November 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the Sheki Court of Appeal’s judgment of 29 April 2016, finding that the lower court had correctly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure. 150.  After the first-instance trial at the Sheki Court for Serious Crimes, on 17 March 2014 the presiding judge sent letters to the Bar Association requesting that disciplinary measures be taken against the applicant’s lawyers, Mr F. Agayev and Mr K. Bagirov. The court stated that they had breached procedural rules and the rules on lawyers’ conduct on numerous occasions throughout the trial, by making unauthorised objections and offensive and disrespectful remarks about various parties and the court, and refusing to wear lawyers’ robes despite numerous demands by the presiding judge. 151.  After the proceedings at the Sheki Court of Appeal, on 25 September 2014 the presiding judge of that court also sent letters to the Bar Association requesting that it take disciplinary measures against both lawyers, stating that they had behaved similarly throughout the appellate proceedings. 152.  On 10 December 2014 the Bar Association held that Mr K. Bagirov had breached the rules for ethical conduct of advocates. It decided to refer his case to a court with a view to his disbarment and to suspend his activity as an advocate pending a decision by the court. On 10 July 2015 the Nizami District Court delivered a judgment ordering Mr K. Bagirov’s disbarment. The judgment was upheld by the higher courts. Mr K. Bagirov has lodged an application with the Court concerning the matter (Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, no. 28198/15, communicated to the respondent Government on 24 June 2016).