On December 26, a police raid was conducted on a club in central Baku, close to the queer community. During the raid, at least 106 LGBTQI+ individuals were detained, who were reportedly subjected to physical and psychological violence, degrading treatment, some of whom were beaten, insulted, and threatened with rape. Most of the detainees were taken to Police Station No. 22 of the Nasimi District Police Department, where they were allegedly held outdoors in the cold for hours, one of the detainees had his hair shaved, and police officers extorted money.
No statement has been made by the Ministry of Internal Affairs or other official state bodies regarding the incident.
This is not the first time that members of the queer community have been subjected to such treatment in Azerbaijan. In January of this year, reports circulated that LGBTQI+ individuals were detained by the police and blackmailed into money extortion. In accordance with those allegations, police officers threatened to keep the detainees in the unit if they did not pay, inform their families about their sexual orientation, and publish their intimate photos. Previously, in 2017 and 2019, police in Azerbaijan carried out mass arrests of LGBT individuals.
“Tribunat” analyzed the events that occurred during the December 26, 2025 raid in terms of discrimination and mistreatment of LGBTQI+ individuals in Azerbaijan.
In accordance with Law “On Police”, the police must base their activities on the principles of respect for human and civil rights and freedoms, legality and humanity (Article 4). Article 5 of the Law prohibits the police from treating any person in a manner degrading human dignity. Article 13 defines the duty of police officers to ensure that the rights and legitimate interests of arrested or detained persons are not violated. Allegations of ill-treatment of detainees and extortion of money from them indicate a violation of this duty as well.
Knowingly unlawful detention is considered a criminal offense and is punishable by restriction of liberty for up to two years, or imprisonment for up to two years, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for up to three years (Criminal Code, Article 292.1).
During the police raid, LGBTQI+ individuals were detained at the police station for approximately two hours.
The legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan recognizes only two legal types of detention: administrative detention and detention in criminal proceedings. In both cases, there are clearly defined grounds, procedural rules and time limits for the application of procedure.
The detainees said they were told they were being held for using drugs at the club. However, it was later admitted that there was no evidence to support this claim, and all 106 people were eventually fined for smoking in a closed space. The individuals said they were told they would not be released unless they paid the fine.
According to Article 61 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, an individual against whom proceedings are being conducted on an administrative offense has the right to appeal the decision and use the legal assistance of a defense lawyer (61.1, 61.1.5, 61.1.6). In accordance with Article 130, it is possible to appeal an administrative penalty decision to a higher authority or court within 10 days. By the detainees, these rights were not explained to them and they were not given the opportunity to file a complaint regarding administrative fines, and they were required to pay the fines on the spot.
Illegal consumption of narcotic drugs is considered an administrative offense and is punishable by a fine of three hundred to four hundred manats or administrative arrest for a period of up to two months (Code of Administrative Offenses, Article 206).
In accordance with Azerbaijani legislation, the police can detain a person administratively only in limited and specific cases. The Code of Administrative Offenses limits these cases mainly to petty hooliganism, deliberate disobedience to a lawful request of a police officer, unauthorized mass events, vagrancy, violation of migration regulations, as well as violation of regime requirements in emergency, martial law or special operational zones against religious extremism. Administrative detention in cases outside this list is not provided for by law (Articles 88.1, 88.1.1-88.1.7 of CAO, Presidential Decree on the Implementation of the Law “On Approval of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Republic of Azerbaijan”, paragraphs 4.4, 4.9, 4.11-1).
In accordance with Article 89.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, an individual who has committed an administrative offense may not be detained for more than three hours, except for exceptions provided for by law. Even though individuals detained on the grounds of drug use may be detained administratively for up to 48 hours (Article 89.4), this may only be applied in cases where the investigation of the case is delayed or otherwise difficult, as well as when it is necessary to send the person for a medical examination to determine whether he or she needs compulsory treatment for drug addiction.
In the present case, none of these grounds were applicable. The detainees were neither sent for a medical examination nor were any investigations conducted regarding drug use.
The Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Articles 25 and 46) and European Human Rights Convention (Articles 14 and 3) prohibits discrimination and ill-treatment.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) noted in Bouyid v. Belgium that any force applied to an individual while he is under the control of law enforcement authorities, unless it is genuinely necessary as a result of his conduct, constitutes treatment degrading human dignity and constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (§100).
Article 3 of the Convention does not completely prohibit the use of force by police officers during arrest. However, such force must be necessary and proportionate. In this regard, the existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the individual will resist arrest, flee, injure others, damage property or destroy evidence is crucial (Mafalani v. Croatia, § 120). None of these circumstances were present in the actions of the detained LGBTQI+ individuals. This shows that the use of force did not meet the criteria of necessity and proportionality.
Conduct is considered “degrading” if it causes the victims feelings of fear, suffering and humiliation to such an extent that they are capable of humiliating and humiliating them, or even breaking their physical or moral resistance (Gäfgen v. Germany, § 89).
In Yankov v. Bulgaria, the Court found that the shaving of the applicant's hair in the context of his punishment by being kept in solitary confinement constituted degrading treatment and a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR (§121).
Article 3 of the Convention also imposes positive obligations on States not only to refrain from ill-treatment but also to take prompt measures to protect individuals from the risk of such treatment and to conduct an effective official investigation into possible allegations of torture or ill-treatment (Guide on Article 3 of the ECHR, §§3 and 4). According to the Court’s case-law, where an individuals makes a “probable allegation” that he or she has been subjected to torture or ill-treatment, the Government must conduct an effective investigation into the allegation (Najafli v. Azerbaijan, §45). To be effective, the investigation must be independent, impartial and open to public scrutiny. Simultaneously, the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (Mammadov (Jalaloglu) v. Azerbaijan, §73).
There is no public information yet on whether any investigation has been launched into the raid that took place on December 26. There is also no publicly available information on whether the victims have appealed to official bodies and requested an investigation.
Guide on Article 14 of the ECHR states that different treatment constitutes discrimination if it has no objective and reasonable justification, that is, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (§72).
The Court also stipulates that sexual orientation is protected by Article 14 of the Convention. Therefore, where the difference in treatment concerns such an intimate and sensitive area of an individual’s private life, the justifications put forward by the Government must be particularly serious and convincing. In such cases, the margin of appreciation granted to the Government is narrow and the principle of proportionality requires not only that the measure be consistent with the general aim pursued but also that it be necessary in the specific circumstances. In the Court’s view, if the reasons put forward for the difference in treatment are based essentially solely on the sexual orientation of the person concerned, this constitutes discrimination within the meaning of the Convention (X v. Turkey, § 50).
The ECtHR was approached with allegations of violations of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention regarding police raids against the LGBT community in 2017. In A and Others v. Azerbaijan, the Government of Azerbaijan submitted a unilateral declaration acknowledging the violation of the applicants’ rights protected by the Convention and stating its readiness to pay them compensation (§8).
The Court stated that it would have been preferable for the Government's statement to be more specific and precise in terms of the admission of violations of the Convention, but the Court nevertheless found that the Government's statement contained an admission of violations under the relevant Articles of the Convention raised by the applicants in their complaints (§28).
After the Azerbaijani parliamentary delegation's mandate was not approved by PACE in January 2024, the implementation of ECtHR judgments has been completely suspended, and even individual measures are not being implemented. For this reason, individual compensation has not been paid in A and Others v. Azerbaijan at present.
When the above facts, the victims' statements, the requirements of the legislation and the established case law of the ECtHR are assessed together, it becomes clear that the measures applied during the raid of December 26, 2025 had no legal basis. The fact that mass detentions were carried out in a location close to the LGBTQI+ community, the subsequent failure to prove the initial allegations (drug use) and the change of legal grounds indicate that the raid was selective in terms of its goals and motives.
The fact that detainees are subjected to physical and psychological violence, degrading and humiliating treatment, demonstrates that the treatment of persons under state control does not meet the minimum standards set out in Article 3 of the Convention.
Simultaneously, the lack of an effective, independent and impartial investigation into what happened so far demonstrates the Government’s failure to comply with its positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention. When this situation is assessed against the background of similar raids against the LGBT community in previous years, we see that there has been no change in law enforcement practice and a recurring pattern of behavior.
“Tribunat” concludes that the police raid on December 26, 2025, was accompanied by the mass detention and arrest of at least 106 individuals, their inhuman and degrading treatment, violations of their freedoms, and discrimination. As a result of the raid, Articles 3, 5 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights were violated.
