THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 44031/17 and 41494/20)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
7 April 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 44031/17 and 41494/20) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court, on the dates indicated in the appended table, under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Azerbaijani national, Ms Khadija Rovshan gizi Ismayilova (Xədicə Rövşən qızı İsmayılova – “the applicant”), who was born in 1976, lives in Baku and was represented by Ms R. Remezaite, Mr P. Leach, Ms J. Gavron and Ms J. Sawyer, lawyers based in the United Kingdom, and Mr F. Namazli and Mr J. Javadov, lawyers based in Azerbaijan;
the decisions to give notice of the applications to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov;
the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant;
the comments submitted by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights and Article 19 in respect of application no. 44031/17, which were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section;
Having deliberated in private on 17 March 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns a travel ban imposed on the applicant, a well‑known journalist, following her conditional release from prison. 2. On 1 September 2015 the Baku Court of Serious Crimes found the applicant guilty under Articles 179.3.2 (large-scale misappropriation), 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.1 (tax evasion), and 308.2 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code. She was sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. Furthermore, she was deprived of the right to hold any managerial and financial posts in public and local self-government bodies for a period of three years (see Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 30778/15, § 44, 27 February 2020). 3. On 25 November 2015 an appeal by the applicant against the judgment of the Baku Court of Serious Crimes was dismissed by the Baku Court of Appeal. 4. Following a further appeal, on 25 May 2016 the Supreme Court quashed the applicant’s conviction for misappropriation and abuse of power, and part of her conviction for illegal entrepreneurship. The Supreme Court upheld her conviction on the remaining charges of illegal entrepreneurship and tax evasion. It reduced the sentence to three years and six months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation for a period of five years, and a ban on holding managerial and financial posts in public and local self-government bodies for a period of two years (ibid., § 46). Her release was subject to her not changing her permanent place of residence without notifying the Binagadi District Enforcement Department in advance. 5. In June 2016, during her first meeting with the bailiff from the Enforcement Department, the applicant was informed that a travel ban had been imposed on her for the period of her probation. On 19 June 2016 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Binagadi District Court, seeking to lift the travel ban. She noted that she received invitations to conferences from international organisations and NGOs and argued that attending such events was essential to her work as an investigative journalist. Additionally, she sought permission to accompany her mother to Türkiye for heart surgery, providing medical documentation as evidence. 6. On 28 June 2016 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant’s application. It held that allowing her to leave Azerbaijan at will would limit the authorities’ ability to monitor her behaviour during the probation period and might hinder her rehabilitation (which was the aim of the punishment), thereby resulting in failure to execute the court’s decision. Moreover, the Binagadi District Court noted that there were no guarantees that the applicant would return to the country. 7. The applicant appealed, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to address her reasoning or assess her situation, and had referred to arguments unrelated to her application. Furthermore, she contended that her behaviour following the Supreme Court’s decision of 25 May 2016 – including her regular self-reporting to the Binagadi District Enforcement Department, her clean record, and her reputation in professional and social circles – demonstrated that the first-instance court’s arguments regarding the lack of guarantees of her return and the impossibility of monitoring her behaviour were baseless. 8. On 15 August 2016 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the Binagadi District Court’s decision. It found that the restriction in question was necessary in order to oversee the execution of the applicant’s conditional sentence during the probation period. 9. On 8 December 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, reiterating its reasoning. The decision was served on the applicant on 16 December 2016. 10. On 7 July 2019 the applicant lodged a request with the Binagadi District Court seeking the revocation of her suspended sentence, the removal of her conviction, and the lifting of the travel ban imposed as a result of her sentence, arguing that more than half of the probationary period had elapsed. On 9 August 2019 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant’s request, holding that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the applicant had been rehabilitated and that there was no opinion from the bailiff regarding the applicant’s rehabilitation. 11. The applicant appealed, requesting that the decision of the first‑instance court be overturned and her application for the revocation of her suspended sentence, the removal of her conviction and the lifting of the travel ban be granted. She also requested the court to find that there had been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. On 20 September 2019 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Binagadi District Court. It found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the applicant had been rehabilitated. On 6 February 2020 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, reiterating its reasoning. 12. The applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention that her right to leave the country had been violated by the travel ban imposed on her and that she had no effective remedy at the domestic level in that respect. She also complained under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, and under Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, that the imposition of the travel ban had violated her right to respect for her private and family life and to freedom of expression, and that her Convention rights had been restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 2
Outcome: violation