THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GULIYEV AND SAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 5878/17 and 82482/17)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
17 February 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Guliyev and Safarov 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. 5878/17 and 82482/17) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Azerbaijani nationals, Nijat Amir oglu Guliyev (“the first applicant”) and Rufat Eldar oglu Safarov (“the second applicant”), whose details are set out in the appended table;
the decisions to give notice of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (raised by both applicants), Article 6 § 3 (b) (raised by the second applicant), Article 6 § 3 (c) (raised by the first applicant), Article 6 § 3 (d) (raised by both applicants), Article 8 (raised by the first applicant), Article 10 (raised by the second applicant), Article 13 (raised by the first applicant) and Article 18 (raised by both applicants) to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicants. The applicants, who had been prosecuted in separate, unrelated proceedings, complained, inter alia, that those proceedings had been in breach of various fair-trial guarantees in particular because they had been convicted on the basis of fabricated or otherwise unreliable evidence. The applicants also alleged that the proceedings had been brought for political reasons. CHARGES AGAINST THE APPLICANTS
2. The first applicant was an entrepreneur. In the 1990s he served as the Minister of Foreign Commercial Relations. At the time of the events, the first applicant was portrayed in the mass media as having connections with or being an informal member of an oppositional political group, Milli Shura. 3. The second applicant was an investigator at the Zardab District prosecutor’s office. On 20 December 2015 he made a statement on social media and several mass media outlets, criticising the authorities, including the prosecuting authorities, and announcing his resignation from his position and his joining the political opposition. On the following day, he was dismissed from his position. The dismissal order emphasised that the second applicant had breached the relevant code of ethics, as he had disseminated defamatory information in the mass media. On the same day, 21 December 2015, the Prosecutor General’s Office made a public statement saying that the second applicant had been dismissed for having breached the code of ethics and that the activities of the Zardab District prosecutor’s office were being inspected. 4. On 7 August 2013 and 15 January 2016 respectively the applicants were arrested. On various dates the domestic courts ordered the applicants’ pre-trial detention. Subsequently, on the second applicant’s request, his detention was substituted by house arrest. 5. The first applicant was charged with a criminal offence under Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code (unlawful possession of weapons) and the second applicant was charged under Article 311.3.2 (bribery committed repeatedly by a public official). 6. According to official records, the first applicant was apprehended on the basis of “operational information”, according to which he unlawfully possessed weapons. The applicant’s car was searched at the side of a road by officers of the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”), whereupon a gun and bullets were found and seized. Subsequently, on the same day, other weapons were also found in a shed situated on the applicant’s property. 7. The first applicant submitted to the Court a different account of the events surrounding his arrest and detention. The applicant submitted in particular that he had been arrested in a grocery shop where he had come by car. He was handcuffed and driven in the same car approximately 500 metres. Then, by the side of the road, the MNS officers pretended to find weapons in the car. At the same time, a group of MNS officers went to his house and claimed to have found other weapons. Both the car and the house were under the complete control of the MNS officers (in addition, a large group of officers searched the house and circulated throughout the property), and the weapons were planted there by them. The search-and-seizure measures were video recorded, however, the footage was subsequently not found in the case file. 8. According to the first applicant, the real reason for the institution of the proceedings against him was his perceived membership of Milli Shura. 9. The search-and-seizure measures in the first applicant’s car and home were carried out without a court order and without the participation of a defence lawyer (in addition, the applicant was not present during the search‑and-seizure carried out in his property). There was no defence lawyer either when the weapons were submitted for the initial examination by a specialist (mütəxəssis). According to official records, later the investigating authorities provided to the first applicant a list of lawyers from two law offices. However, he refused to choose any of those lawyers. Nevertheless, on the same day, 7 August 2013, the investigating authorities decided to appoint a State-funded lawyer to represent him. The first applicant refused also the services of that lawyer. On 8 August 2013 two lawyers of the first applicant’s own choosing joined the proceedings. 10. According to official records, in 2014 the second applicant received bribes for adopting decisions not to open criminal cases in reply to complaints submitted by five individuals against five State or municipal employees. 11. When questioned, the applicants denied committing any offences. 12. In addition to the above-mentioned measures, the investigating authorities carried out other investigative measures (for details see the appended table). In particular, they questioned as witnesses the individuals who had allegedly paid bribes to the second applicant, the officers who had arrested the first applicant and the attesting witnesses who had participated in the search-and-seizure measures. They also ordered ballistic and fingerprint expert examinations of the weapons. 13. The second applicant also submitted to the Court a different account of the events surrounding his arrest and detention. He alleged in particular that the proceedings against him had been fabricated and instituted because of his criticism of the authorities and his decision to resign. The witnesses, whose incriminating statements had been the only evidence used against him, had been pressured to give those statements. THE APPLICANTS’ TRIALS
14. During their trials, the applicants denied committing the offences with which they had been charged. They presented a different account of the events surrounding their arrests and detentions (see paragraphs 7 and 13 above). 15. The applicants tried to contest the official account of the events and the reliability of the main evidence used against them by submitting several requests and raising arguments. Those requests and arguments were not granted or addressed (for details see the appended table). 16. The trial courts found the applicants guilty as charged. They were sentenced to imprisonment sentences. In finding the applicants guilty, the trial courts based their decisions on (i) in the case of the first applicant, the statements given by the MNS officers and attesting witnesses and on the forensic expert examinations of the weapons; and (ii) in the case of the second applicant, the witness statements (see paragraph 12 above and the details set out in the appended table). 17. The applicants appealed against their respective judgments and requested that they be acquitted. However, the higher courts upheld their convictions (for details see the appended table).

Outcome for Article 6: violation