The head of the “Center for Torture Prevention Research”, human rights defender Fikrat Jafarli was sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment by the Binagadi District Court on July 29, 2025. He was sentenced based on a complaint lodged by attorney Elvin Aliyev, a member of the Disciplinary Commission of the Bar Association, under Article 147.1 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter, CC).
Per the attorney's claim, untruthful information was spread on the Facebook page of the Center headed by F. Jafarli, citing his former client.
In the aforementioned post, a convict, Elvin Allahverdiyev appealed to President Ilham Aliyev, accusing attorney E. Aliyev of deceiving him. Allahverdiyev said that although the attorney took 10,500 (ten thousand five hundred) AZNs (manats) from his brother and promised a lighter sentence, he was ultimately sentenced to 3 years in prison by the Baku Grave Crimes Court. Elvin Allahverdiyev states that the attorney both indicated a lower amount in the contract and threatened his brother so that they would not complain, and asked the head of state to investigate this issue.
On September 17, 2025, the Baku Court of Appeal rejected F. Jafarli's appeal and upheld the verdict of the court of first instance.
“Tribunat” investigated the legality of the human rights defender’s imprisonment.
Article 147.1 of the CC, which Fikrat Jafarli is accused of, penalizes the crime of defamation. Per to this norm, spreading information that defames the honor and dignity of any person or discredits him, knowingly being false, in public speeches, in a work that is publicly displayed, in the media, or on the Internet information resource in the event of public display, is punishable by a fine, community service, correctional labor, or imprisonment for a term of up to six months.
Prior to the imprisonment, the human rights defender told local media that the allegedly defamatory information had been taken from journalist Arzu Abdulla's Facebook page and re-shared.
Article 50 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights state that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to receive and disclose information and ideas.
It is not an absolute right and may be limited for a number of legitimate purposes, including the protection of the reputation or rights of others.
In the case analyzed, Article 10 of the Convention, which provides for the right to freedom of expression, conflicts with Article 8, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. The criteria considered upon balancing the right to freedom of expression with the right to respect for private life are as follows:
a) whether the discussion serves the public interest;
b) the status of the person who committed the defamation;
c) the extent to which the person who was defamed is known;
d) the subject matter under discussion;
e) the person’s previous conduct, the method of obtaining the information and its accuracy;
f) the content, form and consequences of the sharing, and the proportionality of the sanction applied.
The post on the social media page of the “Center for Torture Prevention Research” is about an attorney receiving money from his client with untruthful promises, simultaneously threatening his client, and violating the ethics of the legal profession. According to Article 3.5 of the “Rules of Conduct for Attorneys”, an attorney should not make promises regarding the outcome of the legal assistance provided.
The periodic publication of reports about similar incidents in Azerbaijan displays that exposure serves the public interest.
The person alleged to have committed defamation - Fikrat Jafarli, is the head of the NGO. The Center he heads performs the function of a “public watchdog” and, as emphasized in the ECtHR precedents, the organization’s activities are of equal importance to the press. The Center publicizes human rights violations and provides legal and psychological assistance to individuals. As the head of the Center, this publication is within the boundaries of his activities as “public watchdog”.
In addition to being an attorney, Elvin Aliyev is also a member of the Disciplinary Commission of the Bar Association. His vital position in the Bar Association meets the criteria of “well-known individual”.
The content and form of the post are polemical and represent a public appeal to the head of state from Aliyev's former client, who is currently imprisoned.
F. Jafarli indicates that the information was taken from journalist Arzu Abdulla's page, and a brief investigation on two social networks shows that the media representative shared the allegedly defamatory information the day before.
The Binagadi District Court ruled out that the independent re-distribution of untrue or suspicious information by an individual is a new act of dissemination and that re-sharing does not exempt the individual from liability.
It is infeasible to make any claims about the accuracy of the information. Even though the publication of the information makes law enforcement agencies responsible for investigation, no official statement has been made so far on whether an investigation has been conducted and its results. The statement published on the center's Facebook page on July 4, 2025 stated that the information was initially reported to them by Elvin Allahverdiyev's wife, Afsus Allahverdiyeva. An appeal was made to state agencies in this regard. However, no official investigation has been initiated in this regard.
The fact that Fikrat Jafarli was punished with the most severe sanction of the article he was accused of raises serious questions about its proportionality. Although the sanctions of Article 147 include a penalty, community service, and correctional labor, the application of the most severe penalty - deprivation of liberty - cannot be considered adequate in relation to a human rights defender.
The above part was about the compliance with criteria upon balancing of two rights.
On the other hand, the information was not shared on the human rights defender's own profile, but on the page of the “Center for Torture Prevention Research”. There is no evidence to publish by his side. In this case, the Binagadi District Court, in accordance with the requirements of domestic legislation, should have refused to take the case into consideration.
Thus, according to the Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court “On the Judicial Practice of Considering Cases on Complaints in the Order of Private Prosecution”, if the individual who disseminated insulting and defamatory information on Internet information resources does not identify ownself, such information is considered to be anonymously disseminated information. The court evaluates these complaints as complaints in breach with the requirements of Articles 293.3.1-293.3.7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As for the complaint filed in the order of private prosecution regarding their dissemination, the court adopts a decision to refuse to accept the complaint for its consideration at the preparatory session (§12).
According to the aforementioned Articles 293.3. and 293.3.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a written complaint or a protocol on the acceptance of an oral complaint on a clear crime that does not pose a major public danger must indicate who committed the act complained of and how it was confirmed that it was committed by that individual.
The Guide to Article 10 of the ECHR states that a prison sentence for a press-related offence may only be considered compatible with freedom of expression in exceptional circumstances – for instance, where other fundamental rights are seriously violated, in particular in cases of hate speech or incitement to violence. Simultaneously, the principle of proportionality in the application of criminal prosecution in defamation cases applies to all persons, not just journalists.
In Animal Defenders International v. The United Kingdom, the ECtHR stated that an NGO, when drawing attention to matters of public interest, fulfils a role of “public watchdog” of equal importance to the press (§103).
The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, in its Recommendation No. 1577 “Towards the decriminalisation of defamation” (4 October 2007), calls on member states to abolish the penalty of imprisonment for defamation.
“Tribunat” concludes that, the deprivation of liberty of Fikrat Jafarli for the crime of defamation goes beyond the limits of imposing a “necessary” interference in accordance with the ECtHR's precedents, is disproportionate and violates Article 10 of the Convention.
