On June 23 of this year, the Baku Court of Appeal examined a joint appeal by imprisoned Meydan TV journalist Aytaj Ahmadova (Tapdig) and animal rights activist Kamran Mammadli, whom she wanted to engage with.
By the decision of the Khatai District Court dated June 12, 2025, the complaint lodged under the procedure of judicial supervision regarding the actions of the Baku City Main Police Department preventing A. Tapdig and K. Mammadli from engaging was not accepted for review and was returned.
Both of abovementioned have filed an appeal via this decision.
According to accounts of her family, A. Tapdig was forcibly removed from the courtroom during a speech at the appeals court. Kamran Mammadli, another applicant in the case, was also removed, and the court ultimately rejected their appeal.
“Tribunat” has analyzed this topic.
Article 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Azerbaijan (CCP) regulates the maintenance of order in a court session. This article specifies the duties of persons present at a court session. Accordingly, individuals grossly violating the order in a court session may be removed from the courtroom for the entire duration of the trial or part of it, based on a court decision, following a prior warning.
The decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Baku Court of Appeal dated June 23, 2025, states that Mammadli and Ahmadova “repeatedly violated the rules of the court session, ignored the warnings issued by the presiding judge, and were removed from the court session since it was impossible to continue the trial.” Nonetheless, the decision does not provide any information about the nature of the journalist and animal rights activist’s behavior during the trial in violation of the rules.
In accordance with commentary of the CCP, a gross violation of the rules of court session is expressed in obstruction of the normal course of the court hearing, disobeying the instructions of the presiding judge and court supervisors, showing contempt of court not resulting in criminal liability, and other similar unlawful acts.
The aforementioned decision of the Court of Appeal does not mention anything about the unlawful actions of the individuals willing to engage that violated the rules during the court session.
Quite the opposite, according to her family, Aytaj Tapdig was forcibly removed from the courtroom, alongside Kamran Mammadli.
The journalist's relatives indicate that during the previous trial, Aytaj was placed in a glass booth in the courtroom, preventing her from coming face to face with Kamran and talking.
This is incidentally confirmed in the decision of the Baku Court of Appeal dated June 23, 2025. The Court of Appeal notes that “even though Kamran Mammadli and Aytaj Ahmadova have common interests in marriage due to the fact that they are in different procedural statuses in the criminal case against the latter (one is the accused, the other is a witness), their joint appeal cannot be considered justified in terms of an objective examination of the criminal case against Aytaj Ahmadova and other principles of criminal procedural legislation.”
However, this judicial approach is dubious and debatable.
First of all, the fact that the journalist is the defendant and the animal rights activist is the witness in the “Meydan TV” case cannot prevent them from filing a joint complaint for the restoration of their constitutional right (the right to marry).
Secondly, “Meydan TV” case was initiated in early December of last year, and it is not convincing that Kamran Mammadli, an individual who is considered to have knowledge of any significant circumstances in this case, was not taken as a witness. In such a situation, the journalist does not have the opportunity to interfere in the content of the witness statement, even theoretically.
Last but not the least, both individuals have applied to the court as joint applicants whose rights to marry have been violated, and their participation in the review of the complaint serves to ensure an objective investigation of the complaint.
CCP does not prohibit the joint presence in the courtroom of participants in the proceedings who possess the same interest but different statuses in a criminal case. Taking into account that this complaint concerned the actions of the body conducting the criminal proceedings that were not provided for by law in relation to their right to marry, their removal from the courtroom violated the requirement that this measure be applied in exceptional cases and in addition damaged objective and thorough investigation of the complaint.
On the other hand, individuals in gross violation of the rules of the court session may be removed from the courtroom following prior warning. The decision of the Baku Court of Appeal does not contain any information about the warning given by the presiding judge to Aytaj Tapdig and Kamran Mammadli and the explanation of its consequences.
In general, the Article 310 of CCP does not enshrine forcible removal of participants of litigation from the courtroom.
“Tribunat” concludes that the joint participation of journalist Aytaj Tapdig and animal rights activist Kamran Mammadli in the trial, where they are acting in the same interest, and the restriction of their communication opportunities in the courtroom are not provided for by either domestic or international law. The removal of the journalist from the courtroom by force is a violation of the law and raises the issue of ill-treatment. The removal of both individuals from the courtroom undermines the objective and thorough examination of their appeal and is in violation of the principle of adversariality. This constitutes a breach of the right to a fair trial protected by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
